There’s been very significant amount of news reports over the past few months regarding various branches of the U.S. government and their attempts to solve the foreclosure crisis through the use of government sponsored foreclosure bailouts. Some of these bailouts are for the lenders involved, think Bear Stearns, and many new proposals are designed to help homeowners keep their probably over-encumbered property.
People who’ve worked in lending or foreclosure related business know that sustainable housing payments, including property taxes and insurance, shouldn’t exceed about a third of the borrower’s monthly gross income. This isn’t something new, or some complex economic theory, it’s just a simple concept based on affordability and historical data. The increased housing prices in many markets over the past years was a direct result of loan underwriting that didn’t include this simple concept of affordability, but was based on the borrower’s ability to fog a mirror. If you were breathing, you could get a home loan.
Current news still often reports the current foreclosure issues as being sub-prime related, or that borrowers were duped into a “bad” loan. That isn’t really very accurate as virtually every borrower in the high priced rapidly appreciating market got a “bad loan”. Loan products considered mainstream, such as piggyback loans along with a primary loan, required either no or very little down payment from the borrower. So now, when values start a decline, those borrowers are looking at large loan balances with high payments and a property that’s worth less and less every month. The emergence of “walkaway” programs is one reflection of how many people are in this situation. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke also addressed this: ” However, another factor is now playing an increasing role in many markets: declines in home values, which reduce homeowners’ equity and may consequently affect their ability or incentive to make the financial sacrifices necessary to stay in their homes.” Note the use of the word “incentive” in regards to people wanting to keep their homes.
Housing price correction is obvious and it will continue until some equilibrium is reached when local area incomes are sufficient to make an affordable house payment. Those are the fundamentals that provide home price stabilization, prices cannot be forced to remain at a given level no matter how much money or incentives are provided in an attempt to alter that price fluctuation.
So why are the various bailout programs being proposed?
There is without a doubt some political posturing involved in some of the proposed programs or programs actually in place, but that isn’t the biggest motivator. Bailout programs, whether for individual homeowners, or for lenders to “offload” some of their defaulted/defaulting loans to government sponsored agencies, are simply to slow the price declines to a manageable level without losing major lenders along the way. While some people feel CountryWide should have been shuttered long ago, when a company is closed they no longer have employees who contribute to the overall economy. If enough lenders close, then you have significant economic impacts outside the housing sector.
I’m no fan of Bernanke, but I think a recent statement of his is significant: “But high rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets, and the broader economy. Therefore, doing what we can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in the interest of lenders and borrowers. It’s in everybody’s interest.”
May 5, 2008 Bernanke Speech