Tag Archives: housing production

Trump & Pulte’s 50-Year Mortgage

Posted on by
Reply
Concrete Crack Repair - All About Driveways

CC BY-NC 4.0 Deed https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Politico quoted me in ‘Band-Aid,’ ‘Distraction’: Experts Slam Pulte, Trump 50-Year Mortgage Idea. It opens,

The Trump administration is entertaining a potential plan for the government to back 50-year mortgages to address a housing affordability crisis.

But, in a housing market defined by low supply, industry experts warn that changes in financing are likely to be little more than a “band-aid” and a “gimmick,” while posing bigger risks to homebuyers.

“As a country, the mortgage term is not what we should be worried about. We should be focused on building more supply,” said Troy Ludtka, senior U.S. economist at SMBC Nikko Securities America.

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte posted on X Saturday that the Trump administration is working on directing government-owned housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to support 50-year home mortgages, calling the move ”a complete game changer.” President Donald Trump also posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, supporting the idea.

The proposal comes after Trump directed Pulte to leverage Fannie and Freddie to ramp up the country’s stalled housing production to bring down costs and address the estimated shortage of 4.7 million homes. But the new proposal is raising concerns about whether such a major change to the two giant mortgage financiers’ buying rules could destabilize a central strength of homeownership — the opportunity to build wealth over time.

In a series of follow-up posts over the weekend, Pulte wrote that “a 50 Year Mortgage is simply a potential weapon in a WIDE arsenal of solutions that we are developing right now. STAY TUNED!” He sounded off about other possible ideas like supporting portable mortgages, which can transfer to a new property, and assumable mortgages, which can be transferred to a property’s new buyer.

An FHFA spokesperson told POLITICO, “We continue to evaluate all options to address housing affordability, including studying how to make mortgages assumable or portable.”

And a White House spokesperson said in a statement, “President Trump is always exploring new ways to improve housing affordability for everyday Americans. Any official policy changes will be announced by the White House.”

Experts expect that extending the potential length of Fannie- and Freddie-supported home loans would require congressional support.

Fannie and Freddie don’t offer loans directly to potential homebuyers; instead, they purchase mortgages from lenders to package and sell on the secondary market. This frees up resources for lenders to issue new mortgages.

By purchasing 50-year mortgages, Fannie and Freddie could make the longer-term loans more appealing for lenders to offer. With a longer loan, monthly payments could come down, but it also comes at a cost to homebuyers.

“It would lead to buyers building equity in their homes more slowly. At the beginning of the mortgage, more of those payments tend to be interest… This is more of a stopgap band-aid to address affordability,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, head of US rates strategy at TD Securities.

Sharon Cornelissen, director of housing at the Consumer Federation of America, called the proposal “a distraction” and warned that although expanding the accessibility of 50-year mortgages could lower monthly payments, “the cost of that is that people won’t be able to build wealth through homeownership.”

And as first-time homebuyers get older, the 50-year mortgage appears less manageable, Cornelissen said. Last week, the National Association of Realtors shared findings that the median age of first-time homebuyers had risen to an all-time high of 40.

“So you’ll be 90,” Cornelissen said, adding that finishing payment on a 30-year mortgage is a “stabilizing force” for people going into retirement.

David Reiss, a Cornell Law School professor and real estate finance researcher, said a move toward 50-year mortgages would require homebuyers to rethink how they save for retirement.

“We often hear financial advice that you want to try to pay off your mortgage before the time that you retire,” Reiss said. “So that’s a problem.”

New Housing and Displacement

Posted on by

Lsanburn

The Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley has issued a research brief, Housing Production, Filtering and Displacement: Untangling the Relationships. It opens,

Debate over the relative importance of subsidized and market-rate housing production in alleviating the current housing crisis continues to preoccupy policymakers, developers, and advocates. This research brief adds to the discussion by providing a nuanced analysis of the relationship between housing production, affordability, and displacement in the San Francisco Bay Area, finding that:

• At the regional level, both market-rate and subsidized housing reduce displacement pressures, but subsidized housing has over double the impact of market-rate units.

• Market-rate production is associated with higher housing cost burden for low-income households, but lower median rents in subsequent decades.

• At the local, block group level in San Francisco, neither market-rate nor subsidized housing production has the protective power they do at the regional scale, likely due to the extreme mismatch between demand and supply.

Although more detailed analysis is needed to clarify the complex relationship between development, affordability, and displacement at the local scale, this research implies the importance of not only increasing production of subsidized and market-rate housing in California’s coastal communities, but also investing in the preservation of housing affordability and stabilizing vulnerable communities. (1)

This brief takes on an important subject — the relationship between new housing and displacement — and concludes,

There is no denying the desperate need for housing in California’s coastal communities and similar housing markets around the U.S. Yet, while places like the Bay Area are suffering from ballooning housing prices that are affecting people at all income levels, the development of market-rate housing may not be the most effective tool to prevent the displacement of low-income residents from their neighborhoods, nor to increase affordability at the neighborhood scale.

Through our analysis, we found that both market-rate and subsidized housing development can reduce displacement pressures, but subsidized housing is twice as effective as market-rate development at the regional level. It is unclear, however, if subsidized housing production can have a protective effect on the neighborhood even for those not fortunate enough to live in the subsidized units themselves.

By looking at data from the region and drilling down to local case studies, we also see that the housing market dynamics and their impact on displacement operate differently at these different scales. Further research and more detailed data would be needed to better understand the mechanisms via which housing production affects neighborhood affordability and displacement pressures. We know that other neighborhood amenities such as parks, schools, and transit have a significant impact on housing demand and neighborhood change and it will take additional research to better untangle the various processes at the local level.

In overheated markets like San Francisco, addressing the displacement crisis will require aggressive preservation strategies in addition to the development of subsidized and market-rate housing, as building alone won’t protect specific vulnerable neighborhoods and households. This does not mean that we should not continue and even accelerate building. However, to help stabilize existing communities we need to look beyond housing development alone to strategies that protect tenants and help them stay in their homes. (10-11, footnote omitted)

The brief struggles with a paradox of housing — how come rents keep going up in neighborhoods with lots of new construction? The answer appears to be that the broad regional demand for housing in a market like the Bay Area or New York City overwhelms the local increase in housing supply. The new housing, then, just acts like a signal of gentrification in the neighborhoods in which it is located.

If I were to criticize this brief, I would say that it muddies the waters a bit as to what we need in hot markets like SF and NYC: first and foremost, far more housing units. In the absence of a major increase in supply, there will be intense market pressure to increase rents or convert units to condominiums. Local governments will have a really hard time overcoming that pressure and may just watch as area median income rises along with rents. New housing may not resolve the problem of large-scale displacement, but it will be hard to address displacement without it. Preservation policies should be pursued as well, but the only long-term solution is a lot more housing.

I would also say that the brief elides over the cost of building subsidized housing when it argues that subsidized housing has twice the impact of market-rate units on displacement. The question remains — at what cost? Subsidized housing is extremely expensive, often costing six figures per unit for new housing construction. The brief does not tackle the question of how many government dollars are needed to stop the displacement of one low-income household.

My bottom line: this brief begins to untangle the relationship between housing production and displacement, but there is more work to be done on this topic.

Inclusionary Housing: Fact and Fiction

Posted on by

photo by Bart Everson

The Center for Housing Policy has issued a policy brief, Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs. I am not sure fact was fully separated from fiction when I finished reading it.  It opens,

Inclusionary housing programs generally refer to city and county planning ordinances that require or incentivize developers to build below-market-rate homes (affordable homes) as part of the process of developing market-rate housing developments. More than 500 local jurisdictions in the United States have implemented inclusionary housing policies, and inclusionary requirements have been adopted in a wide variety of places—big cities, suburban communities and small towns.

Despite the proliferation of inclusionary housing programs, the approach continues to draw criticism. There have been legal challenges around inclusionary housing requirements in California, Illinois, Idaho, Colorado and Wisconsin, among others. In addition to legal questions, critics have claimed inclusionary housing policies are not effective at producing affordable housing and have negative impacts on local housing markets.

While there have been numerous studies on inclusionary housing, they unfortunately do not provide conclusive evidence about the overall effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs. These studies vary substantially in terms of their research approaches and quality. In addition, it is difficult to generalize the findings from the existing research because researchers have examined policies in only a handful of places and at particular points in time when economic and housing market conditions might have been quite different. Given these limitations, however, the most highly regarded empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases in market-rate prices. However, the effectiveness of an inclusionary housing program depends critically on local economic and housing market characteristics, as well as specific elements of the program’s design and implementation. (1, endnotes omitted and emphasis in the original)

The brief concludes that, in general, ” mandatory programs in strong housing markets that have predictable rules, well-designed cost offsets, and flexible compliance alternatives tend to be the most effective types of inclusionary housing programs.” (11, emphasis removed)

I have to say that this research brief does not give me a great deal of confidence that mandatory inclusionary zoning programs are going to be all that effective.  Indeed, the conclusion suggests that many ducks need to line up before we can count on them to make a real dent in affordable housing production. While this by no means should imply that they should be curtailed, we should continue to evaluate them carefully to see if they live up to their promise.