Tag Archives: market

Obama HURTS 100 Million to Help 9 Million

Dear President Obama,

HI!,  yoo-hoo, over here, we are 100,000,000 men, women and children who rent and we seem to be invisible to you and the media (including NPR, New York Times and the Wall Street Journal) but clearly our numbers make us important.  We are wondering why you are helping 9 million people at the expense of me and my 99,999,999 friends, neighbors and fellow countrymen.   Not to mention the additional millions of former homeowners who will soon join us because they rationally decided to live within their means and rent.

But how is your plan hurting 100,000,000 renters?  It is hurting them in three major ways:

  1. By putting a floor (and debatable how stable or realistic that floor is) under housing prices above what they were before the bubble began you are continuing to price renters out of the market.
  2. By raising the deficit you are going to be putting some of the tax burden on renters (yes some will go to homeowners as well).
  3. Because many former owner-occupied properties have turned into rentals rental prices are actually falling.  By keeping people in houses they can’t afford you will, in effect, raise rents again.

The net result is that you are charging renters, through the eventual taxes needed to pay for this, for the privilege of NOT being able to afford a house while also raising their current rents.  This reminds me of the former Soviet practice of making soon-to-be-victims of execution pay for their own bullets and then charging their families for their burials.

Point #1: This plan is further eliminating renters ability to buy a home by reducing their income (through higher taxes and raising rents) and through maintaining artificially high prices (through so-called “stabilization”). 

To make matter worse renters comprise those who either can’t or have decided not to overextend themselves to have the “American Dream” (which was originally “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” until it got co-opted by marketing experts in the real-estate industry in the last century).  Renters are STILL disproportionately Hispanic and African-American and lower income.  Homeowners are disproportionately white and have higher incomes.

Home Ownership by Race  - (US Census Bureau)

Home Ownership by Race - (US Census Bureau)

Point #2: Helping homeowners at the expense of renters is yet another transfer of wealth from the lower class to the upper class.  How Bush-league.

Oh and why would the the vast majority of homeowners (who do, truthfully, outnumber renters) care to help us ? Very simply because the  survival of any market (or pyramid scheme which the housing market has proven to be) depends on a continous stream of first-time buyers to fuel growth from the bottom.  By attacking renters you are attacking the first-time buyer base and, while you may temporarily save the market, you are draining the pool in the medium to long term.

Point #3: Homeowners need to watch out for renters if they want to truly protect their home values.

How can you help?  Well if you can’t bring yourself to let the market work out the right price then at least provide renters with some rental income tax deductions so they don’t wind up paying (two to three times) for the mistakes of homeowners.  Additionally this will help incent those on the edge of home-ownership not to over-stretch to buy a house so they can get the equivalent mortgage income tax deduction.  Its the least you can do.

Finally, of those 9 million you are helping, at the expense of 100,000,000, how many got themselves into their situations by cashing out their equity cushion for home-improvements, new cars or family vacations?  I guess its comforting to know that the money we saved by renting will go to buy some nice stuff…even if it isn’t ours.

DO YOU HAVE A STORY OF HOMEOWNERSHIP GONE BAD?  If so share it on reallyfuckedhomeowner.com.

ADDENDUM: In honor of Rick Santelli’s Tea Party I have posted his poll here so you can voice your opinion to the Obama adminstration.

Rick Santelli  of CNBC (as do I)  want to know the following:

To see what the Rick Santelli Housing Bailout Tea Party is all about see this video

A Recession Even Letters Can’t Describe

In all the financial press there has been much discussion about the shape of the recovery, always in the form of letters.  Would it be a “V-shaped” recession – sharp drop followed rapidly by a sharp recovery?  Or possibly “U-shaped” – sharp drop followed by a period of bottom-trawling followed by rapid recovery? Or even a “W” – two sharp drops with recoveries after each?  Some have even proposed an “O” as in “O sh#t its never going to recover!”

I have found that letters cannot describe this recession.  My belief is it will be a sharp drop (been there, currently doing that) followed by a long and slow climb out for stocks and house prices.  Well nothing in the English alphabet can possibly account for this.  So what could?

Stumped, I sat staring at my Smart Phone looking for answers and then it hit me.  Looking above and to the right of the screen, not where I typcally find answers to my internet queries, I saw my cell phone carrier’s name and logo and VOILA!!! 

Welcome to the official shape, logo and motto of The Great Recesssion.

recezion5

Its time for homeowners to take responsibility for their actions

Representative Barney Frank was quoted in the Wall Street Journal today (9/23) as saying:

 

“I just think it’s inconceivable that people would say that the taxpayers should put some money at risk because of bad decisions made by people who then continue to be rewarded without any restrictions and, in fact, would be rewarded for their mistakes,”

 

While he was referring to financial executives this logic also applies to the individual homeowners when considering the “bailout” and “mortgage relief”.  It is wrong to have taxpayer money going to reward, without any restrictions,  the bad financial decisions of corporate executives or our neighbors. We have to remember that a large percentage of loans that are currently going bad were due to voluntary cash-out refinancings and NOT new mortgage originations.

 

According to RealtyTimes in 2006 (the peak of the bubble) 80% of all refinancings involved taking extra cash out against the growth in home equity to pay down consumer debt.  In short many of the people the government is trying to help with the “mortgage relief” plan are those who endangered their homes because of their consumer debt.  Without that consumer debt they would not have refinanced and would have had an equity cushion to protect them in this type of market.

 

The net effect is the currently contemplated home-owner bailout is going in a large part (indirectly) to paying down consumer debt and rewarding consumers for profligate spending.   Is that a proper use of taxpayer money?  Not according to Mr. Frank

 

So back to Mr. Frank’s quote.  What should those restrictions on homeowners be?

                                       

  • Raise loan standards to pre-bubble norms (e.g. stringent payment/income ratios, down payment minimums, loan documentation)
  • Limit loans/refinancings/modifications/relief to people that meet those proper standards.
  • Offer loans based on current house appraisal prices and at standard market (NON-subsidized) mortgage rates.

 

There is no objective/reliable way to determine who deserves help and who doesn’t (did you lie on your app? were you lied to? blow your equity on a new car?) so why not just use the proper standard consistently as that would be fair, logical, and not reward people for their mistakes. If you cannot meet the standard there is NO REASON why you should keep your house otherwise we are doomed to repeat this over-and-over again.

                                     

Its time for everyone to take their medicine (banks, financial executives and, yes Mr. Frank, even individuals). Don’t fear the falling of prices, welcome the reshuffling of assets from those that cannot afford them to those that can.  That’s how you build an engine for growth and a stable economy.

 

Also remember that saving a borrower who can’t meet the proper standards prevents another family who could meet those standards from buying a home and therefore prolongs this societal pain.  You are hurting as many people as you help.