Author Archives: David Reiss

The Duty to Serve Underserved Markets

Posted on by

Riverview Homes Inc

The Federal Housing Finance Agency has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comments regarding Enterprise Duty to Serve Underserved Markets.  The “Enterprises” are Fannie and Freddie and this duty to serve is a highly contested one, with some on the right blaming it for pretty much the whole financial crisis and some on the left arguing that it is the key rationale for keeping the government involved in the mortgage market.

This debate is complicated by the fact that Fannie and Freddie are in conservatorship for the foreseeable future. Whatever one believes the duty to serve should be for the two companies if they were operating independently, one might have a different view of it while they are operating as government instrumentalities.

The Notice provides the following summary:

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) amended the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (Safety and Soundness Act) to establish a duty for the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the Enterprises) to serve three specified underserved markets—manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural markets—to increase the liquidity of mortgage investments and improve the distribution of investment capital available for mortgage financing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families in those markets. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing and seeking comments on a proposed rule that would provide Duty to Serve credit for eligible Enterprise activities that facilitate a secondary market for mortgages related to: Manufactured homes titled as real property; blanket loans for certain categories of manufactured housing communities; preserving the affordability of housing for renters and homebuyers; and housing in rural markets. The proposed rule would establish a method for evaluating and rating the Enterprises’ compliance with the Duty to Serve each underserved market.

Written comments must be received on or before March 17, 2016, so get crackin’.

Foreclosure Body Count

Posted on by

respres

Case Western’s Matt Rossman has posted Counting Casualties in Communities Hit Hardest by the Foreclosure Crisis (forthcoming in the Utah Law Review) to SSRN. The abstract reads,

Recent statistics suggest that the U.S. housing market has largely recovered from the Foreclosure Crisis. A closer look reveals that the country is composed not of one market, but of thousands of smaller, local housing markets that have experienced dramatically uneven levels of recovery. Repeated waves of home mortgage foreclosures inundated certain communities (the “Hardest Hit Communities”), causing their housing markets to break rather than bend and resulting in what amounts to a permanent transition to a lower value plateau. Homeowners in these predominantly low and middle income and/or minority communities who endured the Foreclosure Crisis lost significant equity in what is typically their principal asset. Public sector responses have largely ignored this collateral damage.

As the ten-year mark since the onset of the Foreclosure Crisis approaches, this Article argues that homeowners in the Hardest Hit Communities should be able to deduct the damage to their home values caused by the Crisis from their federal taxable income. This means overcoming the tax code’s usual normative assumption that a decline in a home’s value represents consumed wealth and, thus, is fully taxable. To do so, this Article likens the rapid, unusual and enduring plunge in home values experienced by homeowners in the Hardest Hit Communities to casualty losses – i.e. damages to personal property caused by a sudden force like a storm or a hurricane – which are deductible. The IRS and most courts have insisted this deduction is limited to physical damage. This Article carefully dissects the law and principles underlying the deduction to reveal that the physical damage requirement is overbroad and inequitable. When viewed in the larger context of other recent tax code interventions that allow those who have experienced personal financial harm due to a crisis to reduce their income tax base accordingly, home value damage in the Hardest Hit Communities actually fits comfortably within the concept of a casualty loss.

Notwithstanding its normative and equitable fit, the casualty loss deduction poses several administrative challenges in its application to the Foreclosure Crisis. This Article addresses each challenge in turn, explaining the extent to which the Treasury Department and the IRS, through administrative action and/or a careful application of case law precedent, can resolve it. The Article also identifies and grapples with the distributional reality that the casualty loss deduction, in its current form, provides a small or no return on lost home equity for a sizable number of low and middle income homeowners, which would make it a problematic method of recovery for homeowners in the Hardest Hit Communities. To make the deduction a better and more equitable fit under the circumstances, this Article identifies two, larger-scale modifications the federal government could adopt: (i) changing the method by which a casualty loss is valued for damage caused by the Foreclosure Crisis and/or (ii) lifting the floors and limits Congress has over time imposed on the deduction, as it has done for those taxpayers most heavily impacted by several recent hurricanes and droughts.

The article offers a creative response to ameliorate an aspect of the foreclosure crisis. Rossman concludes, “Once these homeowners are considered equally worthy of claiming a casualty loss, the question then shifts to how the IRS, the Treasury Department and/or Congress can best adapt and address the administrative and distributional challenges attendant to utilizing the casualty loss deduction in this context. These challenges are not insurmountable barriers, but rather issues to be carefully considered and strategically addressed.” (67)

I can certainly imagine some of those challenges, such as how to reliably identify a “permanent transition to a lower value plateau,” but articles of this type are just what we need as we try to figure out how to address housing crises of this magnitude.  While there was a big gap between the housing crises of the Great Depression and the Great Depression we can be sure that there will be another such event at some point in the 21st century.

Auld Lang Syne

Posted on by

Robert Burns Statue

To commemorate 2015, Robert Burns’ Old Lange Syne, translated into modern English, (thank you, Wikipedia!):

Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
and old lang syne?

CHORUS:
For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we’ll take a cup of kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

And surely you’ll buy your pint cup!
and surely I’ll buy mine!
And we’ll take a cup o’ kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

CHORUS

We two have run about the slopes,
and picked the daisies fine;
But we’ve wandered many a weary foot,
since auld lang syne.

CHORUS

We two have paddled in the stream,
from morning sun till dine†;
But seas between us broad have roared
since auld lang syne.

CHORUS

And there’s a hand my trusty friend!
And give me a hand o’ thine!
And we’ll take a right good-will draught,
for auld lang syne.

P2P, Mortgage Market Messiah?

Posted on by

Monty Python's Life of Brian

As this is my last post of 2015, let me make a prediction about the 2016 mortgage market. Money’s Edge quoted me in Can P2P Lending Revive the Home Mortgage Market? It opens,

You just got turned down for a home mortgage – join the club. At one point the Mortgage Bankers Association estimated that about half of all applications were given the thumbs down. That was in the darkest housing days of 2008 but many still whisper that rejections remain plentiful as tougher qualifying rules – requiring more proof of income – stymie a lot of would be buyers.

And then there are the many millions who may not apply at all, out of fear of rejection.

Here’s the money question: is new-style P2P lending the solution for these would-be homeowners?

The question is easy, the answers are harder.

CPA Ravi Ramnarain pinpoints what’s going on: “Although it is well documented that banks and traditional mortgage lenders are extremely risk-averse in offering the average consumer an opportunity for a home loan, one must also consider that the recent Great Recession is still very fresh in the minds of a lot of people. Thus the fact that banks and traditional lenders are requiring regular customers to provide impeccable credit scores, low debt-to-income (DTI) ratios, and, in many cases, 20 percent down payments is not surprising. Person-to-person lending does indeed provide these potential customers with an alternate avenue to realize the ultimate dream of owning a home.”

Read that again: the CPA is saying that for some on whom traditional mortgage doors slammed shut there may be hope in the P2P, non-traditional route.

Meantime, David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law, sounded a downer note: “I am pretty skeptical of the ability of P2P lending to bring lots of new capital to residential real estate market in the short term. As opposed to sharing economy leaders Uber and Airbnb which ignore and fight local and state regulation of their businesses, residential lending is heavily regulated by the federal government. It is hard to imagine that an innovative and large stream of capital can just flow into this market without complying with the many, many federal regulations that govern residential mortgage lending. These regulations will increase costs and slow the rate of growth of such a new stream of capital. That being said, as the P2P industry matures, it may figure out a cost-effective way down the line to compete with traditional lenders.”

From the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to Fannie and Freddie, even the U.S. Treasury and the FDIC, a lot of federal fingers wrap around traditional mortgages. Much of it is well intended – the aims are heightened consumer protections while also controlling losses from defaults and foreclosures – but an upshot is a marketplace that is slow to embrace change.

Craziest Real Estate Windfalls

Posted on by

"Le Voyage dans la lune" by Georges Méliès - Roger-Viollet

Realtor.com quoted me in A Brief History of Crazy Real Estate Windfalls. It opens,

Real estate is one of those things where it’s hard to differentiate between a once-in-a-lifetime deal or an epic bomb without the benefit of hindsight. Want proof? Let’s take an invigorating jog down memory lane and view a few of the land swaps that are considered the most lopsided in history—windfalls for one side, colossal blunders on the other. Let’s crack open the history books!

Proof that Portugal needs better maps

The historical highlights: In the 15th century for the Treaty of Tordesillas, global superpowers Portugal and Spain sat down with a map of the world (as they knew it in the 1400s) and drew a line down the middle. Portugal got everything on the left, Spain on the right. Even Steven, right? Not quite. Once they decided to actually look at their new “empire,” Portugal found it basically had nothing (well, besides Brazil), while Spain had pretty much the entire world (you know, Europe, Asia, Russia…).

It taught Portugal a harsh lesson: Approaching land deals the way the kids in “Family Circus” deal with sharing toys is not a viable global expansion strategy.

Real estate update: Granted, Portugal botched this deal at the table, but it’s not quite as bad as it sounds. According to David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and research director for the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship, the treaty was “heavily modified afterward” to give Portugal more land to the west, including control over most of the Indian Ocean.

Still, in the end, no one won: Both empires eventually shrank back to the size you see today. If Spain won anything, it’s the language war: Most of Central America speaks Spanish, while only Brazil parlays in Portuguese.

America goes through a major growth spurt

The historical highlights: In 1803, America made its historic Louisiana purchase, buying 828,000 square miles of land from France for $15 million—roughly the catering budget of an “Avengers” flick today. That territory gave the fledgling nation a hell of a growth spurt, adding land that would become 15 Midwestern states from Arkansas to, of course, Louisiana.

Real estate update: It was a lot of land, and it cost a lot at the time. But it was totally worth it. “You got New Orleans, so right there it was a good deal,” says Reiss. “If you look at the home sales in New Orleans today, $15 million is the price of just the top four most expensive houses combined.”

The Alaskan ‘oil rush’

The historical highlights: In 1856, Russia negotiated with U.S. Secretary of State William Seward to sell Alaska for about 2 cents per acre, or $7.2 million. The purchase was derided, and the American people quickly dubbed Alaska “Seward’s Folly.”

Real estate update: Most people think that the measly $7 mill we spent on Alaska is pocket change compared to the gushing vats of cash funneling into the U.S. through the Alaska oil pipeline, right? Not exactly.

“We think of Alaska and its pipeline, and we think it’s a great deal,” says Reiss. “But economists have deduced that the pipeline earns the government less than it costs to govern Alaska, so it’s a net loss. Calling it ‘Seward’s Folly’ makes sense.”

$24 for … Manhattan?

The historical highlights: It’s one of the oldest stories in our history—Savvy Dutch settlers, preying on the naiveté of the Canarsie Indians, bought all of what would become Manhattan for $24, less than the price of a sweater from a Times Square Forever 21.

Real estate update: True, New York City is estimated to be worth $802.4 billion today, and Manhattan is its busiest hub. However, before you express outrage about those poor Indians, consider this: It was the Dutch who got conned. You see, the Canarsie Indians who brokered the deal didn’t live in Manhattan. Sure, they’d hop over there to party with the Manhattoes tribe, but it wasn’t their home and they certainly had no right to sell.

“The common story is that the Europeans swindled the natives,” says Reiss. “But it does look like the other way around.” (The Manhattoes, however, are another story.)

*     *     *

Man sells the moon

The historical highlights: In 1967, the United Nation Outer Space Treaty stated in regard to our moon: “No nation by appropriation shall have sovereignty or control over any of the satellite bodies.” In 1980, a Nevada resident named Dennis Hope came to the conclusion that the treaty forbade nations from owning the moon but not individuals. So he wrote a letter to the U.N. saying he was taking ownership and that it should contact him if it had any issue with that. The U.N. did not respond, and he’s been selling moon acreage ever since. Hope claims to have sold over 600 million acres, with the largest going for over $13 million.

Real estate update: If he really has those checks in hand, then Hope is a genius and this is indeed a very lopsided deal—he’s selling uninhabited land that will be completely inaccessible in the lifetimes of the buyers. Not that we should necessarily applaud him for it.

At worst, “I’d classify him as a huckster,” says Reiss. “And it appears his interpretation of the law is incorrect. The fact that the government hasn’t responded to his letter doesn’t give him rights to the land.” So, even if he does have all that money, it could get him in a whole lot of trouble.

Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning in NYC

Posted on by

"East New York" by MMZach

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer issued an analysis of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing and the East New York Rezoning. It opens,

In an effort to address the City’s ongoing affordable housing crisis, the New York City Planning Commission is currently proposing a series of zoning changes, including Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) and Zoning for Quality  and Affordability (ZQA), for potential application in communities across the city. One neighborhood targeted for significant redevelopment is the East New York/Cypress Hill area of Brooklyn. While many Community Boards have already expressed a variety of concerns about the proposed rezonings, the ultimate question comes down to this: does the proposal help or hurt the existing affordability crisis — in East New York and across the five boroughs? (1)

The analysis concludes that “the City’s own data shows that the current plan could inadvertently displace tens of thousands of families in East New York, the vast majority of whom will be unable to afford the relatively small number of new units that will be built.” (1)

In place of the Mayor’s plan, the Comptroller proposes the following principles, among others:

  • target density to sites primed for affordable housing
  • ensure affordability for existing, low-income residents

While the Comptroller is right to highlight the impact of zoning changes on existing residents, his principles do not seem to lead to a better result for a city starved of new housing. Targeting density to sites primed for affordable housing will result in many fewer housing units because it applies to far fewer parcels. Ensuring affordability for existing, low-income residents will mean that subsidy dollars will have to be concentrated on fewer units of affordable housing.

This debate between the Mayor and the Comptroller highlights two key issues. First, every plan to increase affordable housing has winners and losers. Second, affordable housing policies almost always have to choose between providing moderate subsidies to many units or deep subsidies to fewer units. While the Comptroller’s analysis highlights those tensions in the Mayor’s plan, it does not acknowledge them within its own. There are no easy answers here and those who are truly committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing in NYC must make sure not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

What Makes NYC Crowded

Posted on by

"Manhattan from Weehawken, NJ" by Dmitry Avdeev

NewsDocVoices quoted me in What Makes NYC Become More and More Crowded. It reads, in part,

Yuqiao Cen, a graduate engineering student at NYU, makes sure to shower before 10pm every night, otherwise she is criticized for making too much noise in her apartment. She lives with her landlord and his family of five in a 3-bedroom apartment on 11th Avenue in Brooklyn.

Similar to Cen, Yanjun Wu, a newly admitted graduate student at Fordham University, barely stays in his living room because she feels uneasy wearing pajamas while her male roommates are around. She lives with 4 roommates in a 4-bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side.

Cen and Wu are not the only ones forced to share an apartment. Many of their classmates and friends living in New York are also doing the same thing. In fact, a recent study conducted by the New York City Comptroller Office suggested that NYC has become much more crowded in the past 10 years with the crowding rate being more than two and a half times the national average.

The study “Hidden Households” was conducted by Scott Stringer, New York City Comptroller, highlighting the growing crowding rate in housing in NYC. According to the study, New York City’s crowding rate has rose from 7.6 percent in 2005 to 8.8 percent in 2013. The number of crowded housing units grew from 228,925 in 2005 to 272,533 in 2013, representing an increase of 19 percent.

The increase in the crowding rate is city-wide. The Comptroller’s study indicates that the proportion of crowded dwelling units increased in all of the five boroughs except Staten Island during this time period. Brooklyn has the largest increase with 28.1 percent, Queens has 12.5 percent and 12.3 percent in the Bronx.

*     *     *

“Fundamentally, this is a story about supply and demand,” said David Reiss, professor of Law in Brooklyn Law School, and research director of Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship. “The increase of the housing supply has been very slow, while the increase of the population was very fast, and that is the recipe for crowding. Because people can’t afford to live where they want to live, their choices would be continuing to live where they want to live and be crowded, or to switch to location with more space for your dollar.”

The data confirm Reiss’s observation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, NYC’s population in 2013 was 8.43 million, increasing from t8.2 million in 2005. However, the 2014 Housing Supply Report, conducted by New York City Rent Guidelines Board, also indicates that the number of permits issued for new construction of residential units had reached its peak – 34,000 in 2008, but the number decreased greatly to 6,000 in 2009. Although the number kept gradually going up, and reached to 18,000 in 2013, the market is no longer as hot as before the financial crisis of 2008.

Contrary to common belief, income does not in itself drive crowding. Although “Hidden Households” shows that 23.6 percent of crowded households reported household incomes in the City’s bottom quartile, it also revealed that 18.5 percent of crowded households have incomes in the City’s top quartile and 5.2 percent of crowded households have incomes in the 90th percentile or higher.

In the beginning of apartment hunting, Wu and her roommates wanted to rent a five-bedroom apartment so that everyone could have their own private space. “The market is too busy in New York,” said Wu. “Once we were going to pay the [lease] for an apartment on Roosevelt Island, but someone was ahead of us by just a few minutes.”

After weeks of apartment hunting, Wu and her roommates decided to make a compromise – two of them would have to share a bedroom, in order to get a decent apartment at an acceptable price – $4,900 per month, with neither an elevator nor a laundry room.

“Land is very expensive, and there is not much left for residential development but a tremendous number of people want to live in New York,” said Albert Goldson, Executive Director of Indo-Brazilian Associates LLC, A NYC-based global advisory firm. “Real estate prices started to go up, so you have people who are middle class or who have modest salaries who can no longer afford [to pay a] mortgage. And what many of them would have done, either single people or a family, was ‘double up’. Like single people who bring in a roommate, now have several roommates in a unit.”

Most experts in the urban planning industry believe that the underlying cause of the growing crowding rate is the affordability of housing. Goldson argues that the city needs to be more available for middle-class people who are actually working here and potentially leaving the city if it is too small or uncomfortable to live here anymore.

From Reiss’ perspective, the way to solve affordability of housing is to amend its zoning code to encourage the construction of housing. Vertical construction is a trend and a solution to the crowding situation. But in the meantime, with more people living in taller buildings, the density would definitely increase. “If the city is really committed to increasing the affordability of housing, you have to be committed to increase the housing density as well,” said Reiss.