foreclosure investing

HTML clipboard

Richard Green:

Is housing the best way for low-income people to build wealth?, by Richard Green:
I was thrilled to be invited to the Future of Housing Finance conference held at
the Treasury Department and co-sponsored by HUD this week. It was particularly
nice to be seated next to Self-Help's Martin Eakes, whom I have admired for some
time. Like Elizabeth Warren, Eakes long ago had insights into sub-prime lending
that I wish more of us had taken seriously.

At the conference, Martin worried about a conversation that emphasized the
need for robust underwriting standards for the mortgage market going forward.
The three most important standards are loan-to-value ratio, payment-to-income
ratio, and credit history. As Martin pointed out, African-Americans have less
wealth available for down-payment than others (even after controlling for
income), and have lower FICO scores than others, and therefore will be denied
access to credit at a greater rate than others if underwriting standards are
tough and uniform. Because much of the reason that African-Americans lack wealth
is because they have been systematically stripped of wealth for many
generations, policies that reduce access to credit disproportionately for
African-Americans violate fairness.

The events of the past six or seven years show that loose underwriting does
nobody any favors, either. Foreclosures are terrible things for the families who
experience them and for the communities that have large numbers of them. The
whole point of underwriting is to prevent default and foreclosure, and the
unpleasant fact is that downpayment and FICO are predictors of likelihood of
default.

In the era where almost all mortgages were self-amortizing, housing allowed
families to build wealth because mortgages were a form of forced saving. Those
who got a 20 year mortgage in 1960 owned their house free and clear in 1980;
households gained wealth not because housing was such a great investment, but
because they built equity, month after month. Housing was a particularly
attractive way for those of modest means to save, because they could live in the
very piggy bank they were building. In principle, however, these households
could have rented and taken the difference between a mortgage payment and a
rental payment and put it in another investment (a small business or the stock
market). But we know that in the absence of

nudges, people tend to save less.

Perhaps, then, the government could come at the savings issue more directly
by giving low-income people a nudge toward saving. Suppose it developed a 401(k)
type plan that matched the savings of those with below-median incomes at 2 to 1.
This would encourage savings that then could be used for a down payment or a
host of other investments (say a Vanguard index fund). This would cost taxpayers
money, but perhaps less than mortgage programs built on thin underwriting
standards. At the same time, getting people into the habit of savings could
produce other social benefits as well. I am not sure such a plan is practical,
but I think we do need to think about how we can help people who have been
denied wealth for generations how to start accumulating assets without relying
entirely on the housing finance system to do it.

We also need to ensure that when people with limited experience in such markets do participate in financial markets by buying houses, investing their savings, etc., they aren't steered toward products that are highly profitable for the originator, but not the best fit for the borrower/investor. It's my understanding that such behavior -- steering people into the wrong products -- explain part of the problems observed in subprime markets. Perhaps we need a consumer finance protection agency? And someone to lead it who understands these issues? However, it's not enough to simply provide advice about financial products. That will help, but some of this was fraud that needs to be prosecuted -- it won't stop otherwise.

HTML clipboard

Richard Green:

Is housing the best way for low-income people to build wealth?, by Richard Green:
I was thrilled to be invited to the Future of Housing Finance conference held at
the Treasury Department and co-sponsored by HUD this week. It was particularly
nice to be seated next to Self-Help's Martin Eakes, whom I have admired for some
time. Like Elizabeth Warren, Eakes long ago had insights into sub-prime lending
that I wish more of us had taken seriously.

At the conference, Martin worried about a conversation that emphasized the
need for robust underwriting standards for the mortgage market going forward.
The three most important standards are loan-to-value ratio, payment-to-income
ratio, and credit history. As Martin pointed out, African-Americans have less
wealth available for down-payment than others (even after controlling for
income), and have lower FICO scores than others, and therefore will be denied
access to credit at a greater rate than others if underwriting standards are
tough and uniform. Because much of the reason that African-Americans lack wealth
is because they have been systematically stripped of wealth for many
generations, policies that reduce access to credit disproportionately for
African-Americans violate fairness.

The events of the past six or seven years show that loose underwriting does
nobody any favors, either. Foreclosures are terrible things for the families who
experience them and for the communities that have large numbers of them. The
whole point of underwriting is to prevent default and foreclosure, and the
unpleasant fact is that downpayment and FICO are predictors of likelihood of
default.

In the era where almost all mortgages were self-amortizing, housing allowed
families to build wealth because mortgages were a form of forced saving. Those
who got a 20 year mortgage in 1960 owned their house free and clear in 1980;
households gained wealth not because housing was such a great investment, but
because they built equity, month after month. Housing was a particularly
attractive way for those of modest means to save, because they could live in the
very piggy bank they were building. In principle, however, these households
could have rented and taken the difference between a mortgage payment and a
rental payment and put it in another investment (a small business or the stock
market). But we know that in the absence of

nudges, people tend to save less.

Perhaps, then, the government could come at the savings issue more directly
by giving low-income people a nudge toward saving. Suppose it developed a 401(k)
type plan that matched the savings of those with below-median incomes at 2 to 1.
This would encourage savings that then could be used for a down payment or a
host of other investments (say a Vanguard index fund). This would cost taxpayers
money, but perhaps less than mortgage programs built on thin underwriting
standards. At the same time, getting people into the habit of savings could
produce other social benefits as well. I am not sure such a plan is practical,
but I think we do need to think about how we can help people who have been
denied wealth for generations how to start accumulating assets without relying
entirely on the housing finance system to do it.

We also need to ensure that when people with limited experience in such markets do participate in financial markets by buying houses, investing their savings, etc., they aren't steered toward products that are highly profitable for the originator, but not the best fit for the borrower/investor. It's my understanding that such behavior -- steering people into the wrong products -- explain part of the problems observed in subprime markets. Perhaps we need a consumer finance protection agency? And someone to lead it who understands these issues? However, it's not enough to simply provide advice about financial products. That will help, but some of this was fraud that needs to be prosecuted -- it won't stop otherwise.

eric seiger