Author Topic: Housing Crisis Explained and Questions Answered  (Read 32243 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19444
    • View Profile
Re: Housing Crisis Explained and Questions Answered
« Reply #50 on: February 11, 2013, 02:12:08 PM »
"The breakdown of the world financial system was not due to faulty rating agencies"

The work was faulty but it is just strange to single them out for missing what everyone missed.

CBO missed it the same thing that S&P missed.  SEC missed it, OMB, GAO, Fannie, Freddie, the administration, the Treasury, the Fed, the House committees, the Senate Committees, the Republican party, the Democratic party, every appraiser, every loan officer, every bank examiner, and the entire watchdog financial media all missed it.  But S&P surrounded by all nothing but misinformation and incompetence was supposed to know just when the wheels would fall off. Faulty work, but not exactly unique.

Nothing in defense of S&P's blindness and perhaps complicity, but why doesn't those same government agencies fire their own people first, who made the exact same mistakes, before they come out pointing fingers at a private organization?

S&P's job was to issue an opinion.  

Agencies controlling 90% of mortgages were responsible for running and overseeing the bad loan portfolios.

The government's response to discovering all this incompetence is to turn healthcare over to them next.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2013, 02:24:14 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Housing Crisis predicted in 2007
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2017, 07:13:06 AM »
Hat tip to our Doug:

https://web.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Onlinepaperscombinedbyyear/2007/Housing_and_Monetary_Policy.pdf

Interest rates held unjustifiably low from 2003 to 2006 along with lack of accountability for mortgage originators, what could possibly go wrong.

On the 'lessons learned' section he should have left it blank.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Wesbury: Yes there was a housing bubble, but not now
« Reply #52 on: February 24, 2020, 12:47:52 PM »


Yes, There Was a Housing Bubble, But Not Now To view this article, Click Here
Brian S. Wesbury, Chief Economist
Robert Stein, Deputy Chief Economist
Date: 2/24/2020

One of the worst bipartisan policy decisions in the past generation was the aggressive government push in the 1990s and 2000s to promote homeownership, beyond what the free market could handle. Policymakers encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to gobble up lots of subprime debt, in turn boosting lending to borrowers who couldn't handle their loans.

But now a bizarre idea is making the rounds that, looking back on it, maybe there wasn't a housing bubble at all!

The theory is that home prices are already up substantially from where they were at the prior peak during the "bubble," so maybe those "bubble" prices were not that high after all. Compared to the prior peak in 2007, the national Case-Shiller index is up 15%, while the FHFA index, which measures the prices of homes financed with conforming mortgages, is up 24%.

But a great deal has changed since the prior peak, which makes it much easier to justify the higher prices of today. To assess the "fair value" of homes, we use a Price-to-Rent (P/R) ratio, which compares the asset value of all owner-occupied homes (calculated by the Federal Reserve) to the "imputed" rental value of those homes (what owners could fetch for their homes if they rented them, as calculated by the Commerce Department). Think of it like a P/E ratio: the price of all owner-occupied homes, compared to what those same homes would earn if they were rented.

For the past 40 years, the median P/R ratio is 16.0. At the peak of the housing bubble, the ratio hit a record-high of 21.4. In other words, prices were 34% above fair value. During the housing bust, the ratio plunged to 14.1, meaning national average home prices were 12% lower than you'd expect given rents. Temporarily, that made sense: prices had to get below fair value to clear the excess inventory.

Today, the P/R ratio stands at 17.0, which means home prices are 6% above their long-term average relative to rents. That's well within the normal historical range, and no reason to sell.

Comparing home values to replacement costs shows a similar pattern. That median ratio in the past forty years has been 1.58, compared with 1.59 today (almost exactly fair value) and 1.94 at the peak in 2005 (23% above fair value).

Either way you slice it, bubble era home prices really were far in excess of what you'd expect given rents and replacement costs, while prices today look reasonable.

We expect home prices to keep moving higher, but not as fast as in the last few years. Meanwhile, the climb in average home prices will diverge at the local level. Due to the limit on state and local tax deductions, expect high tax states to show flat home prices (on average), while low-tax states experience stronger price gains.

One of the reasons we remain optimistic about economic growth in general is the continued recovery in home building.

Housing starts bottomed in 2009, when builders began just 554,000 homes, 73% below the 2.073 million pace at the peak of the housing boom in 2005. Since 2010, the number of housing starts has increased in every year, hitting 1.300 million in 2019.

Starts have been much higher in recent months due to the unusually mild winter weather throughout much of the country. And while we may see a pullback in the coming months as weather patterns return to normal, we anticipate at least a few more years of gains in home building. Given population growth and scrappage (knock downs, fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes...etc), builders have simply started too few homes since the bust. Now it looks like they need to overshoot to make up for lost time. In turn, expect new home sales to follow starts higher.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3232
    • View Profile
Re: Housing Crisis Explained and Questions Answered
« Reply #53 on: June 11, 2024, 04:57:35 AM »
Apologies for resurrecting this paleothread, but this link suggests a new root cause, specifically that the Biden admin is making funds earmarked for low income Americans to buy homes available to illegals. Nice double whammy here: illegals are snagging the low income jobs and indeed suppressing wages, and now are sponging up low income housing funds. That’s the ol’ Democratic Party, always battling. For little guy and average (non) Americans!

https://amgreatness.com/2024/06/10/will-republicans-on-the-u-s-house-financial-services-committee-force-cfpb-director-to-answer-for-mortgages-for-illegals-push/
« Last Edit: June 11, 2024, 01:51:01 PM by Body-by-Guinness »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Housing Crisis Explained and Questions Answered
« Reply #54 on: June 11, 2024, 08:58:26 AM »
Actually a doggie treat for you for perfect application of subject matter! :-D

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3232
    • View Profile
Fixing the Problem w/ What Caused It
« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2024, 10:20:25 AM »
Wow, talk about missing the point: the solution to California’s (and presumably other high cost area housing woes) are … more of the same of government interference that warped the housing market in the first place. Hey, how about this: identify all government policies and regulations that increase the costs of housing, put a five-year moratorium on them, relentlessly pillory “green” organizations whose actions increase housing costs via lawsuits and demands for impact studies, and indeed game out means of recovering costs for these often well funded groups, and generally ID parasitic cost centers and root them out.

Or we can keep doing more of the same and then further apply that principle by handing out cheap booze to alcoholics or providing burglars with lock picks and such:

California's housing crisis can't be fixed by just building more housing
The Hill News / by Michael Weinstein / Jun 22, 2024 at 8:08 AM

Fewer and fewer Angelenos are "California dreamin’." That's because two crises — housing affordability and homelessness — are destroying our way of life.

According to the latest research, there are currently more than 181,000 Californians experiencing homelessness — more than a quarter of all homeless Americans — and many are suffering on the streets of Los Angeles.

Elected officials are failing. Take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) recent budget proposal, which would remove $260 million from the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program while also cutting funds from various affordable housing programs. At the same time, we are stripping away resources from programs that would protect affordable housing and help first-time homebuyers.

There are millions of housed Californians living in poverty today. The average rent in California is $2,800 a month, and prices aren’t high just in our largest cities. The average rent in Fresno is about $1,600, which may seem cheap compared to LA until you consider that the median household income in Fresno is a little more than $57,000. 

In other words, half of the city’s population is below that level and considered “rent-burdened,” which means they pay more than 30 percent of their income in rent. If you work a full-time, minimum wage job in Fresno (let alone LA), you’ll make about $2,700 a month. That means you will pay more than half of your income in rent, leaving you struggling to buy food or even just keep the lights on.

There is general agreement about California’s severe shortage in affordable housing, but not enough progress being made. The homelessness and housing affordability crises are solvable, but the solutions lie in reversing the policies that dug this hole in the first place.

Corporate landlords own a larger share of rentals than ever before; they spend tens of millions of dollars fighting renters' rights and opposing policy fixes like rent control.

The dominance of landlord groups such as the California Apartment Association corrupts our entire political structure. Multiple Los Angeles City Council members have been indicted and jailed over pay-to-play development schemes, many of which involve luxury developments pushed in low-income, inner-city neighborhoods, even though there is currently a glut of luxury apartments.

Surprisingly, many liberals who eschewed Reagan-era “trickle-down” economics have subscribed to the false notion that if you build anything at all, it will alleviate the affordable housing crisis. But the opposite is true — when you gentrify an area by putting up luxury buildings in working-class neighborhoods, thereby making them more desirable, surrounding rents go up, not down.

Hollywood is a prime example. Luxury towers have sprouted up everywhere in the last 20 years, and yet the area’s population is dropping as Latino families are squeezed out. An area like Hollywood, with its wide, walkable boulevards and mass transit, is ideal for more dense affordable housing. But efforts to include affordable units in luxury high rises are routinely thwarted.

In order to increase the affordable housing supply in the short term, it actually needs to be affordable — both affordable to rent and affordable to supply. 

If you spend $700,000 to build an "affordable" unit, it will have to be heavily subsidized for years on end, severely limiting the number of units that can be produced in these times of local and state budget cuts.

But what if that cost could be whittled down to $100,000 a unit? 

There is only one way to do this: adaptive reuse. Only by taking LA’s existing buildings and converting them into new housing units can we create enough housing in the near future to give Californians much-needed relief. This could mean tens of thousands of new units in LA alone.

We can’t afford to leave affordable homes on the table. Deloitte estimates that up to 90 percent of future development will involve the redesign of existing buildings. LA must keep up. On average, adaptive reuse costs 16 percent less than ground-up construction while reducing construction timelines by 18 percent.

Adaptive reuse also is good for the environment, as building from scratch leaves a larger carbon footprint. We can protect the planet and our cultural heritage by finding a new use for our historic treasures. The Morrison Hotel (made famous by The Doors’ fifth album) is just one example, with plans to provide 111 housing units at a cost of barely $107,000 per unit.

Adaptive reuse is integral to addressing California’s humanitarian crisis. It is high time for new approaches that are not based on further enriching billionaire developers and filling the coffers of corrupt politicians.

The California Dream is on life support, and we can no longer tolerate failed leadership. But California is also a creative, can-do place, and it’s up to us to revive it.

Michael Weinstein is the president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the largest global HIV/AIDS organization, and AHF’s Healthy Housing Foundation.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4733190-housing-affordability-crisis-california/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19756
    • View Profile
Repeat mistakes of mortgage crises again
« Reply #56 on: June 26, 2024, 06:03:36 PM »
Didn't we already suffer enough from this policy :

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/mortgage-giant-gets-green-light-from-biden-administration-for-risky-pilot-program/ar-BB1oWDH9?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=348acf79c8f642e89907c9d72a52d498&ei=14

God darn it!    :x

just in time for the moron to announce at debate tomorrow evening with set up question from Tapper or Bashed face.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2024, 06:05:55 PM by ccp »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3232
    • View Profile
Meta Study on Rent Control
« Reply #57 on: July 10, 2024, 07:40:38 PM »
No one here will be surprised by the results, and indeed, given the unanimity of the 200+ studies surveyed it’s surprising any politician support rent control schemes. Graph geeks will groove on this moreover:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020?via%3Dihub

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19444
    • View Profile
Re: Meta Study on Rent Control
« Reply #58 on: July 11, 2024, 06:55:06 AM »
No one here will be surprised by the results, and indeed, given the unanimity of the 200+ studies surveyed it’s surprising any politician support rent control schemes. Graph geeks will groove on this moreover:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137724000020?via%3Dihub

I think rent control is on the ballot in California this year and my daughter is in grad school in Berkeley.  She has a landlord who has not raised rent while she's been there, but maybe this very clear cut issue with tons of data behind it will give her a chance to compare free markets with over-regulation - and apply what is learned there to much wider questions. Rent control has failed everywhere it has been tried no matter how you measure it.
--------
Why don't we reverse the question, put citizens in control of the government and demand dollar control. For anyone  my age, the dollar has lost 85 cents of its value just in the time we've been adults.  There ought to be a law against that.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: Housing Crisis Explained and Questions Answered
« Reply #59 on: July 11, 2024, 08:21:03 AM »
As a born and raised New Yorker, awareness of the consequences of rent control run deep.

I remember once being in the room as an attache case with $25,000 in mid '80s dollars was handed over to get a problematic tenant out.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3232
    • View Profile
Re: Housing Crisis Explained and Questions Answered
« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2024, 10:47:49 AM »
As a born and raised New Yorker, awareness of the consequences of rent control run deep.

I remember once being in the room as an attache case with $25,000 in mid '80s dollars was handed over to get a problematic tenant out.

In my mountain community as folks age or wimp out due to “winter” (uh, not by WI standards) weather, many rent their homes. Various horror stories ensue, and indeed the consensus seems to be that paying deadbeats to move out is the cheapest solution, which says far too much about the wrong turn society has taken, even in my fairly conservative neck of the woods.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3232
    • View Profile
How's This for Succinct?
« Reply #61 on: August 05, 2024, 08:21:16 AM »
The housing crisis "Progressives" don"t want to own or speak to.

Indeed, this blurb has inspired me to mull another likely element of the "Progressive" long game: while in power they can count on the MSM to downplay, obfuscate, and lie about root causes; when out of power they can count on the MSM to blame ANY hardship on those in putative power instead of their history of unstewardly stewardship. And Uniparty Repubs, being the good sports that they are, play those cards as dealt:

David Burge
@iowahawkblog

Unpopular opinion: ceteris paribus, high interest rates are good. Your parents told you to save money because they love and care about you, your government wants you to spend because they don't

Prolonged low interest rates is Reason 1 why housing is in a pickle. For 10+ years people were conditioned by low interest loans to buy houses they assumed would increase in value 10% every year forever. And when rates jumped, people with those low interest loans had zero reason to sell their property, because they'd just have to buy another property at high interest rates. And it simultaneously reducing the incentive for building new properties.
So now we have happy Boomers and Xers with 30 year 3% mortgages on McMansions, unhappy Millennials and Zoomers facing 7% rates for $800k tar paper shacks, and the wizard hat architects of this only want the unhappy to blame the whole situation on the happy.