Rick Newman

The Housing Bust: a Statistical Portrait

By Rick Newman

Posted: April 4, 2008

Economists will eventually write volumes to explain where the Great Housing Bust of 2008 came from. But for now, a few choice statistics do a pretty handy job. James Barth and several colleagues at the nonprofit Milken Institute have written a number of studies that plumb the causes of the subprime meltdown and the ensuing damage. Some data points that help depict what has happened:

Percentage of all mortgages bundled into securities, 1994: 55.8 percent; 2007: 74.2 percent

Percentage of all subprime mortgages packaged into securities, 1994: 31.6 percent; 2007: 92.8 percent

Percentage of mortgage originations that were subprime, 1994:
4.5 percent; 2006: 20.1 percent.

Increase in face value of subprime mortgages issued between 1994 and 2006:
1,700 percent

Share of mortgage originations by federally regulated savings institutions, 1987:
29.8 percent; 2006: 8 percent.

Share of mortgage originations by less -regulated mortgage brokers, 1987: 20 percent; 2006: 58 percent

Average annual rise in home-price value, 1990-1999: 3 percent; 2000-2006: 8.6 percent

U.S. homeownership rate, 1985: 63.5 percent; 2007: 68.2 percent

Ratio of the median home price to median household income, 1985: 3.2; 2006: 4.6

Household debt as a percentage of disposable income, 1985: 74.9 percent; 2006: 137 percent

Percentage of mortgage holders unable to tell if their loan includes an expanded "balloon payment," 2007: 30 percent

Percentage of mortgage holders unable to tell if their loan includes a prepayment penalty for refinancing within two years, 2007: 44 percent

Foreclosure rate on prime mortgages issued between January 1999 and July 2007: 2 percent; on subprime mortgages: 13.7 percent

Total cost of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, in 2007 dollars: $408 billion

Total estimated cost of the subprime crisis so far: $150 billion to $500 billion.

Note: All current figures are the latest available and may not refer to the entire calendar year.

Sources: Milken Institute; U.S. Census Bureau; Federal Reserve; Wholesale Access; 2007 Mortgage Market Statistical Annual; Inside Mortgage Finance; Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight; Federal Trade Commission; LoanPerformance

cureholder

You left out the one statistic that explains why institutions not regulated by the CRA would make subprime loans: Percentage of subprime loans immediately securitized and purchased by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae (and therefore generating origination fees for the originating lender but involving absolutely no risk for that lender, while the FMs could care less because they were back by the feds): between 80 and 90 percent. THERE is the root of the problem.

cureholder of CA @ Oct 04, 2008 16:14:59 PM

housing bust.

The housing bust, is a bottom-line equation. The government alone cannot solve the housing problem, but they can minimize losses. There are to many factors at play in this housing market. One: lenders practices and internal policies. Two: consumer knowledge and understanding of their own consumer needs, not to mention understanding of lenders practices. Three: the rise of, cost of living from food to gas prices and personal care. Four: This global economy which we are so dependent on based on all goods. Five: Wages. Today's wages do not compensate for the average cost of living and the average mortgage loan. Mortgage loan amounts went up, but wages stayed average. Cost of living went up, but wages stayed average. This is what i call the Libra effect, there must be a balance, to stay balanced. The bottom line equation is this, is it more cost effective to throw people out of their home and create an imbalance in family life and everyday life, (a mess on top of a mess) than to force the banks to re-evaluate each individual loan (re-write each loan) take a loss on the equitable value on paper, with a tax-forgiveness-credit to the consumer, re-evaluate the consumers finances and create a customize loan for the consumer based the their consumer equation OR is it more cost effective to send NOD's, Foreclose on a home, throw families out of their home and have the banks end-up with portfolio losses in the billions, if not trillions. Here is a thought, The Dayton, Ohio; housing market. There are houses being demolished by the hundreds, if not thousands. Government agencies and lenders, are both doing this. Could the government, working together with lenders create and turn this loss into something constructive, maybe a housing environment for the homeless. Where the homeless can live and maybe obtain training to become productive citizens ( isn't that what the government wants anyways, from it's citizens) and maybe if the banks and government work together, this housing mess can be fixed, and if not fixed minimized. A perfect example of bank and government not working together is this lower rate( the feds adjust, lower rates), but the banks continue to keep rates at an average of 5.5% nation wide. My questions is: Were the feds lowering rates to create a global economic mess, or to assist the average American family with their current financial and housing situation.......................................................JUST A THOUGHT.

Louis Mendez of CA @ Apr 19, 2008 15:01:33 PM

What was the government's role?

The question I have on the sub-prime issue is, "What percentage of the default mortgages is directly related to government policies requiring lending to low income borrowers?" Do any statistics exist taht breaks down the distribution of the nature of the *subprime* environment?

I think one of the inherent issues in getting people to really understhand what happened is that the jagon, while it may be clearly understood by some, is open to interpretation by many (including, I think, myself)...

Thelma wrote "I'm appalled at the percentage of people who have signed mortgage contracts without understanding the exact terms of that commitment..." I would have to agree... but wouldn't limit it to mortgage contracts. How many people *really* understand insurance contracts, most service contracts, etc., etc.

I'd content that they aren't intended t be understood... they're intended to entice. Note the advertising for so many product and services at "only $29.95 a month"... it's put in months because more people would choke if they were given a $350 a year price tag.

Is it deception? Not really... but it certainly feeds our apparent desire to delude ourselves... and it makes the difficult look possible... even if it isn't.

So... was the government complicit???

J. Winkler of IL @ Apr 09, 2008 00:19:52 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Rick Newman

Rick Newman

The global economy is mysterious, even scary. Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman connects the dots. In addition to his writing for U.S. News, Rick is the co-author of two books: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, and Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!