Archive for housing bailout

« Older Entries

What the Economy Needs Now is More/Faster Foreclosures

Posted in Just the Facts, Stories with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on April 15, 2010 by marcitz

Recently I read the following quote about how to “save” the housing market and the overall economy:

Indeed, Casey Mulligan, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, argued that both the Bush and Obama administrations had focused too much on making house payments affordable, based on income levels, and not enough on reducing debt.

Here’s a great way to reduce debt, GET OUT OF IT. 

For some reason all those people who are walking away for their houses (or are threatening to do so) seem to understand that much better than the government who keeps trying to keep people in debt.  Further proof that people understand this is shown by the high rate (>50%) of re-defaults by people who were already helped once. (high recidivism rate). 

Given that the public is embracing this approach to solving their own problems maybe the solution should be making it EASIER for people to actually walk away.

Here is why this is a potentially great (and new-fangled) solution.  At the heart of the current logjam is that different people are upset about approaches to saving the economy for different reasons.  Here are the most prevalent of those arguments:

  • Bailouts help the evil banks by having the government make their bad (or worse yet fraudulent) investments almost whole.
  • Bailouts reward individuals who were irresponsible.
  • Not propping up housing prices will keep unemployment high because any economic recovery will be hampered.
  • Taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to help those (individuals OR banks) who took egregious risk with no downside.

So if we look at making it easier for people to walk away everyone gets a sense of satisfaction (but also has to contribute to the pain). Specifically:

  • Banks will have more foreclosures on their hands (pain) but they won’t have the overhead of formal foreclosure proceedings because the owner willing ceded the property (benefit).  Also they won’t face increasing pressure from the government to abrogate contracts (and deal with the lawsuits that will inevitably follow) with their investors.
  • Homeowners who walk away give up the asset they treasured (pain) but get to move on to a life where they don’t have day-to-day financial worries of this magnitude (benefit).  Also they can quickly make amends for that one-time lapse in judgement like a hangover cure or the morning-after pill.
  • Unemployed homeowners get the added benefit of being able to go where the jobs are and NOT be stuck in a house they can’t afford in an area where they can’t work.   Their pain and their benefit is having to relocate.
  • Taxpayers – In the short-term home prices will drop (pain) but will quickly recover as a new wave of buyers can finally jump in and this won’t cost them a single nickel (benefit).

How can this be accomplished?  The government needs to create a “credit amnesty” program where people have a fixed time  (6 – 12 Month period) to walk away from their houses without any penalty on their credit reports and no taxes on forgiven debt.  Just write it off and start over.  They also need to find a way to faciliate faster foreclosures.  Finally (and there would be some additional taxpayer pain in this) the government could offer tax credits for moving expenses.  This has two benefits.  One it facilitates the move for both sellers (underwater homeowners) and buyers (to pick up those homes that are now available but in a different area), not to mention it funds jobs for movers.

The added bonus to this plan, like King Solomon dividing the baby,  is that the truly committed long-term homeowner will surface.  They are the ones that will, of their own accord, make whatever sacrifice is needed to keep their home.  Those that aren’t committed will simply take the opportunity to walk away and start anew, also a laudable goal.

Granted I’m not the biggest fan of this idea but in the spirit of shared sacrifice its the best I’ve seen so far and much better than any artificially cramming down of interest rates and principle balances.  So I vote for this.

(Follow Me on Twitter at watchingmarcitz) 

(Having problems with your Toyota.  Learn how to get more for your troubles)

13 Comments »

Your House “Value” Has NOT Changed

Posted in Just the Facts, Stories with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 8, 2010 by marcitz

There is a mad rush to protect the American Dream of home ownership.   But its not under any threat because the “American Dream” value of that home hasn’t changed.  People buy homes because they want that American Dream.  The most commonly reasons people VALUE having a home are:

  • A place to call my own
  • A place to raise my children (schools, friends, etc…)
  • A place to plant a garden
  • Build up a nest egg for when I retire

Well last time I checked none of that has changed so why the panic and the rush to save people?   Granted your nest egg may be a little smaller but at least you won’t waste your money all those years on rent and over the long term this will recover, you just have to be in it for the long term.

Why do I bring this up?  Well its because I think we, in our rush to help the so-called “vicitms” of the housing crash, are confusing the issues in a detrimental way.  If you bought a house for the above (long-term) reasons then nothing has changed so you don’t NEED a bailout. If you bought it solely as a short-term investment then you are a SPECULATOR and DON’T DESERVE a bailout.  Often the former is used to justify the latter and that needs to stop.

From a recent New York Times article came this quote,  ”There is also the risk that more people will decide that they are so far underwater — that is, they owe so much more than their homes are worth — that it makes more sense to just walk away.”

True but is that right?  Look when you bought your house you clearly said “this asset gives me value for the price I paid for it” otherwise you wouldn’t have made the single most expensive purchase in your life.  For most home owners that value is that “sense of place” (see the list above) and regardless of underlying “pricing comps” that place (and related value)  is still very much the same (garden, kid’s school, etc…) .  If you can still afford the payments isn’t it providing the same value/sense of place regardless of the underlying price?  Also if you plan on being there for a long time (isn’t the main reason for homeownership “stability”) then short term price drops don’t really matter.   When you invest in a stock you don’t drop it the minute it dips.  

If you feel you should walk away then you are treating your house MOSTLY as a short-term investment and not as your long-term commitment to the “American Dream” so you can’t use those arguments in justifying help for those investors.  Oh and if you can’t afford the payments then you can’t afford the house so its better to get you into a living situation you can afford so you can start your discretionary consumer spending again (which is what the economy really needs). 

One additional argument is “well they lost their job”.  Unfortunately we all are at risk of that so when chosing your living situation you need to assume that is part of the model when calculating the purchase price of a house.   Renters also lose their jobs and none of them are clamoring for rental reductions.

Given that here’s another crazy solution.  Why not put less money into housing subsidies and more into supporting all unemployed people regardless of their chosen model for putting a roof over their head.  This current HAMP plan (especially the unemployment provisions) show that the government doesn’t want everyone to have a roof over their heads.  Just the homeowner.  IMHO housing (regardless of financial structure) should be a right in general, the financial form it takes (renting versus mortgaging) to obtain it should not matter.

(Follow Me on Twitter at watchingmarcitz) 

(Having problems with your Toyota.  Learn how to get more for your troubles)

10 Comments »

Economic Racism is Alive and Well at the New York Times

Posted in Just the Facts, Stories with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 3, 2010 by marcitz

My love-hate relationship with the New York Times continues.  Recently an article deal entitled Help Paying Mortgages Elicits Anger (by Tara Siegel Bernard who can be emailed at tsbernard@nytimes.com)  tried to make the point that fairness isn’t important what needs to be done should just be about the greater good over the long term.  Unfortunately, because of the prevailing and irrational home ownership bias in this country all assumptions were based on just that, preserving home ownership even if its bad for the owners themselves.   In pulling apart the arguments in the piece I found a new way to look at this homeownership bias.  It is actually a form of “economic racism” that, in a post Civil Rights world, fills the racism void.

For me the AHA! moment was when I read this quote that was designed to defend government bailouts of homeowners –   “It (the fall in house prices) shouldn’t be something people should be punished for,” said Robert Shilller.

AHA! Having some one leave a house they couldn’t afford and instead live in some other, presumably more affordable rental property is PUNISHMENT!  There it is – that subtle nasty  undercurrent (“economic racism”) that “renting is bad” that fuels even Robert “Da Man” Shiller’s argument.  Ms Bernard even says  ”a government should consider the greater good over the long-term” in which she is implying that home ownership is the “greater good”.  Categorically it is NOT true as per these sources:

Don’t get me wrong.  I think home ownership is a fine tool for many people (those with enough means to support all the ancillary costs of home ownership in both money and time, those for whom mobility is not an issue) but renting is a fine tool for many others (those with less means, who need mobility, don’t have time/money for all the home ownership maintenance issues).  Neither one is categorically better all the time and their mix of appropriateness changes as prices in both markets ebb and flow.

Recently (in the New York Times) there was a great piece (the “love” in my “love/hate” relationship) that pointed out that Tea Party arguments against health care reform are really about racism and having to embrace a new world of Blacks, Latinos and Women .  I would like to argue that Ms. Bernard’s (and Dr. Shiller’s and most other “pro-housing”  arguments) are about fear of embracing a world of renting as opposed to owning.  Like white majority, homeownership has been the goal and desire of those in power over the past 80 – 100 years at least.   It may be time for a change that no one wants to embrace.   Not surprising it was our current President who was the first one  to try and  find a way to phase out the mortgage income tax deduction.

Unfortunately the “greater good over the long-term” is that everyone gets over their social security blanket (or economic racism)  that home-ownership is the only valid and right way of living (it’s the “white makes right” equivalent of modern US economics).  Unfortunately the only way to do that is to encourage people to try other forms of living to see that in many (but not all) cases those other ways are actually better but that is not what is happening.  If you have easy access to a mortgage hammer then everything becomes a home ownership nail and we’ll never know.  I HAVE A (different view of the American) DREAM!!!…

(Follow Me on Twitter at watchingmarcitz) 

(Having problems with your Toyota.  Learn how to get more for your troubles)

11 Comments »

Why Case-Shiller Is A Bit Fucked

Posted in Just the Facts with tags , , , , , , , on October 4, 2009 by marcitz

As the old Real Estate aphorism goes “Only 3 things matter – location, location, location”.  So the issue with relying on Case-Shiller (which has been “growing” for three months – yippity f-ing doodah!)  is that the “city” used for valuation is usually a multi-county location with each location being at a different stage in the price cycle.  The “San Francisco” area ranges from Pacific Heights to the Brentwood suburbs over 55 miles away.  Brentwood may have bottomed but it will take some time for the Silicon Valley and the “City by the Bay” to follow it into the abyss.  Oh and by-the-way Silicon Valley, typically considered Santa Clara county, is not actually in the index.

The recovery that Case-Shiller has been talking about is allowing the far out suburbs to mask further falls in the inner-core. The net result is, as Case-Shiller recovers, people closer to the namesake city buy too soon under the false pretense that their little pocket of the world has improved with the broader index.  Ironically those in the exurbs will now do better than those closer to the city named in the index.

How will prices in the inner core eventually fall into the abyss?  Simple migration.  The cheapest areas will draw from their neighbors (Brentwood from Dublin) lowering the prices for the neighbors as well (as Brentwood represents a “substitute” in classic economic parlance).  Those now lower price neighbors will then draw from their neighbors one step closer to the inner core (Dublin from Castro Valley) drawing down the prices there.  This will then continue  as such – Castro Valley from Fremont, Fremont from Mountain View and finally Mountain View from Palo Alto.  In the end nature abhors a pricing vacuum and one currently exits in the exurbs.  It will take some time before it really sucks here in Palo Alto.  But it will suck!

The net-net is the worst place to buy right now is anywhere near the city named in the index.   Oh and if your not actually in the index then purchase at your own risk.  You say you live in the “San Francisco” area but remember that it is a spiritual and not a statistical distinction according to Messrs. Case and Shiller.

To add to the scary (and highly varied picture) take a look at this chart which shows how wildly different the valuation story is WITHIN  the “San Francisco” area:

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/OFHEO/Major/NorCal.html

Also look at this analysis as why Palo Alto is in for a fall (albeit 2 years later) like Brentwood: http://invisiblerenters.com/2009/06/23/why-palo-alto-housing-will-fall-30-or-more/

1 Comment »

Killing MORE Myths of Homeownership

Posted in Just the Facts with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 4, 2009 by marcitz

So my last article on the myths of homeownership was so popular I decided to produce a sequel.  This is not so hard because there are so many.  Enjoy!

Myth #6 – Once you pay off your home you get to live in it for free

The theory goes you have 30 years of payments (lets assume you haven’t, like friends of mine, refinanced it over-and-over again pushing out the end of the loan).  After that you have no more payments.  With rent you will have payments every month forever.   The latter is true, the former notsomuch.  In fact there are many substantial ongoing payments you will encounter with your house including:

  • Property tax is forever so you pay that every year even after the mortgage is done. It may also be variable depending on the property tax laws where you live. So it behaves like rent both in its ongoing behavior and the fact that it can change and grow over time.  Here’s another thought to consider.  Property tax is a major source of school financing.  Given the “great recession” we are in (and will continue to be in for the next 2-5 years) other sources of funding are being cut making schools even more dependent on property taxes.  As school quality is a major contributor to housing values expect home owners to be extorted into paying increased property taxes to preserve their home values.
  • Maintenance also goes on forever and that is variable and unpredictable. So it also behaves like rent but much more violent in its swings.  I never got a bill from my landlord for $15,000.  As a homeowner its only a matter of time before you get that bill for a new roof ($15,000) or new pipes ($thousands).  Sure renters implicitly pay maintenance but it is more smoothed out through the rent and periodic rent increases.  Oh and if you live in New York City you are familiar with “maintenance payments” which are often substantial (in the thousands) and are paid monthly (like rent).

Myth #7 – At least your monthly payments are predictable and won’t go up like rent

Well this really depends on how you financed it. A very large percentage (and possibly the majority) of mortgages done in the past 8 years were adjustable-rate.   That could swing way above rent or way below depending on the interest rate environment.  Given the dramatically low interest rates that drove the housing bubble and there is really no where for your mortgage payment to go but up.  Combine this with the large amount of cash being pumped into the economy (which will lead to inflation) and you are looking at MASSIVE interest rate adjustment 2-5 years out meaning your “rent” is going to go up possibly 20-100% (my rent has never gone up more than 10% and that was during a boom and during a bust it actually went down).

So remember, homeowners and renters are not so different except for the massive loss in equity that ownership is currently providing. 

Please feel free to bust more housing myths in the comments section.

6 Comments »

Killing the Myths of Homeownership

Posted in Just the Facts with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 16, 2009 by marcitz

Recently I read an article in The Economist that had many incorrect assumptions that shows just how far the myth of homeownership has permeated society.  Here are some of the common myths and corrections along with actual articles from other sources to back up the key points.

Myth #1  - Home ownership encourages “forced savings” because home owners have to pay off their mortgage.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! That is exactly what home equity lines and continuous refinancings were all about. Spending your savings as opposed to accumulating it and making yourself a “renter with an option to eventually own”.  A person very close to me has just refinanced a 30 year mortgage after 21 years effectively turning it into a 51 year mortgage and unless the almighty intervenes they won’t be paying it off in this life.

Myth #2 – The mortgage income tax deduction is good for homeowners.

ABSOLUTELEY NOT!  It just encourages people to raise the price of the house to eventually eliminate the advantage of the benefit (NOTE: Any increase in income chasing a, somewhat constrained, good means that prices get bid up and income tax deductions raise effective income). Its a zero sum game that only raises your interest payments in the end (because the principal needed is more due to larger home prices) which means the bank actually makes more money (remember they are the bad guys nowadays).

Eliminate the deduction and new home buyers (current homeowners would, truthfully, be screwed) would see lower prices commensurate with the decline in the kickback from the government. That means lower interest costs and more money, net, in their pocket (again current homeowners would see their housing values fall)

Myth #3 – Homeowners benefit from many social advantages.

Sorry but  there are NONE and actually some social disadvantages, including worse sex.  Study after study done as recently as last January show that there is practically NO social benefit of homeowning vs. renting.  In fact home-owners had been those leading the charge AGAINST racial integration in their neighborhoods. Turns our renters are actually more relaxed, less racist, more social and, yup, have better sex. Additionally these housing bailouts are a tad racist/classist and are bad for current homeowners in the long run. Don’t believe me check out these links:

Recently published study by Wharton  (Its a long academic study but just read the first paragraph)

The American McDream from the San Francisco Chronicle (renters have better sex, too)

Understanding how Obama’s Plan Hurts 100 MILLION US Citizens from watchingmarcitz.com (this shows how home bailout programs have a dark underbelly)

How the Crash Will Reshape America from The Atlantic (why renting is actually the answer to the problem we now face)

The Advantages of Renting from National Public Radio

Myth #4 – The market is finally finding a bottom

Take a lesson from the movie Titanic. The ship has just temporarily stabilized before its violent rush to the bottom as shown here.

Myth #5 – Once you pay off your mortgage your house is free (rent goes on forever)

Not exactly:

  • Property tax is forever so you pay that every year even after the mortgage is done. It may also be variable depending on the property tax laws where you live. So it behaves like rent (including changing from time-to-time)
  • Maintenance. That also goes on forever and that is variable (roof = $15,000) and unpredictable. So it also behaves like rent but much more violent in its swings. Sure renters implicitly pay maintenance but it is more smoothed out through the rent and periodic rent increases.
  • Your mortgage may go up depending on how you financed it. A very large percentage of mortgages done in the past 8 years were adjustable-rate. That could swing way above rent or way below depending on the interest rate environment.

See more myths in this follow-up post.

Got a really fucked computer?  Get it repaired online at support.com

27 Comments »

Homeownership – So Many Chores, So Little Time

Posted in Stories with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 15, 2009 by marcitz

See one of the problems with homelownership is that not only do you have to cover the mortgage but you also have to clean the roof, flush the pipes, paint the walls and, of course, you have to “Mow the Lawn”

Well at least that last part isn’t so bad…

Leave A Comment »

Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Peninsula

Posted in Stories with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 29, 2009 by marcitz

With a good week on the stock market and even some good news about housing sales I think its time for an example before anyone gets too cozy that the worst is behind us.

To play it safe you need to think about where we are in the economic cycle the same way as an important scene in the movie Titanic.  This is the scene where the ship, which has been slowly sinking for about an hour, suddenly levels off when the submerged part of the boat (partially) breaks away.  Everyone is relieved that they are floating level when all of a sudden they get pulled down in a rush to the bottom.  The sinking part of the housing market just (partially) broke away and everyone is giving that sign of relief.  Strike up the band!
 
 
Here is why we are in for that second more hellish ride straight to the bottom.  In the short term the credit markets will get a swift kick when we finally have a large bank failure come to light. Give it 3-6 months and my FDIC insured money is on Bank of America. There goes the financing revival. Second of all housing will get another kick in the pants in two years when interest rates have to start going up again (to combat eventual inflation).  We have seen the recent good news being the result of lower interest rates so what happens when those interest rates go up? 
 

Also as any real estate agent will tell you “location, location, location”.  Well while prices have begun to level in the outskirts like Vallejo they haven’t really begun their fall in Silicon Valley and the Peninsula.  Right now people here think “whew that wasn’t so bad” (only a 10% drop in value) but in reality what these market movements (dramatically falling median home prices) presage is a large fall coming to the Peninsula this year.  Yes everyone is buying homes in the cheaper areas of the “bay area” which is what is driving down the median.  That means less buyers on the Peninsula (in which you can’t find any homes close to the current depressed median).  Its only a matter of time before it finally hits here.

My prediction (or is that a “sinking feeling”) is that this summer will feel “soft” on the peninsula and that will prick the confidence bubble leading to the same panic here that happened last year in the suburbs.  This is when 30-40% price drops (peak-to-trough) become a reality in Palo Alto by summer 2010.  Additionally the bank efforts to artificially restricted supply of foreclosures will finally give way as all banks decide they need to get out before its too late.
 
Impossible you say?  Remember it was once said that the housing market could not possible crash the same way the NASDAQ did during our last bubble.  Really??  Have a look at this graph which offsets the NASDAQ peak to correspond with the peak in Bay Area housing prices.

housing-vs-nasdaq1

Oh and lets not forget that the housing market is permeated by many myths that are proving to be quite untrue (and therefore won’t be there to save this market).  For a detailed analysis of these myths please point your browser here.

Got a really fucked computer?  Get it repaired online at support.com

3 Comments »

Obama Administration Says NO to Bankruptcy Loan Modifications

Posted in Stories with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 15, 2009 by marcitz

So Congress has been trying to push a law that will allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages including reducing interest rates and “cramming-down” loan principal.  Many have opposed this because it violates contract law.  The highly justified fear is that if the government can just violate any contract at will then contracts of any kind (past, present or future) will no longer have any value.   Up until this morning the Obama administration has signaled that it supports these in-bankruptcy modifications.  That all changed on the Sunday morning talk show circuit when Larry Summers, head of President Obama’s National Economic Council, came out in strong defense of contract law.

According the the New York Times:

Mr. Summers, who also appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” suggested, however, that the government’s ability to require…scaled back was restricted by preexisting contracts, even though he did not specify what those restrictions may be.

“We are a country of law,” said Mr. Summers, one of several economic officials to hit the Sunday-morning talk show circuit. “There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts.”

Ok, now for a little truth telling.  Dr. Summers was actually talking about the bonuses being given to AIG employees but isn’t the sentiment the same?  After all, last time I checked a mortgage is a contract and by Dr. Summers own admission the government cannot “abrogate” them yet that is what congress wants to do. 

As an invisible renter I am sure you are thrilled because you want your shot to buy a house at a fair price and by NOT allowing in-bankruptcy loan modifications you will get your chance.  So please don’t forget to call and email Dr. Summers to thank him for his support of contract law (I just talked with his office) and for signaling that the Obama administration will now veto any in-bankruptcy loan modification legislation that Congress may propose.

Dr. Lawrence Summers  

Or is that not what he meant to say…

P.S.  See how the New York Times also seems to have come out against housing bailouts in this analysis of an article by Joe Nocera.

11 Comments »

Is Wells Fargo Playing Games? – Tell Us Your Scam Story…

Posted in Stories with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2009 by marcitz

So talking to a friend the other day who is one of the lucky ones thanks, potentially, to some good old-fashioned game playing on the part of his mortgage appraiser.  Seems that he bought a house 3 years ago and was ready to refinance it so he called in Wells Fargo.  This is where it gets strange.

Apparently the only house that they could find to comp against his house for the appraisal was HIS house based on its purchase price from 3 years before.  What’s cool is that his house, even given all the stuff going on in the macro economy, hadn’t lost any value in the past three years based on that comp (neat trick!). 

Of course given the increase in houses on the market how is this possible that his house was the only comp they could use?  Afterall, not to far away there were many houses for sale (and many foreclosures) that were used as comps when he first bought his house (of course they weren’t in foreclosure then).  Turns out that Wells decided to “tighten-up” the radius from when he had bought his house 3 years before so, one might guess, the foreclosures wouldn’t be included in the appraisal and then they couldn’t give him the loan. (another neat trick!)

But why would they want to give him a loan that exceeded the true value of the house?  Well because (just like over the past few years) they weren’t going to keep it and if they didn’t get the appraisal they wouldn’t get the loan origination business.  Sure enough he said that they weren’t and that it was immediately going to Fannie Mae because he had a conforming loan. VOILA!

Well its nice to know in these crazy times that some things never change. 

So have you heard a recent story of financial “magic” (spelled “s-c-a-m”)?  If so please share it here because you, as a taxpayer, just bought my friends house.  He’s a responsible and talented guy and will make good on his loan but there are many out there that probably got the same treatment and may not be so responsible.

ARE YOU A RENTER - STOP  THEY NEW YORK TIMES FROM HURTING YOU

6 Comments »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.