The Housing Crisis Remains Barack Obama’s Most Immediate Problem

November 7, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

President Obama won't formally walk through the White House entry for a couple of months yet, but here's one crisis with a red-tag priority. If it could be attended to in the meantime, so much the better, because we won't begin to get out of our economic predicaments until a solution is found.

The issue is housing. It is where the current economic mess started, with the bursting of the home-price bubble followed by the financial industry's meltdown. The bad news is that the bubble has not finished bursting. Although homes, the major asset of the average American family, already have lost an average of 20 percent in value, most experts foresee another drop of at least 15 percent. Why? Because prices have not yet fallen to a level relative to personal income that can be sustained—at least not without the lax mortgage financing that produced the bubble in the first place.

In the decades since WWII, home prices as a multiple of annual rent have generally averaged 15 times. In the bubble, they reached a multiple of 26 and remain at 22. But as they fall, more and more homeowners will be saddled with mortgages that are worth more than their homes. If prices do drop an additional 15 percent, some 15 million mortgages will exceed the value of the homes. At least half of them would exceed the asset by 20 percent or more.

Borrowers can escape this negative equity by dropping the keys in the mailbox and walking away. Mortgages are "nonrecourse," meaning the lender has no other collateral than the property. But abandoned homes caused by such desertions, or homes left empty following foreclosure, are a plague on the neighborhood. Empty homes quickly fall into disrepair, attracting looters and squatters, and drag down the value of the entire street.

Such a vicious spiral of market deflation can produce an overshoot on the downside the same way that loosely inflated financing caused an overshoot on the upside.

Trillion-dollar losses. Most of the homes being abandoned and foreclosed will produce losses for the mortgage lender, which could add up to trillions of dollars and break the financial system before it is half repaired. If we don't get ahead of this destructive curve, the losses will swamp the bailout efforts of the government.

How can borrowers stay in their homes? Lenders would be better off forgiving part of the mortgage—but these days that route is too often closed off because most of the mortgages, especially the subprime and Alt-A mortgages, are securitized: They have been bundled into a pool with other mortgages that in turn have been sold to a diversified group of investors. Subprime loans packaged into securities skyrocketed from 32 percent in 1994 to 81 percent in 2006.

Initially, these securities helped expand the mortgage money available and reduce its cost. The problem is that the packaging process put the lender and the borrower a labyrinth of a distance away from each other, so the ability to renegotiate has become nearly impossible. Hence, foreclosures now exceed 2.5 million homes a year.

One remedy would be to give a legal right to change the terms of mortgage loans, or forgive part of them, to the servicers who collect payments on behalf of creditors. Yet another possibility is converting mortgages into longer-term loans with a lower fixed rate. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises whose loose lending (prompted by Congress) helped get us into this mess, do have management skills that could help get us out. They could renegotiate any mortgage they own. They have the capacity to handle the necessary funding or guarantees from the government. Fannie and Freddie could tell banks they'd buy or guarantee any existing home mortgage at a fixed discount from the current principal, say 15 percent of the principal amount due. The understanding would be that the new mortgages would be supported by federal credit guarantees, with interest rates reduced to perhaps 5 percent and repayment schedules lengthened.

Martin Feldstein, a former presidential economic adviser, recommends that a part of this mortgage could be with full recourse to the mortgage borrowers in exchange for an even lower rate—he recommends $80,000 at 2 percent. The homeowner would have to assume personal liability for this extra piece of the financing—but once these mortgages become government-guaranteed, they would have clear value: They would become liquid and tradable and improve the liquidity of the entire financial system.

The land mine can be defused—but only if we act soon.

Tags:
housing,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I am amazed that mortgages would be non-recourse. In Canada, mortgages are recourse so that if you fall behind and decide to stop making payments, Banks may also come after your other assets.

Could the difference in lending practices be contributing to the problems in the US? Would there be more credit available if mortgages were recourse (allow banks to seize other asset)?

Why is nobody talking about the underlying mortgage and its terms as the problems with the industry?

Van

Van 2:21PM November 17, 2008

Instead of bailing out wall street banks the government needs to stabilize the housing market. This 'bailout' will help everyone who owns a property in the country. What happens in Nevada and other such states is having a direct impact on ALL markets and the equity losses in dollar terms will be far geater than the cost of the 'bailout'. The only people who should oppose this are those who do not own property. The banks should start sending appraisal letters to each home owner - this might provide the incentive needed to support some government intervention.

Bill Broderick of IL 9:50PM November 09, 2008

The problem with saving many of these people in bad mortgages is that they have terrible financial histories. That is why they are "sub-prime". These people have demonstrated their inability to manage money. They also don't have the necessary income in many cases to actually pay for the house. Therefore they are terrible credit risks. This isn't true for everyone, but it is true for many of them.

And if my property has declined in value by 20% why should I pay for other people's mistakes? Why doesn't the FED lower my mortgage as well? This just starts a never ending circle of bail out mania. We've already seen it with Wall Street and now the Auto Industry.

D A Quenzer of WI 10:06PM November 08, 2008

advertisement

Debate Club

Should There Be Such a Thing as 'Reporter's Privilege'?

Experts debate the ability reporters to protect their sources even in the face of a government investigation.

Latest Videos

advertisement

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

God Bless America and the Boy Scouts

The Fund does the right thing by pushing the Boy Scouts to lift its ban on gay members.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.