July 10, 2015
Friday’s Government Reports
- Federal Housing Finance Agency released its annual Guarantee Fee Report, which tracks the upward trend in single family guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 requires FHFA to submit a report to Congress annually on guarantee fees. Guarantee fees are intended to cover the costs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac incur for guaranteeing the payment of principal and interest on single-family loans they purchase from mortgage lenders. These costs include projected credit losses from borrower defaults over the life of the loans, administrative costs, and a return on capital.
- The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in conjunction with Vanderbilt University released the Family Options Study in which presents the short-term impacts of the interventions in five domains related to family well-being: (1) housing stability, (2) family preservation, (3) adult well-being,(4) child well-being, and (5) self-sufficiency.
July 10, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
July 9, 2015
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Fast on the heels of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding disparate impact Fair Housing claims, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has issued a final rule, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:
Through this final rule, HUD provides HUD program participants with an approach to more effectively and efficiently incorporate into their planning processes the duty to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act, which is title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Fair Housing Act not only prohibits discrimination but, in conjunction with other statutes, directs HUD’s program participants to take significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination. The approach to affirmatively furthering fair housing carried out by HUD program participants prior to this rule, which involved an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice and a certification that the program participant will affirmatively further fair housing, has not been as effective as originally envisioned. This rule refines the prior approach by replacing the analysis of impediments with a fair housing assessment that should better inform program participants’ planning processes with a view toward better aiding HUD program participants to fulfill this statutory obligation.
Through this rule, HUD commits to provide states, local governments, public housing agencies (PHAs), the communities they serve, and the general public, to the fullest extent possible,with local and regional data on integrated and segregated living patterns, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, the location of certain publicly supported housing, access to opportunity afforded by key community assets, and disproportionate housing needs based on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act. Through the availability of such data and available local data and knowledge, the approach provided by this rule is intended to make program participants better able to evaluate their present environment to assess fair housing issues such as segregation, conditions that restrict fair housing choice, and disparities in access to housing and opportunity, identify the factors that primarily contribute to the creation or perpetuation of fair housing issues, and establish fair housing priorities and goals. (1-2)
The tenacious hold that segregation has had over so many communities has been so difficult to address and HUD’s past attempts to do so have come up short so often. One can hope that this change in strategy from an “analysis of impediments” to “a fair housing assessment” can make incremental improvements throughout the nation.
It will be up to the next administration to really implement this rule because at first the rule just requires more planning about fair housing on the part of local communities. It is only later, when HUD evaluates their success and decides whether there will be any consequences for failure, that the rule’s effectiveness can be identified.
July 9, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Thursday’s Advocacy & Think Tank Round-Up
- Corelogic’s Home Price Index for May 2015, reports that home prices are up 6.3% compared to May of 2014 and with Mortgage rates at around 4% – leading to increased demand – areas with high demand and low supply, such as San Francisco are seeing double digit appreciation. Home prices peaked in April 2006 and are still 8.4% below peak.
- Over 1,000 members of Affordable Rental Housing A.C.T.I.O.N. signed a letter to Congress urging both houses to protect, strengthen and expand the Housing Credit and preserve Housing Bonds as it considers tax reform and tax extenders legislation. Specifically, the letter urges Congress to act quickly to approve a minimum 9 percent Housing Credit rate for new construction and substantial rehabilitation, as well as a minimum 4 percent rate for the acquisition of affordable housing.
- Furman Center’s Data Search Tool – is an online application that provides direct access to New York City data compiled by the NYU Furman Center. Visitors to the site can select from a range of variables to create customized maps, downloadable tables, and track trends over time. Variables include, among many others: Housing costs, mortgage lending, tax delinquencies, housing quality.
July 9, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
July 8, 2015
The Dense State of NYC’s Housing
NYU’s Furman Center released its State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2014. I found its discussion of urban density to be the most notable aspect of this nexcellent and data-rich annual report. The discussion on density concludes,
The renewed attractiveness of New York City since the 1970s means population will likely keep increasing, and so will population and housing density. In 2010, few other U.S. cities had any neighborhoods that matched the density experienced by the typical New Yorker. Yet, by recent historical standards, today’s density levels are not extreme. In recent years, the typical New Yorker lived in a lower-density neighborhood than the typical New Yorker in 1970, as population growth in the city since 1980 was focused in moderate-density neighborhoods. Further, while great disparities in education and crime across neighborhoods exist, these differences are not generally associated with density levels.
High density cities like New York are playing an increasingly important role in the economy as drivers of productivity and innovation. This means the accessibility of the city to new residents is important both for New Yorkers and the nation. We have demonstrated that significant numbers of new residents can be accommodated without elevating density to levels above what the city has historically experienced, and that high-density neighborhoods do not perform lower on key quality of life indicators. City officials will need to ensure that neighborhoods have sufficient infrastructure to accommodate their new residents. (20)
This last point is key: density is not a problem so long as the appropriate infrastructure is built to support it. And while current residents are concerned about the impact of local increases in density, the city as a whole benefits from the increased economic activity and cultural creativity that comes along with heightened density. The De Blasio Administration knows this. Other local elected officials should sign on to increased density along with thoughtful zoning and infrastructure policies.
As a final note, I would compare the transparent acknowledgement of the report’s financial sponsors in the front matter with the much less transparent acknowledgment found in Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies State of the Nation’s Housing 2015 report that I blogged about yesterday.
July 8, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Wednesday’s Academic Roundup
- Airbnb and the Housing Segment of the Modern ‘Sharing Economy’: Are Short-Term Rental Restrictions an Unconstitutional Taking?, Jamila Jefferson-Jones, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 42, 2015.
- The Use of Tenant Screening Reports and Tenant Blacklisting, Gerald Lebovits & Jen M. Addonizio, LEGALEase Pamphlet, New York State Bar Association (2015).
- Banks, Break-Ins, and Bad Actors in Mortgage Foreclosure, Christopher K. Odinet, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 4, 2015.
- Determinants of Mortgage Default and Consumer Credit Use: The Effects of Foreclosure Laws and Foreclosure Delays, Sewin Chan, Andrew Haughwout, Andrew T. Hayashi, & Wilbert Van der Klaauw, FRB of New York Staff Report No. 732.
- The Effect of Mortgage Payment Reduction on Default: Evidence from the Home Affordable Refinance Program, Douglas A. McManus, Jared Janowiak, Lu Ji, Kadiri Karamon & Jun Zhu, Real Estate Economics.
July 8, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
July 7, 2015
The State of the Nation’s Sustainable Housing
The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University released its The State of the Nation’s Housing 2015 report. I typically focus on the discussion of the mortgage market in this excellent annual report. Here are some of the mortgage highlights:
- mortgage delinquency rates nationwide have fallen by half since the foreclosure crisis peaked. But the remaining loans that are seriously delinquent (90 or more days past due or in foreclosure) are concentrated in relatively few neighborhoods; (6)
- According to CoreLogic, 10.8 percent of homeowners with mortgages were still underwater on their loans in the fourth quarter of 2014; (8)
- Despite rising prices, homebuying in most parts of the country remained more affordable in 2014 than at any time in the previous two decades except right after the housing crash. In 110 of the 113 largest metros for which at least 20 years of price data are available, payment-to-income ratios for the median-priced home were still below long-run averages. And in nearly a third of these metros, ratios were 20 percent or more below those averages. (22)
The Joint Center believes that “Looser mortgage lending criteria would help. Given that a substantial majority of US households desire to own homes, the challenge is not whether they have the will to become homeowners but whether they will have the means.” (6) I am not sure what to make of that statement. It seems to me that the right question is whether looser mortgage lending criteria would result in long-term housing tenure for new homeowners. In other words, looser mortgage lending criteria that result in future defaults and foreclosures are of no benefit to potential homebuyers. Too few commentators tie mortgage availability to mortgage sustainability. The Joint Center should take a lead role in making that connection.
One last comment, a repetition from my past discussions of Joint Center reports. The State of the Nation’s Housing acknowledges sources of funding for the report but does not directly identify the members of its Policy Advisory Board, which provides “principal funding” for it along with the Ford Foundation. (front matter) The Board includes companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which are directly discussed in the report. In the spirit of transparency, the Joint Center should identify all of its funders in the State of the Nation’s Housing report itself. Mainstream journalists would undoubtedly do this. I see no reason why an academic center should not.
July 7, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Update
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule webinar recording and the slides from their recent presentation about the changes to go into effect August 1st, 2015. The new Integrated Disclosures must be provided by a creditor or mortgage broker that receives an application from a consumer for a closed-end credit transaction secured by real property.
July 7, 2015 | Permalink | No Comments
