Tag Archives: Brooklyn Law School

Who are Fannie and Freddie?

Posted on by

photo by Mark Warner

Realtor.com quoted me in What Is Fannie Mae? And Freddie Mac, for That Matter? It opens,

Whether you are shopping for a mortgage or just occasionally read financial news stories, you’ve probably heard of Fannie Mae. But what is Fannie Mae, anyway? And for that matter, what about her buddy Freddie Mac? While they may sound like a Nashville singer and standup comic, respectively, they aren’t actual people. Rather, they’re oddly cute nicknames for major forces in the mortgage market.

Fannie Mae stands for the Federal National Mortgage Association, or FNMA (FNMA becomes Fannie Mae, get it?). Fannie’s brother organization is Freddie Mac, aka the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or FHLMC. In a nutshell, these two government-sponsored enterprises—hybrids of government agencies and private corporations—help thousands of Americans get loans for homes, so it pays to familiarize yourself with what they do in more detail.

How Fannie and Freddie help homeowners

Fannie Mae was born in 1938, during the height of the Great Depression, when about 25% of Americans were defaulting on their mortgages. As part of the New Deal, the federal government created Fannie (followed by Freddie in 1970) to stimulate the housing market by making mortgages more accessible to lower-income borrowers who might not qualify otherwise. So how do they do that, exactly?

For starters, Fannie and Freddie don’t actually make loans—which is why you may have only heard about them in vague terms, since you wouldn’t approach them directly for a mortgage. Instead, these organizations purchase other lenders’ loans on the secondary market, package them (into mortgage-backed securities), and sell them to investors such as hedge funds.

By buying up banks’ loans, Fannie and Freddie essentially flood those companies with cash, which they can then turn around and lend to more home buyers. This, in turn, helps more buyers get homes who might not qualify otherwise.

“They are the behemoths of the housing finance sector, owning or guaranteeing nearly half of all the residential mortgages in the United States,” says David Reiss, professor of law and academic program director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School.

Risks and Rewards of Downsizing

Posted on by


photo by Lars Plougmann

The Deseret News quoted me in Why The Young and Old Are Embracing The Rewards of Downsizing. It reads, in part,

Not very long ago, living with less implied money problems or a lack of professional success.

No longer. From younger and middle-aged professionals to retirees, more people are embracing the rewards of “downsizing” — a term that can mean anything from ridding yourself of unnecessary possessions to opting for a less spacious home.

“Downsizing your home can make sense,” said artist and designer Pablo Solomon. “You can save on energy costs, insurance, taxes and upkeep.”

But don’t cart stuff out to the dumpster or plant the “for sale” sign in the front yard just yet. First, consider the varied ways that downsizing can streamline your life.

Home, sweet (downsized) home

One of the most ready targets for would-be downsizers is their home. Perhaps they’ve recently retired and want to retire extensive upkeep responsibilities as well. By contrast, younger people might embrace the greater simplicity that can come from a home that better matches their lifestyle.

But downsizing is not the remedy for other issues, Solomon said, that need a different — and sometimes less costly — approach: “Don’t downsize to be part of a trend or fad or to escape depression or make a ‘statement,’” he said.

Approach downsizing your home as you would any sort of housing decision. Consider space, amenities and any associated costs — only from a particularly budget-conscious perspective.

“Think about the long-term needs you will have for the next 20 to 30 years. Don’t select a place to live temporarily — the costs of moving are high and the cost of buying and selling homes is also high,” said Linda P. Jones, host of the “Be Wealthy & Smart” podcast. “Think before you make a decision and be sure about the move you are making so you won’t have to do it again.”

Another way to approach downsizing a home is what Jodi Holzband of the self-storage search website Sparefoot referred to as “rightsizing” — beginning with basic living requirements and, from there, thoughtfully adding on those features that are of genuine importance.

“Focus first on your needs — essential living items like your bed, clothing and toiletries,” she said. “Then focus on what you love or value — the touchstones of life such as pictures, memorabilia from home, vacation souvenirs, high school pennants and varsity jackets. Look to the space you have and limit what you take in this second category based on space.”

Lastly, don’t ignore possible tax consequences of moving into a smaller space. For instance, retirees who have owned a home for a long time may have acccumulated a great deal of equity. As David Reiss, a professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, noted, capital gains that exceed a certain amount (generally, $250,000 for one person, $500,000 for a married couple) are taxable. Check with a tax professional to gauge your situation.

The High Cost of Living in NOLA

Posted on by

photo by Ken Lund

Occupy.com quoted me in For Struggling Renters in New Orleans, Hope May Be Coming A Bit Late. It opens,

Twenty-four-year old Stuart Marino is a finance major at University of New Orleans with $8,000 in student loan debt and 33 credit hours until graduation. But the alternative to obtaining that diploma is worse. As statistics show, those not having a college degree are much more likely to remain poor. Marino was not fortunate enough to have been born a decade earlier. Then, tuition at UNO was half of what it is now. During Republican Governor Bobby Jindal’s term, from 2007 to 2015, tuition at Louisiana public colleges skyrocketed due to massive budget cuts.

Despite having a job, Marino says he spends more than 30 percent of his income on rent and utilities. He would not be able to cover the cost of a $1,000 medical emergency. Indeed, he has delayed getting his car fixed, something vital to reaching his job and school.

“Fixing my car would be something I would be doing with that $700,” he said, referring to the monthly rent.

Marino’s story personifies what many people here and nationwide have experienced over the last decade as rents in cities and even in urban areas of less than 1 million have soared, exacerbating income inequality while disproportionately affecting racial minorities, the less educated and millennials.

In the last year alone, rents in the U.S. have increased 3 percent, according to Apartment List. In New York City and San Francisco, the median rent has climbed to $4,500 and higher. The cost of living in these cities can be understood as the price, however astronomical, of living in one of the country’s major economic centers, where industries like finance and tech pay high salaries.

But in smaller cities such as Miami and New Orleans, both of which count on tourism as a major source of revenue, more than a third of residents devote 50 percent of their monthly income to rent and utilities, according to Make Room, a campaign by the non-profit Enterprises Inc. that aims to create more affordable housing.

Factor in stagnant wages, a low supply of multi-unit housing, and higher credit requirements post-Recession, and the number of Americans paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on rent and utilities has risen by 22 percent in the past decade. This goes against what financial experts recommend: that people spend no more than 30 percent on basic monthly costs in order to have a cushion in case of catastrophic events like a job loss or a medical emergency.

Working harder is, in most cases, not an option. According to last month’s Bureau of Labor Statistics report, the number of Americans involuntarily working part-time has reached 6 million, and is showing “little movement since November.”

The Housing Crisis in New Orleans

New Orleans has undergone many changes since Hurricane Katrina devastated the city in August 2005. And not all of them have been positive. Sociological studies show that renters are more likely to remain displaced than homeowners. In areas of the city like the Lower 9th Ward, where most residents rented, fewer have returned since Katrina than in neighborhoods where home ownership was predominant – even including those areas that flooded. For those who have returned with few economic resources, many face a long wait for housing; according to the Housing Authority of New Orleans, in September 2015 more than 13,000 people, disproportionally African-American, were still waiting for housing vouchers.

Changing the current housing reality is akin to shoring up the foundation of a home; it can be done, but not easily. “Fundamentally, building housing is costly,” David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and an expert in real estate and community development, told Occupy.com.

A free market economy incentivizes people to invest in something only in exchange for profit. That leaves the job of providing affordable housing up to government, but municipalities have moved away from programs establishing dense urban public housing.

Reiss pointed out that vertical expansion could alleviate high rents in urban areas. But many residents, particularly those in historic neighborhoods, don’t want to see large buildings built in their neighborhoods; it’s a NIMBY, or “not in my backyard,” conundrum.

Building Emergency Funds

Posted on by

Rainy Day Fund

MainStreet.com quoted me in Here’s How to Build a Sturdy Household ‘Cash Crisis’ Fund. It reads, in part,

Americans aren’t big on emergency savings funds: only four in ten U.S. adults have one, according to a 2015 study by Bankrate.

But if your Jeep Cherokee needs $1,000 worth of transmission work, or you need to cover a $6,500 health care plan deductible in a medical emergency, a household rainy day fund may be one of the best insurance policies you’ll ever own.

Before we get on the path to starting a savings fund quickly and effectively, understand first that an emergency fund and a rainy day fund are two different animals. A rainy day fund is smaller in size than an emergency fund: whereas $1,000 might form a good rainy fund, a decent-sized emergency fund should have between $3,000 and $10,000 in cash.

The key to building both, however, is similar – just get started.

“Jump start an emergency fund with a windfall like a tax refund, profit sharing check, stock sale, or an inheritance,” says Sharon Marchisello, author of the book Live Cheaply, Be Happy, Grow Wealthy.

*     *     *

Once you have accumulated a decent-sized emergency fund, don’t take the experience for granted.

Building the perfect emergency fund calls one part diligence, one part creativity, and one part patience. Put all three together and sleep easier at night as your safety net fund grows accordingly.

Buying A First Home

Posted on by

welcome-to-our-home-1205888_1920

Realtor.com quoted me in Buying Your First Home? Better Make Sure It Has These 4 Things. It opens,

Finding the perfect starter home is a journey as well as a destination. You’ve got to know what you want, then adjust expectations to meet the reality of the market. In the end, you don’t have to settle on your “forever home”—just a place you’ll call home for at least five to seven years.

But that’s a long time in homeowner years, especially if you wake up each day in a place you wind up hating.

“You want to buy something that’s going to last,” says Carol Temple, an Arlington, VA, Realtor® who loves helping newbies find their first home.

So how do you know what’s going to stand the test of (a decent amount of) time? You’ve never done this before. You’re taking a leap of faith that you have the money, skills, and temperament to maintain the biggest purchase of your life so far.

We know—it’s scary. And overwhelming. But there is a foolproof formula to picking the right starter home.

1. Manageable monthly expenses

If you’ve been renting all your adult life, you’ll be surprised by how much owning a home actually costs. There’s a mortgage, real estate taxes (usually wrapped into your mortgage), insurance premiums, utilities, and the drip-drip-drip of maintenance costs. And here’s the fun part: All these costs usually increase with time!

“New homeowners are often not aware of how expenses can add up when they own a home,” says David Reiss, who teaches real estate law at Brooklyn Law School in Brooklyn, NY.

When calculating how much you can spend on a house, figure in all these costs, and then add a little more for unexpected expenses. Like replacing LED lightbulbs at $20 a pop. Or hiring a pro to prune that gorgeous oak in the backyard. Or maybe replacing your Grand Palais range that spontaneously combusted.

Make sure your final choice truly fits your budget. Got it? That may mean buying something smaller, older, or farther out than you originally intended.

2. Low maintenance

Maintenance costs are the great unknown in homeownership—the older the house, the more it will cost to keep running. So unless you have the handyman skills and desire to fix whatever comes up, it’s better for your starter house to be newer construction (less than 10 years old).

You may even want to consider brand-new construction, which costs more but whose parts are typically covered by a warranty. Standard coverage would be a one-year warranty for labor and materials, two years’ protection for mechanical defects—plumbing, electrical, heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems—and 10 years for structural defects.

Whether you buy a new or existing home, don’t forget to hire a good home inspector to thoroughly identify potential problems.

“Even if the home buyers are handy, they may not want to be spending their time up on the roof looking for a leak or in the basement up to their knees in water,” Reiss says.

Ensuring Sustainable Homeownership

Posted on by

tornado-destruction-618718_1280

My short article, Ensuring That Homeownership Is Sustainable, was just published in the Westlaw Journal, Bank & Lender Liability. It opens,

The Federal Housing Administration has suffered as a result of many of the same unrealistic underwriting assumptions that led to problems for many lenders during the 2000s. It, too, was harmed by a housing market as bad as any since the Great Depression.

As a result, the federal government announced in 2013 that the FHA would require the first bailout in the agency’s history. While facing financial challenges, the FHA has also come under attack for the poor execution of policies designed to expand homeownership opportunities.

Leading commentators have called for the federal government to stop having the FHA do anything but provide liquidity to the low end of the mortgage market.

These critics rely on a few examples of agency programs that were clearly failures, but they do not address the FHA’s long history of undertaking comparable initiatives.

 In fact, the FHA has a history of successfully undertaking new homeownership programs. However, it also has operational flaws that should be addressed before it undertakes similar future homeownership initiatives.

INTRODUCTION TO THE FHA

Mortgage insurance is a product that is paid for by the homeowner but protects the lender if the homeowner defaults on the mortgage. The insurer pays the lender for losses it suffers from the homeowner’s default. Mortgage insurance is typically required for borrowers who have limited funds for down payments.

The FHA provides mortgage insurance for loans on single family and multifamily homes, and it is the world’s largest government mortgage insurer. Other significant providers are the Department of Veterans Affairs and private companies known as private mortgage insurers.

Mortgage insurance makes homeownership possible for many households that would otherwise not be able to meet lenders’ underwriting requirements.

Just like much of the federal housing infrastructure, the FHA has its roots in the Great Depression. The private mortgage insurance industry, like many others, was decimated in the early 1930s. Companies in the industry began to fail as almost half of all mortgages went into default. The government created the FHA to replace the PMI industry, which remained dormant for decades.

In the Great Depression, the housing markets faced problems that were similar to those faced by the same markets in the late 2000s. These problems included rapidly falling housing prices, widespread unemployment and underemployment, the rapid tightening of credit and — as a result of all of those trends — much higher default and foreclosure rates.

The FHA noted in its second annual report, issued in 1936, that the “shortcomings of the old system need no recital. It financed extensive overselling of houses at inflated values, to borrowers unable to pay for them.” Needless to say, the same could be said of our most recent housing bust.

Over its lifetime, the FHA has insured more than 40 million mortgages, helping to make homeownership available to a broad swath of American households. Indeed, the FHA mortgage has been essential to America’s transformation from a nation of renters to one of homeowners.

The early FHA created the modern American housing finance system, as well as the look and feel of post-war suburban communities through the construction standards the agency set for the new houses it insured.

The FHA has also had many other missions over the course of its existence — and a varied legacy to match.

Beginning in the 1950s, the FHA’s role changed from serving the entire mortgage market to focusing on certain segments. This changed mission had a major impact on everything the FHA did, including how it underwrote mortgage insurance and for whom it did so.

In recent years, the FHA has come under attack for poorly executing some of its attempts to expand homeownership opportunities, and leading commentators have called for the federal government to stop assigning such mandates to the agency. They argue that the FHA should focus only on providing liquidity for the portion of the mortgage market that serves low- and moderate-income households.

These critics rely on a couple of examples of failed programs, such as the Section 235 program enacted as part of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and the American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act of 2003.

Those programs required borrowers to make only tiny and sometimes even nominal down payments. The government enacted the Section 235 program in response to the riots that burned through American cities in the 1960s. It was intended to expand homeownership opportunities for low-income households, particularly black ones.

The American Dream program was also geared to increasing homeownership among lower-income and minority households. The crux of the critique of these programs is that they failed to ensure that borrowers had the capacity to repay their mortgages, leading to bad results for the FHA and borrowers alike.

Notwithstanding these failed initiatives, the FHA has a parallel history of successfully undertaking new homeownership programs. These successes include programs for veterans returning home from World War II, a mission that was later handed off to the VA.

At the same time, historically the FHA has clearly suffered from operational failures that should be addressed in the design of any future initiatives.

Unfortunately, the agency has not really grappled with its past failures as it moves beyond the financial crisis. To properly address operational failures, the FHA must first identify its goals. (6-7, footnote omitted)

The Fed’s Effect on Mortgage Rates

Posted on by
Federal Open Market Committee Meeting

Federal Open Market Committee Meeting

DepositAccounts.com quoted me in Types of Institutions in the U.S. Banking System – Investment Banks and Central Banks. It reads, in part,

Central Banks

Think of the central bank as the Grand Poobah of a country’s monetary system. In the U.S. that honor is bestowed upon the Federal Reserve. While there are other important central banks, like the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the People’s Bank of China. For now, focus stateside.

Think of the central bank as the Grand Poobah of a country’s monetary system. In the U.S. that honor is bestowed upon the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. To keep it simple, think of the Fed as having responsibility in these four areas:

  1. conducting the nation’s monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices;
  2. supervising and regulating banks and other important financial institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation’s banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers;
  3. maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
  4. providing certain financial services to the U.S. government, U.S. financial institutions, and foreign official institutions, and playing a major role in operating and overseeing the nation’s payments systems.

You need look no further than the Federal Reserve FAQs to learn more about how it is structured.

The Federal Reserve may not take your money, but be clear it has much financial impact on your life. Brooklyn Law Professor David Reiss gives one example, “The Federal Reserve can have an impact on the interest rate you pay on your mortgage. Since the financial crisis, the Fed has fostered accommodative financial conditions which kept interest rates low. It has done this a number of ways, including through its monetary policy actions. The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee sets targets for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate, in turn, influences interest rates for purchases, refinances and home equity loans.”