  AMERICAN
    INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS
    
    
      
      
    
     A consortium of private-equity firms offered $37.6
    billion for Equity Office Properties, topping Blackstone's
    bid for America's largest real-estate investment trust. The target of the
    biggest-ever leveraged buy-out, Equity Office owns 20m square feet (1.9m
    square metres) of office space in Manhattan alone, and is attractive because
    rents in many of America's business districts are predicted to rise. 
    - 23 January 2007  ECONOMIST
     
    
    HISTORICAL:
    
   
    
     
    Foreigners Seem To Be Souring On
    U.S. Assets 
    At a time when U.S. trade deficits are growing to historic
    proportions, foreign interest in U.S. stocks and bonds may be fading. If
    this continues, there could be consequences for U.S. interest rates and the
    dollar. 
    Foreign purchases of securities in
    the U.S. in May came to $56.4 billion. While that was large enough to
    finance the current-account deficit, it was down 26% from April and
    represented the lowest monthly total in seven months. It also marked the
    fourth consecutive monthly decline of such purchases by foreigners. 
    The report on foreign purchases
    included bad news for U.S. stocks, revealing that May was the third
    consecutive month foreigners have been net sellers. That hadn't happened in
    nearly a decade. 
    Potentially more troubling was the
    slowdown in Asian purchases of U.S. debt -- especially in Japan, which holds
    16% of all U.S. Treasurys. That country's nascent economic recovery has
    eased the government's concerns about maintaining a weak currency to boost
    exports, in turn reducing the Bank of Japan's need to intervene and buy
    dollars. 
    The result: Japan bought $14.6
    billion in U.S. Treasurys in May and $5.5 billion in April, according to the
    U.S. Treasury Department. That is a significant drop from a monthly average
    of $25 billion for the seven-month period ending in March. If the Japanese
    economy continues to rebound, Tokyo's Treasury purchases are unlikely to
    return to those lofty levels. That has some economists concerned. 
    "Japan is to the U.S. financial
    markets what Saudi Arabia is to the world oil markets -- the primary
    provider of capital," Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist for Banc
    of America Capital Management, wrote in a recent report.
    "Self-sustained growth in Japan could ultimately obviate the need for
    the Bank of Japan to purchase U.S. securities, leaving a buying void in the
    U.S. Treasury market, helping to drive yields higher." Bond prices and
    yields move in opposite directions. 
    Indeed, in the two months that
    Japanese buying of Treasurys slipped, the yield on the 10-year note jumped
    to 4.65% at the end of May from 3.88% on April 1, though it has since fallen
    to 4.43%. 
    The Bank of Japan and other Asian
    central banks have become an increasingly important pillar of support for
    the Treasury market, because their currency interventions and large trade
    surpluses with the U.S. have resulted in excess dollars to invest. Since
    these central banks are concerned less about a high rate of return than a
    stable and easily tradable investment, U.S. Treasury debt has been a major
    beneficiary. 
    Yet if recent trends toward lower
    U.S. investment persist, the U.S. eventually could have a tougher time
    funding its current-account deficit, which reached a record $144.9 billion
    in the first quarter. Any trouble financing that deficit would lead to
    higher borrowing costs through rising U.S. interest rates. It also could
    cause the dollar, which hit a three-week high against the euro on Friday, to
    resume its decline. 
    Indeed, problems with the current
    account could end up making the dollar "possibly quite a bit
    weaker," said John Llwellyn, chief global economist for Lehman
    Brothers. 
    For now, however, funding the
    current account shouldn't be a concern, said Rebecca McCaughrin, an
    economist for Morgan Stanley. She noted that in 2004 the U.S. needs to
    attract a monthly average of $50 billion to fund that deficit. After
    averaging $82 billion for the first four months of the year, the U.S. need
    attract only about $35 billion a month for the rest of the year.
    "Europeans alone could do it," Ms. McCaughrin said. 
    Still, foreigners now control 40% of
    U.S. Treasury debt, and their purchases are unlikely to return to peak
    levels seen at the start of the year, she said. "So U.S. interest rates
    could still go higher, even if the current account is funded," Ms.
    McCaughrin said. 
    Other foreign investors' appetites
    for U.S. securities also have been waning, in part because rising oil prices
    have forced some countries to spend more of their dollar reserves on energy.
    That leaves fewer dollars to invest in the U.S. markets. 
    Mr. Quinlan said that is the case
    for China, Asia's second-biggest buyer of U.S. securities, which bought $13
    billion in U.S. assets through May, compared with $33.1 billion a year
    earlier. 
    The pullback in Beijing's interest
    in U.S. Treasurys was larger still: China was a net purchaser of $1.7
    billion of U.S. Treasurys in the first five months of the year -- down 91%
    from the $18.4 billion in net purchases a year earlier. 
    Even the United Kingdom, long a
    reliable buyer of U.S. securities, turned negative in May, with net sales of
    $4 billion. That was its first monthly net sale since October 1998 during
    the near collapse of giant U.S. hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management and
    the aftermath of the Russia financial crisis. Clear hints from the U.S.
    Federal Reserve that it would be raising interest rates likely caused U.K.
    investors to trim positions in U.S. Treasurys, Mr. Quinlan said.
    Anticipation of the Fed's first rate increase in four years also may have
    contributed to the three consecutive months that foreigners sold U.S.
    stocks. 
    By many accounts, however, Japan
    remains the critical buyer. Mr. Quinlan argued that Japan has become
    "America's de facto banker, helping to keep U.S. interest rates low
    over the past year." Currency traders say the Bank of Japan hasn't
    intervened in the currency market since March, and the pace of Japanese
    Treasury buying of the recent past looks unsustainable: Japan bought $175
    billion in U.S. Treasury debt from September to March, a figure that exceeds
    Japanese purchases of Treasurys in the previous seven years combined. 
    Ms. McCaughrin said there has been
    anecdotal evidence that private Japanese investors, including banks and
    pension funds, also have been scaling back purchases of U.S. assets and have
    been investing more locally, to take advantage of a rebounding Japanese
    economy, or in other overseas markets, to capitalize on the global economic
    expansion. - by Craig Karmin     WALL
    ST JOURNAL    26 July 2004 
      
    
     
    
      
        
       
      
        | In
          most of the USA's 50 largest metro areas, annual growth in home prices
          in the April-June quarter lagged behind 2001 growth rates, an
          indication that not every city is sharing in the hot national real
          estate market. The clusters of markets labeled "fast
          appreciating" have price growth rates for the April-June quarter
          in excess of the 7.4% U.S. average. | 
       
      
        | Expensive
          metros (Median price: $180,000-plus) | 
       
      
         | 
        Median
          price | 
          | 
       
      
        | Fast-appreciating | 
        April-June,
          2002 | 
        Annual
          price change | 
       
      
        | 2000 | 
        2000 | 
        2001 | 
        2002* | 
       
      
        | New
          York City | 
        $303,800 | 
        13.3% | 
        12.2% | 
        22.3% | 
       
      
        | San
          Diego | 
        $361,900 | 
        16.3% | 
        10.8% | 
        21.3% | 
       
      
        | Washington/Baltimore | 
        $249,700 | 
        3.5% | 
        17.1% | 
        20.8% | 
       
      
        | Providence | 
        $185,800 | 
        7.0% | 
        14.7% | 
        20.7% | 
       
      
        | Los
          Angeles/Orange County | 
        $276,600 | 
        8.5% | 
        11.8% | 
        18.0% | 
       
      
        | Miami/Fort
          Lauderdale | 
        $186,800 | 
        7.4% | 
        12.5% | 
        17.0% | 
       
      
        | Sacramento | 
        $202,100 | 
        10.4% | 
        20.0% | 
        15.8% | 
       
      
        | Chicago | 
        $223,700 | 
        0.4% | 
        15.5% | 
        13.0% | 
       
      
        | San
          Francisco | 
        $540,500 | 
        33.4% | 
        4.7% | 
        11.8% | 
       
      
        | Boston | 
        $397,700 | 
        8.3% | 
        13.5% | 
        11.7% | 
       
      
        | Moderately
          appreciating | 
       
      
        | Minneapolis/St.
          Paul | 
        $183,000 | 
        9.2% | 
        10.6% | 
        7.4% | 
       
      
        | Seattle | 
        $260,500 | 
        n/a | 
        6.6% | 
        6.7% | 
       
      
        | Portland,
          Ore. | 
        $181,200 | 
        3.1% | 
        1.3% | 
        5.5% | 
       
      
        | Denver/Boulder | 
        $227,700 | 
        14.9% | 
        10.9% | 
        4.0% | 
       
      
        | Midrange
          metros (Median price: $135,001-$180,000) | 
       
      
         | 
        Median
          price | 
        Annual
          price change | 
       
      
        | Fast-appreciating | 
        April-June,
          2002 | 
        2000 | 
        2001 | 
        2002* | 
       
      
        | Milwaukee | 
        $174,500 | 
        4.0% | 
        6.2% | 
        11.9% | 
       
      
        | Orlando | 
        $139,700 | 
        5.6% | 
        11.6% | 
        11.8% | 
       
      
        | Philadelphia | 
        $147,400 | 
        0.3% | 
        7.7% | 
        8.0% | 
       
      
        | Phoenix | 
        $152,400 | 
        6.3% | 
        3.7% | 
        7.9% | 
       
      
        | Moderately
          appreciating/declining | 
       
      
        | Richmond,
          Va. | 
        $143,900 | 
        1.0% | 
        2.7% | 
        6.6% | 
       
      
        | Hartford,
          Conn. | 
        $174,700 | 
        6.1% | 
        4.6% | 
        6.1% | 
       
      
        | Las
          Vegas | 
        $155,800 | 
        5.0% | 
        8.5% | 
        5.8% | 
       
      
        | Atlanta | 
        $146,900 | 
        6.1% | 
        5.8% | 
        5.2% | 
       
      
        | Austin,
          Texas | 
        $160,900 | 
        11.0% | 
        6.4% | 
        3.8% | 
       
      
        | Columbus,
          Ohio | 
        $142,200 | 
        3.3% | 
        5.1% | 
        3.5% | 
       
      
        | Raleigh/Durham,
          N.C. | 
        $172,900 | 
        -4.0% | 
        6.2% | 
        3.5% | 
       
      
        | Charlotte | 
        $150,500 | 
        1.5% | 
        3.6% | 
        3.2% | 
       
      
        | Salt
          Lake City | 
        $150,400 | 
        2.6% | 
        4.3% | 
        2.7% | 
       
      
        | Cincinnati | 
        $136,100 | 
        5.7% | 
        2.8% | 
        2.6% | 
       
      
        | Dallas/Fort
          Worth | 
        $136,300 | 
        5.9% | 
        7.0% | 
        2.0% | 
       
      
        | Nashville | 
        $136,900 | 
        11.6% | 
        2.8% | 
        -0.8% | 
       
      
        | Low-cost
          metros (Median price: Under $135,000) | 
       
      
         | 
        Median
          price | 
       
      
        | Fast-appreciating | 
        April-June,
          2002 | 
        Annual
          price change | 
       
      
        | 2000 | 
        2000 | 
        2001 | 
        2002* | 
       
      
        | Oklahoma
          City | 
        $94,400 | 
        1.4% | 
        11.2% | 
        8.5% | 
       
      
        | Moderately
          appreciating/declining | 
       
      
        | New
          Orleans | 
        $125,900 | 
        2.7% | 
        4.8% | 
        7.2% | 
       
      
        | San
          Antonio | 
        $111,300 | 
        5.4% | 
        8.1% | 
        6.2% | 
       
      
        | Tampa/St.
          Petersburg | 
        $128,000 | 
        17.9% | 
        11.6% | 
        5.6% | 
       
      
        | Norfolk,
          Va. | 
        $122,000 | 
        -1.1% | 
        3.3% | 
        5.3% | 
       
      
        | Jacksonville | 
        $117,500 | 
        5.0% | 
        9.9% | 
        5.0% | 
       
      
        | Houston | 
        $131,600 | 
        10.3% | 
        5.4% | 
        4.6% | 
       
      
        | Memphis | 
        $128,400 | 
        3.9% | 
        8.2% | 
        3.7% | 
       
      
        | St.
          Louis | 
        $135,000 | 
        5.3% | 
        16.2% | 
        3.0% | 
       
      
        | Grand
          Rapids, Mich. | 
        $125,800 | 
        7.7% | 
        5.4% | 
        2.8% | 
       
      
        | Pittsburgh | 
        $102,100 | 
        4.1% | 
        4.5% | 
        2.4% | 
       
      
        | Greensboro/Winston-Salem,
          N.C. | 
        $134,400 | 
        3.6% | 
        2.6% | 
        -0.3% | 
       
      
        | Indianapolis | 
        $116,900 | 
        1.3% | 
        4.1% | 
        -0.7% | 
       
      
        | Rochester,
          N.Y. | 
        $92,000 | 
        -0.1% | 
        5.3% | 
        -1.0% | 
       
      
        | Buffalo | 
        $85,600 | 
        -2.0% | 
        5.4% | 
        -2.1% | 
       
      
        | *
          — April-June; Note: Among the largest metros, no comparable data is
          available for Detroit, Cleveland, Kansas City, Mo., West Palm Beach,
          Fla., and Louisville
          
           Sources:
          National Association of Realtors and local boards of real estate   
          USA
          Today  30 August 2002 
         | 
       
     
     
    
  
  |