« What happens when the banks own all the houses? This is not an ad. | erica's Blog | If we are a nation of laws, then this is the moment in which we shall prove it. »

The housing tax credit isn't the problem--foreclosures are the problem.


Look all,

I will concede that the housing tax credit is silly. But this is not a crisis in the housing market, it is a crisis in the idea of housing.

The reason home ownership exists is so that ordinary people can believe they've got a measure of stability and prosperity in a high-risk world. Let's admit this up front: the housing=stability meme is what Ibsen would have called a life-lie, but it's a pretty decent one as these things go, and in general we all support the housing=stability life-lie with things like the mortgage interest tax credit, neighborhood events, gardening competitions and the like. It's nice. It's good. It makes families feel more stable.

(To people who are big rental fans I say go out and get your own delusions of stability and leave the rest of us to ours.)

When the Financerati decided to play fast and loose with the housing-is-stability delusion, they opened a can of worms. Never mind whose "fault" it was, the buyers or the banks, the real estate crisis has pointed out to every homeowner in America that THERE IS NO FLOOR TO THE HOUSING MARKET. And there's nothing like looking down to get people nervous about being on the high wire. (To those who maintain that housing prices need to "come down"--is zero, with almost nobody qualified to buy anyway, what you had in mind?) A social contract is being busted up here, and it needs to be repaired.

Sure, people who are buying houses are happy to take the tax credit, which is intended to shore up the social contract and make people believe that housing is "safe" again. (In desperate times, of course people will take money.) But people aren't dumb. Everybody knows that as long as the foreclosure machine is running, there's a real possibility that the only direction for ordinary people is down.

I have been saying this since 2006: the only way to end the housing crisis, and the economic crisis that sprang from it, is through principal reduction. Anybody with a yearly income of less than, say, $300k per year who purchased a home (or perhaps even an income property) during the bubble years should be handed a no-questions-asked, no-credit-hit, refinance of their home at its CURRENT VALUE, at a low, fixed rate. End of crisis.

It's too bad we didn't do this a couple of years ago when all the cheap neighborhoods tanked. It would have been a lot less expensive.

The fact that banks have not requested this fix and the government has not offered it, tells you everything you need to know about who is running the country and how concerned they are about the middle class. When the banks own enough housing, they will just figure out a way to "rent" it to people, hold a lot of it off the market in the guise of careful underwriting, and drive prices back up that way.

For those of you about to throw a fit about principal reduction and the "greedy" homeowners who bought homes they couldn't afford, please read any book about how human beings will gang up and persecute each other about stupid, meaningless things (Lord of the Flies, The Scarlet Letter, The Human Stain, etc.) and get over it. This is not about the guy who bought the investment property, or the guy who got the house with three bathrooms. It's about where the nation's money ends up--and I'd like to see a little more of it in the hands of people like you and me, thanks very much.

So Dean, please, less about the tax credit, and more about restoring public confidence in housing, even if you are one of the "smart guys" who knows that housing isn't the safety net we like to believe it is.

Sorry about the rant, but this is as plain as the noses on our faces. The subprime foreclosures are almost over, and the veil will be lifted as the extravaganza gets really ramped up in "ordinary" neighborhoods all over the country. I just hope the realization won't come too late.


12 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Lenders don't keep the houses that they foreclose. The houses are sold to a new owner who gets a new mortgage with a lower principal. The lender either writes off the difference between the net sals price and the balance of the mortgage or sues the borrower for the difference, depending on the mortgage laws of the state. In most states with high foreclosures, the lender has to write off the difference.

user-pic

True--until the bailout. Now, my understanding is that it is not so simple.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/1243528/is-the-fdic-killing-short-sales

It's worth clicking on the links.

user-pic

Short sales and foreclosures are two different animals. I don't see why a lender would agree to a short sale unless the lender could make more money that way. With a foreclosure, the lender may be able to get a deficiency judgement, although the example in the blog is for Arizona, a non-recourse mortgage state.

user-pic

How many deficiency judgments are paid off? (I'm genuinely curious, just wondering if you have the numbers.)

user-pic

"THERE IS NO FLOOR TO THE HOUSING MARKET. And there's nothing like looking down to get people nervous about being on the high wire. (To those who maintain that housing prices need to "come down"--is zero, with almost nobody qualified to buy anyway, what you had in mind?"

Sure. Actually, I wouldn't mind it going down into the negative prices, then I could afford to buy a house and pay the property taxes. :-P

user-pic

I assume you are joking.

user-pic

"I have been saying this since 2006: the only way to end the housing crisis,"

Seriously, the big debate we have is whether there really is a housing crisis.

I think people losing their homes because they can't afford it will discourage irresponsible behavior in the future. I think cheap homes are good for new buyers. And I think out of work home builders... should either wait patiently or get a new career.

user-pic

Again, I'll take this as dark humor in the "modest proposal" vein.

user-pic

I agree that the housing credit is silly. We need to find the floor (even though you question whether there is one). Prices need to fall naturally to a level where buyers start to see value again. Where buying is cheaper than renting. Until that happens, we won't have a normal functioning market. Same is true for cars - the clunkers credit didn't really get many people to buy a car that weren't ALREADY thinking about buying a new car. I don't think many people have decided to buy a house solely because of the credit. It's not chump change, but if you're buying a $200,000 house I don't know if people get too excited about an $8,000 reduction.

Refinancing at a low fixed-rate might work for some people, but alot of people will still go into default even at a new low rate. For a lot of people the size of the mortgage is just too big.

It's just not practical to say that they should be able to modify the mortgage and take the principal down to the current market value. I think that should be up to the banks, not a 3rd party. If the bank wants to do that because they think it's in their best interest, then they can do that. But it shouldn't be forced on them.

user-pic

Thank you for your comment. It made me think about how to respond. Please tell me if this is clearer or more convincing(although I can't say we'll end up agreeing.) :)

My overall point is that homeownership as an institution is more valuable to the nation than the "housing market" is. People need to be able to stay in one place and feel good about being there. On the other hand, when they need to move they need to be able to do so. (Some "market" aspects have helped accomplish this in the past, but housing is more than a market.)

We now find ourselves in the opposite situation. No one can feel good about owning a home because they don't know how far prices will drop, and they can't move because they can't afford to make payments on their house and a rental in their new location. That's not even taking into account the effect of job loss, which is going to be the next big wrinkle.

You are correct that the size of the mortgage is the problem, which is exactly my point, and why I'm saying we need to force the banks to write them down, practical or not. It's worth noting that banks ought to be doing this on their own. Back in the old days, before credit default swaps, gigantic bailouts and personal destruction via credit reporting, banks that offered risky products might have found themselves in a position where they'd have to sit down with their customers and say "well, what CAN you pay?" And they'd have to work it out with their customer and chalk it up to experience. But no more.

It should be in the banks' "best interest" to act on behalf of everybody. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that banks can force people to pay according to the terms of what we now know were contracts that shouldn't have been written, or render huge swathes of people homeless with hardly a second thought, is the big clue that the social contract is messed up.

To sum up, housing is an institution, not really a market. Treating it as a mere market has been a miserable failure. It's time to stop this.

user-pic

Instead of forcing the banks to take writedowns, lets figure out another way to deal with it. Forcing them to take writedowns - I put this in the same category as forcing them to cap their interest rates - they'll just figure out another way around it. For credit cards, they'll just cancel people's accounts and also issue less cards going forward. For mortgages, they will do the same thing on new mortgages. You might say that's the point - get the banks to be more conservative with their mortgage lending standards.

Rather than force writedowns, we can go back to your "good old days" by stopping the bailouts. CIT just went under and the world didn't end. Next is GMAC.

Banks are renegotiating lots of mortgages already. If we stopped the bailouts and made them think they aren't too big to fail, they will do what's in their best interest. If that is to foreclose, that's too bad for the consumer. But the banks are taking losses too when they foreclose on a house.

user-pic

There's a difference between a housing crisis and a homeownership 'crisis'. And there simply is no housing crisis. However, the hundreds of billions of dollars that are going to mitigate the homeownership crisis through the supports to fannie and freddie and the tax-credit could be used so much better. There are worse things in the world than people not 'feeling good' because they are renting rather than owning a house.

Aside from that, for odd legal reasons linked to securitization, banks are starting to find it hard to foreclose, so they are more inclined to renegotiate principal.

Leave a comment

erica

user-pic

Following: 3
Followers: 20

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address