RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 


Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting

Subprime or Bubble: What's the Bigger Problem?

The media somehow still cannot see the housing bubble even as it collapses in front of their face. The NYT has an article today reporting on race and gender discrimination in the issuance of mortgages in the context of a rash of foreclosures in inner city Baltimore neighborhoods. It only notes in passing that the price of homes in the neighborhood in question "nearly doubled since 2004."

If the homebuyer who is the central figure in the article were able to pay the 2004 price for the home that she purchased in 2006, then she would not have faced any difficulty paying her mortgage even at reset rate on her subprime adjustable rate mortgage. Of course, if she only had to borrow half as much money to buy her home then she would have been far more likely to qualify for a prime mortgage.

The mortgage industry deserves to be held accountable for the abuses in the subprime market, but it was incredibly irresponsible for the government to have policies that pushed moderate income people to buy houses at bubble inflated prices. The media were also incredibly negligent in failing to recognize this situation while it was taking place. It is ungodly incompetence for them still not to be able to recognize this situation after the fact.

--Dean Baker



COMMENTS

Dean, I've followed housing since early 2005 from Central Florida and have written about the approaching storm for a newspaper here. You were one of the first people warning about it and I've read you ever since.
I would like to see your analysis of how severe the correction/recession/depression (!) in 2008-2009 may end up being. And which areas will be hit hardest. That's a loaded quetion, but one can always ask.

The collapse of the bubble is much more a problem than the subprime mortgages. People who took out subprime mortgages in 2002 and refinanced to a fixed rate mortgage in 2004 (which they could do in bubbly markets because the appreciation gave them sufficient equity) are fine. People who took out the same subprime mortgages in 2004 or 2005 got caught in the collapse of the bubble. They couldn't refinance before the interest rate re-set.

Peon,

actually, the real tragedy is that many people took subprime mortgages in 2003 and 2004 and refinanced into ARMs in 2005 and 2006. These folks are at the forefront of those losing their homes now.

I hesitate to state the obvious, but even if folks can manage the mortgage payments on a house bought at the peak of the bubble, many will walk away from an upside down mortgage in order to rent and then buy later when prices have declined.

There was a good reason for downpayments.

Good piece on the real estate bubble in the current Harper's by Eric Janzsen. Many interesting points and an insightful analysis. He posits that 'alternative energy' is poised to be the next bubble..

I think a major cause of the housing bubble is devolution of authority to the Fed, which apparently did not use the powers it was given:

"Members of the Senate Banking Committee said the Fed had power to regulate risky lending practices but did not use it even as exotic mortgages for buyers with checkered credit helped drive up housing prices across the country." (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003631648_loansknown23.html).
Of course, it is Congress which determines the powers of the Fed. If you give discretion to people who are known to be laissez-faire extremists the outcome is predictable. Increasing reliance on the Fed, lionization of the Fed Chairmen and exaltation of monetary policy are all objectives of modern movement conservatism. It is puzzling to me why many centrist and liberal economists go along with these things.
Here's an interesting sidelight I came across:
"The [Tax Reform Act of 1986] increased the demand for mortgage debt because it prohibited the deduction of interest on consumer loans, yet allowed interest deductions on mortgages for a primary residence as well as one additional home. This made even high-cost mortgage debt cheaper than consumer debt for many homeowners." (http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/ChomPennCross.pdf).
The impact of tax laws regarding interest-rate deductions and capital-gains exemptions on the prevalence of flipping should be carefully considered. Paul Krugman has called attention to the very high price-to-rent ratio, which may be in part a result of high levels of speculation (flipping).

I'm much less concerned with the down payment issue than most people. In California the vast majority of first-time homebuyers don't make significant down payments, and those who do took a loan from the Bank of Mom and Dad. Indeed California has a series of programs that provide down payment assistance to first-time buyers. (The state thereby steps into the position of parents for those who don't have rich ones.)

Most people who buy homes through these programs don't default, even though it may be some years before they have significant equity. The house didn't cost 10 times their income, they didn't get an exploding ARM, and the monthly cost isn't a large multiple of the cost of renting.

After subprimes, option-arms.
So, by far the BIGGEST problem we face is non-recourse mortgages.

Dean,
Asset mispricing is too easily understood as a system malperformance, so 'they' like to leave it out.
Besides bemoaning the darkness, I invite you to use the chart below for light/lightning.

On a real basis, as of mid-Sept. 2007, home prices have dropped ca. 19.5% of the difference between the peak levels in mid-Jan. 2006 and the inferred “WILL return to” levels. See last chart, updated 12/26, at
http://homepage.mac.com/ttsmyf/RD_RJShomes_PSav.html

OT: Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. DC business hours only, call often and spread it around.

Dean;

The fact is that the root cause of the housing bubble was Greenspan's super easy monetary policy

Fraud and lax oversite made the situation worse but the basic cause was super easy money. -- which was and is supported by the economic and
political mainstream with the exception of Ron Paul.


The two biggest traps that a person can get sucked into are the idea of the “American Dream” and also with keeping up with the “Joneses,” a mythical couple that have caused a great deal of pain and misery through irresponsible spending. The impulses to do these things may feel very real, but let me assure you that there is nothing rational going on with this line of thinking. The American Dream, of a big house, several cars, a white picket fence, and all the furnishings that necessarily go with it, adds up to a mountain of debt, some people are up to a half a million dollars’ worth. Failing to achieve these things leaves many with feelings of inadequacy and failure – but ask yourself: why should it? Do you really think that you are less of a person because you rent the space you live in and don’t have a lot of unnecessary stuff, compared to so many other people whose house, car, and most of their furnishings and appliances are technically owned by finance companies? Are you a lesser person upon this earth because you don’t have an obscene amount of mortgage and credit card debt? No you aren’t, nor are you a lesser person if you have fallen victim to this brand of thinking. If you need the help getting your budget and financial planning back on track, seek credit repair help immediately. Click to read more on Credit Repair.

Post a comment


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2009 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints