1. Asset Valuations

Asset valuation pressures rose to a notable level

Since the May 2023 report, valuations in equity markets increased modestly from an already high level even as yields on Treasury securities increased substantially. Corporate credit spreads edged down and were somewhat below their historical averages. Liquidity in Treasury markets remained challenged. While trading conditions largely recovered from the notable strains seen following Silicon Valley Bank's failure, they could again deteriorate in the face of further negative shocks.

Property prices remain elevated relative to fundamentals. In the market for residential real estate, house prices started increasing again in recent months and prices relative to rents remained near all-time highs. In the market for CRE, rental income relative to property prices remained low from a historical perspective, despite recent declines in property values. Fundamentals in the market for office properties were especially weak, as vacancy rates have risen and rent growth slowed. Farmland prices were historically elevated relative to rents, reflecting higher crop prices and limited inventories of land.

Table 1.1 shows the sizes of the asset markets discussed in this section. The largest asset markets are those for residential real estate, equities, Treasury securities, and CRE.

Table 1.1. Size of selected asset markets
Item Outstanding
(billions of dollars)
Growth,
2022:Q2–2023:Q2
(percent)
Average annual growth,
1997–2023:Q2
(percent)
Residential real estate 56,301 −1.2 6.4
Equities 53,457 15.0 8.2
Treasury securities 24,772 6.5 8.4
Commercial real estate 24,003 2.5 6.4
Investment-grade corporate bonds 7,369 5.3 8.0
Farmland 3,288 8.1 5.7
High-yield and unrated corporate bonds 1,667 −6.0 6.4
Leveraged loans1 1,394 −1.5 13.0
       
Price growth (real)      
Commercial real estate2   −3.9 3.3
Residential real estate3   −1.3 2.7

Note: The data extend through 2023:Q2. Growth rates are measured from Q2 of the year immediately preceding the period through Q2 of the final year of the period. Equities, real estate, and farmland are at nominal market value; bonds and loans are at nominal book value.

1. The amount outstanding shows institutional leveraged loans and generally excludes loan commitments held by banks. For example, lines of credit are generally excluded from this measure. Average annual growth of leveraged loans is from 2001 to 2023:Q2, as this market was fairly small before then. Return to table

2. One-year growth of commercial real estate prices is from June 2022 to June 2023, and average annual growth is from June 1999 to June 2023. Both growth rates are calculated from equal-weighted nominal prices deflated using the consumer price index (CPI). Return to table

3. One-year growth of residential real estate prices is from June 2022 to June 2023, and average annual growth is from June 1998 to June 2023. Nominal prices are deflated using the CPI. Return to table

Source: For leveraged loans, PitchBook Data, Leveraged Commentary & Data; for corporate bonds, Mergent, Inc., Fixed Income Securities Database; for farmland, Department of Agriculture; for residential real estate price growth, CoreLogic, Inc.; for commercial real estate price growth, CoStar Group, Inc., CoStar Commercial Repeat Sale Indices; for all other items, Federal Reserve Board, Statistical Release Z.1, "Financial Accounts of the United States."

Treasury yields increased substantially and now stand at the highest levels in the past 15 years

Yields on Treasury securities moved notably higher since the May report and now stand close to their highest levels over the past decade and a half (figure 1.1). A model-based estimate of the nominal Treasury term premium—a measure of the compensation that investors require to hold longer-term Treasury securities rather than shorter-term ones—increased but remained low relative to its long-run history (figure 1.2). Interest rate volatility implied by options remained elevated by historical norms, reflecting, in part, uncertainty about the economic outlook and the path of monetary policy (figure 1.3).

Figure 1.1. Nominal Treasury yields rose substantially in the third quarter of 2023
Figure 1.1. Nominal Treasury yields rose substantially in the
third quarter of 2023

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The 2-year and 10-year Treasury rates are the monthly average of the constant-maturity yields based on the most actively traded securities.

Source: Federal Reserve Board, Statistical Release H.15, "Selected Interest Rates."

Figure 1.2. An estimate of the nominal Treasury term premium increased but remained relatively low
Figure 1.2. An estimate of the nominal Treasury term premium
increased but remained relatively low

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: Term premiums are estimated from a 3-factor term structure model using Treasury yields and Blue Chip interest rate forecasts.

Source: Department of the Treasury; Wolters Kluwer, Blue Chip Financial Forecasts; Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Federal Reserve Board staff estimates.

Figure 1.3. Interest rate volatility remained elevated by historical norms
Figure 1.3. Interest rate volatility remained elevated by historical
norms

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data begin in April 2005. Implied volatility on the 10-year swap rate, 1 month ahead, is derived from swaptions.

Source: For data through July 13, 2022, Barclays and S&P Global; for data from July 14, 2022, onward, ICAP, Swaptions and Interest Rate Caps and Floors Data.

Equity market valuation pressures remained notable

Valuations in equity markets increased modestly from an already high level since the May report. The pace of equity price increases exceeded that of expected earnings, and the forward price-to-earnings ratio rose to a level further above its historical median (figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4. The price-to-earnings ratio of S&P 500 firms increased to levels further above its historical median
Figure 1.4. The price-to-earnings ratio of S&P 500 firms
increased to levels further above its historical median

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The figure shows the aggregate forward price-to-earnings ratio of S&P 500 firms, based on expected earnings for 12 months ahead.

Source: Federal Reserve Board staff calculations using Refinitiv, Institutional Brokers' Estimate System estimates.

The difference between the forward earnings-to-price ratio and the real 10-year Treasury yield—a measure of the additional return that investors require for holding stocks relative to risk-free bonds (the equity premium)—declined since the May report to levels well below historical norms (figure 1.5).2 Equity market volatility continued to decline from the elevated levels reached earlier this year and currently stands slightly above its historical median (figure 1.6).

Figure 1.5. An estimate of the equity premium fell further below its historical median
Figure 1.5. An estimate of the equity premium fell further below
its historical median

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data begin in October 1991. The figure shows the difference between the aggregate forward earnings-to-price ratio of S&P 500 firms and the expected real Treasury yields, based on expected earnings for 12 months ahead. Expected real Treasury yields are calculated from the 10-year consumer price index inflation forecast, and the smoothed nominal yield curve is estimated from off-the-run securities.

Source: Federal Reserve Board staff calculations using Refinitiv, Institutional Brokers' Estimate System estimates; Department of the Treasury; Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Survey of Professional Forecasters.

Figure 1.6. Volatility in equity markets stood slightly above its historical median
Figure 1.6. Volatility in equity markets stood slightly above
its historical median

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: Realized volatility is computed from an exponentially weighted moving average of 5-minute daily realized variances with 75 percent of the weight distributed over the past 20 business days.

Source: Refinitiv, DataScope Tick History; Federal Reserve Board staff estimates.

Spreads in corporate debt markets narrowed modestly

Yields on corporate bonds rose since the May report and remain above the median of their historical distributions, as yields on comparable-maturity Treasury securities also increased (figure 1.7). Corporate bond spreads, measured as the difference in yields between corporate bonds and comparable-maturity Treasury securities, narrowed modestly and currently stand a bit below their historical median (figure 1.8). However, the excess bond premium—a risk premium measure that captures the gap between corporate bond spreads and expected credit losses—remained near its historical mean (figure 1.9). The trailing 12-month default rate for all corporate bonds edged up over the past year but stands well below its historical median. For speculative-grade corporate bonds in particular, the trailing 12-month default rate moved up more over the same time period and stands at about its historical median.

Figure 1.7. Corporate bond yields rose above their historical medians
Figure 1.7. Corporate bond yields rose above their historical
medians

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The triple-B series reflects the effective yield of the ICE Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BofAML) triple-B U.S. Corporate Index (C0A4), and the high-yield series reflects the effective yield of the ICE BofAML U.S. High Yield Index (H0A0).

Source: ICE Data Indices, LLC, used with permission.

Figure 1.8. Corporate bond spreads narrowed modestly
Figure 1.8. Corporate bond spreads narrowed modestly

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The triple-B series reflects the option-adjusted spread of the ICE Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BofAML) triple-B U.S. Corporate Index (C0A4), and the high-yield series reflects the option-adjusted spread of the ICE BofAML U.S. High Yield Index (H0A0).

Source: ICE Data Indices, LLC, used with permission.

Figure 1.9. The excess bond premium stayed near its historical mean
Figure 1.9. The excess bond premium stayed near its historical
mean

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The excess bond premium (EBP) is a measure of bond market investors' risk sentiment. It is derived as the residual of a regression that models corporate bond spreads after controlling for expected default losses. By construction, its historical mean is zero. Positive (negative) EBP values indicate that investors' risk appetite is below (above) its historical mean.

Source: Federal Reserve Board staff calculations based on Lehman Brothers Fixed Income Database (Warga); Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., ICE Data Services; Center for Research in Security Prices, CRSP/Compustat Merged Database, Wharton Research Data Services; S&P Global, Compustat.

Valuations in leveraged loan markets were little changed from the previous report. The average spread on leveraged loans above their benchmark rates in the secondary market fell modestly and remained near its average over the past decade (figure 1.10). The trailing 12-month loan default rate increased further since the last report and stands well above its historical median since the Great Recession, but the year-ahead expected default rate declined moderately.

Figure 1.10. Spreads on leveraged loans fell modestly
Figure 1.10. Spreads on leveraged loans fell modestly

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data show secondary-market discounted spreads to maturity. Spreads are the constant spread used to equate discounted loan cash flows to the current market price. B-rated spreads begin in July 1997. The black dashed line represents the data transitioning from monthly to weekly in November 2013.

Source: PitchBook Data, Leveraged Commentary & Data.

Market liquidity stayed near the lower end of its historical range

Market liquidity refers to the ease and cost of buying and selling an asset. Low liquidity can amplify the volatility of asset prices and result in larger price moves in response to shocks. In extreme cases, low liquidity can threaten market functioning, leading to a situation in which participants are unable to trade without incurring a significant cost.

Treasury market liquidity is important because of the key role these securities play in the financial system. Various measures of market liquidity, such as market depth, suggest that while Treasury market liquidity was largely in line with expectations given interest rate volatility, it remained below historical norms (figures 1.11 and 1.12). This low level of market depth could indicate that liquidity providers are being particularly cautious, and liquidity may be less resilient than usual.

Figure 1.11. Treasury market depth remained below historical norms
Figure 1.11. Treasury market depth remained below historical
norms

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: Market depth is defined as the average top 3 bid and ask quote sizes for on-the-run Treasury securities.

Source: Inter Dealer Broker Community.

Figure 1.12. On-the-run market depth improved in recent months but remained below historical norms
Figure 1.12. On-the-run market depth improved in recent months
but remained below historical norms

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data show the time-weighted average market depth at the best quoted prices to buy and sell, for 2-year and 10-year Treasury notes. OTR is on-the-run.

Source: BrokerTec; Federal Reserve Board staff calculations.

In other markets, liquidity conditions were little changed since the previous report and present a more mixed picture. In corporate bond markets, bid-ask spreads remained well below pandemic levels, suggesting ample liquidity, while in equity markets, depth in the S&P 500 futures markets stayed at below-average levels (figure 1.13).

Figure 1.13. A measure of liquidity in equity markets remained below average
Figure 1.13. A measure of liquidity in equity markets remained
below average

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data show the depth at the best quoted prices to buy and sell, defined as the ask size plus the bid size divided by 2, for E-mini S&P 500 futures.

Source: Refinitiv, DataScope Tick History; Federal Reserve Board staff calculations.

Commercial real estate valuations remained elevated, even as prices continued to decline

Aggregate CRE prices measured in inflation-adjusted terms continued declining through August (figure 1.14). Capitalization rates at the time of property purchase, which measure the annual income of commercial properties relative to their prices, have increased modestly from recent historically low levels but have not increased as much as real Treasury yields, suggesting that prices remain high relative to rental income (figure 1.15). CRE valuations are particularly elevated for the office sector, where fundamentals are especially weak for offices in central business districts, with vacancy rates increasing further and rent growth declining since the May report. In the April and July 2023 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey (SLOOS), banks reported weaker demand and tighter standards for all CRE loan categories over the first half of 2023 (figure 1.16).

Figure 1.14. Commercial real estate prices, adjusted for inflation, continued to decline
Figure 1.14. Commercial real estate prices, adjusted for inflation,
continued to decline

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data are deflated using the consumer price index.

Source: Real Capital Analytics; consumer price index, Bureau of Labor Statistics via Haver Analytics.

Figure 1.15. Income of commercial properties relative to prices continued to grow but remained well below historical norms
Figure 1.15. Income of commercial properties relative to prices
continued to grow but remained well below historical norms

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data are a 12-month moving average of weighted capitalization rates in the industrial, retail, office, and multifamily sectors, based on national square footage in 2009.

Source: Real Capital Analytics; Andrew C. Florance, Norm G. Miller, Ruijue Peng, and Jay Spivey (2010), "Slicing, Dicing, and Scoping the Size of the U.S. Commercial Real Estate Market," Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, vol. 16 (May–August), pp. 101–18.

Figure 1.16. Banks reported tightening lending standards in commercial real estate loans
Figure 1.16. Banks reported tightening lending standards in commercial
real estate loans

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: Banks' responses are weighted by their commercial real estate loan market shares. The shaded bars with top caps indicate periods of business recession as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research: March 2001–November 2001, December 2007–June 2009, and February 2020–April 2020. Survey respondents to the Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices are asked about the changes over the quarter.

Source: Federal Reserve Board, Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices; Federal Reserve Board staff calculations.

House prices started increasing again in recent months, and valuations remained high

Since the last report, valuations in residential real estate markets increased from already elevated levels. House prices, after holding steady earlier this year, started rising again in recent months (figure 1.17). A model of house price valuation based on prices relative to owners' equivalent rent and the real 10-year Treasury yield suggests that valuations in housing markets were increasingly stretched (figure 1.18). Moreover, the median price-to-rent ratio measured across a wide distribution of geographical areas remained close to its previous peak in the mid-2000s (figure 1.19). That said, credit conditions for borrowers remained considerably tighter than in the early 2000s.

Figure 1.17. House prices started increasing again in recent months
Figure 1.17. House prices started increasing again in recent
months

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data extend through August 2023 for Zillow and CoreLogic and July 2023 for Case-Shiller.

Source: Zillow, Inc., Real Estate Data; CoreLogic, Inc., Real Estate Data; S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Indices.

Figure 1.18. Model-based measures of house price valuations remained historically high
Figure 1.18. Model-based measures of house price valuations remained
historically high

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The values for 2023:Q3 are based on monthly data through July 2023. The data for the market-based rents model begin in 2004:Q1. Valuation is measured as the deviation from the long-run relationship between the price-to-rent ratio and the real 10-year Treasury yield.

Source: For house prices, Zillow, Inc., Real Estate Data; for rent data, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 1.19. House price-to-rent ratios remained elevated across geographic areas
Figure 1.19. House price-to-rent ratios remained elevated across
geographic areas

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data are seasonally adjusted. Percentiles are based on 19 large metropolitan statistical areas.

Source: For house prices, Zillow, Inc., Real Estate Data; for rent data, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Farmland valuations remained elevated

Farmland prices increased since the May report, reaching values near the peak of their historical distribution (figure 1.20). Similarly, the ratios of farmland prices to rents remained historically high (figure 1.21). These high valuations were driven by strong agricultural commodity prices, limited inventory of farmland, and significant increases in cropland revenues that had more than offset higher operating costs.

Figure 1.20. Farmland prices stayed near historical highs
Figure 1.20. Farmland prices stayed near historical highs

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data for the U.S. begin in 1997. Midwest index is a weighted average of Corn Belt and Great Plains states derived from staff calculations. Values are given in real terms. The value for 2023 is based on monthly data through July 2023.

Source: Department of Agriculture; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis staff calculations.

Figure 1.21. Farmland prices grew faster than rents
Figure 1.21. Farmland prices grew faster than rents

Accessible Version | Return to text

Note: The data for the U.S. begin in 1998. Midwest index is a weighted average of Corn Belt and Great Plains states derived from staff calculations. The value for 2023 is based on monthly data through July 2023.

Source: Department of Agriculture; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis staff calculations.

 

References

 

2. This estimate is constructed based on expected corporate earnings for 12 months ahead. Alternative measures of the equity premium that incorporate longer-term earnings forecasts suggest more elevated equity valuation pressures. Return to text

Back to Top
Last Update: October 27, 2023