- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Staff Report, Determinants of Mortgage Default and Consumer Credit Use: The Effects of Foreclosure Laws and Foreclosure Delays, examines the interconnectedness of debt repayment decisions – specifically finding that mortgage default is negatively correlated with credit card and car loan defaults, unless foreclosure is delayed, in which case default rates increase across the board.
- Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies’ Remodeling Futures Program recently released its Leading Indicator of Remodeling Activity (LIRA) index which predicts annual spending growth for home improvements will accelerate to 4.0% by the first quarter of 2016.
- According to the National Association of Realtor’s recently released June Existing Home Sales data, sales are now at their highest pace since February 2007 (5.79 million), have increased year-over-year for nine consecutive months and are 9.6 percent above a year ago (5.01 million).
- The National Low Income Housing Coalition has compiled a helpful overview of the new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule, which was released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on July 8th. This document compares the old AFFH rule to the new AFFH rule and finds it makes modest yet positive steps toward encouraging more integrated communities.
- The Urban Institute’s Are You Rent Burdened? Is an interactive calculator the allows one to imput address, income and rental amount to determine whether one is rent burdened.
Tag Archives: Urban Institute
The Housing/Income Affordability Gap
The Urban Institute has issued a policy brief, The Housing Affordability Gap for Extremely Low-Income Renters in 2013. The brief opens,
Since 2000, rents have risen while the number of renters who need low-priced housing has increased. These two pressures make finding affordable housing even tougher for very poor households in America. Nationwide, only 28 adequate and affordable units are available for every 100 renter households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income. Not a single county in the United States has enough affordable housing for all its extremely low-income (ELI) renters. The number of affordable rental homes for every 100 ELI renters ranges from 7 in Osceola County, Florida, to 76 in Worcester County, Maryland.
* * *
This brief is the first publication on housing affordability to combine detailed county-level data on ELI renter households (those with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median) and the impact of US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rental assistance. Its four key findings:
- Supply is not keeping up with demand. Between 2000 and 2013, the number of ELI renter households increased 38 percent, from 8.2 million to 11.3 million. At the same time, the supply of adequate, affordable, and available rental homes for these households increased only 7 percent, from 3.0 million to 3.2 million.
- The gap between ELI renter households and suitable units is widening over time. From 2000 to 2013, the number of adequate, affordable, and available rental units for every 100 ELI renter households nationwide declined from 37 to 28.
- Extremely low-income renters increasingly depend on HUD programs for housing. More than 80 percent of adequate, affordable, and available homes for ELI renter households are HUD-assisted, up from 57 percent in 2000.
- The supply of adequate, affordable, and available units varies widely across the country. Among the 100 largest US counties, Suffolk County, which includes Boston, comes closest to meeting its area’s need, with 51 units per 100 ELI renter households.Denton County, part of the Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area, has the largest housing gap,with only 8 units per 100 ELI renters. Rust Belt areas (e.g., Detroit, MI; Chicago,IL, and Milwaukee, WI) have seen large declines in adequate, affordable, and available units. Most counties had fewer units available in 2013 than 2000. Notable exceptions to this trend include Suffolk, MA; Los Angeles, CA; and Miami, FL, which have expanded their number of available units since 2000. (1-2, footnote omitted)
The brief concludes, “Simply put, virtually no affordable housing units would be available to ELI households absent the continued investment in federally assisted rental housing.” (14)
This is an affordable housing story, but it is just as much an income story — low-income households are getting left behind in the race between rising income and expenses. One solution is to expand housing assistance for low-income families. Another is to increase income, one way or another. The bottom line, though, is that low-income households don’t have enough to make a go of it in these United States.
The Silent Housing Crisis
J. Ronald Terwilliger
The J. Ronald Terwilliger Foundation for Housing America’s Families, a new entity, has issued its first white paper on the Silent Housing Crisis: A Snapshot of Current and Future Conditions. The paper covers some of the same ground as another recent Urban Institute report that I had recently blogged about (and, indeed, it is informed by the work of those UI researchers, as can be seen in the endnotes), but it raises some interesting issues of its own.
The white paper opens with a quotation from President Truman’s Statement upon signing the Housing Act of 1949, which
establishes as a national objective the achievement as soon as feasible of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family, and sets forth the policies to be followed in advancing toward that goal. These policies are thoroughly consistent with American ideals and traditions. They recognize and preserve local responsibility, and the primary role of private enterprise, in meeting the Nation’s housing needs. But they also recognize clearly the necessity for appropriate Federal aid to supplement the resources of communities and private enterprise. (3)
The white paper argues that the United States
is unprepared for the tremendous challenges that a rapidly expanding renter population will pose to the already strained housing system. Absent a comprehensive and sustained policy response, it is likely that rental cost burdens will only grow in intensity and scope, undermining the stability and dampening the hopes of millions of American families. These conditions, in turn, will exacerbate income inequality, diminish the prospects of social mobility for countless individuals, make us less competitive in the global marketplace, and ultimately hinder America’s economic growth. (6)
While the white paper has a lot to offer in diagnosing problems in the American housing sector, I was surprised to find that it failed to discuss the role of restrictive zoning in increasing the cost of housing, particularly in the vibrant communities that are the main engines of job creation. Any serious effort to address the lack of decent and affordable housing has to tackle the problem of restrictive zoning.
The Terwilliger Foundation was founded in 2014 and “seeks to recalibrate federal housing policy so that it more effectively addresses our nation’s critical affordable housing challenges and meets the housing needs of future generations. The Foundation will offer a set of practical suggestions for tax, spending, and mortgage finance reform that is responsive to the ongoing crisis in housing and the profound demographic changes now transforming America. ” (2) It is good to have another voice in the mix on these important issues. The foundation’s namesake is the Chairman of Terwilliger Pappas Multifamily Properties and is the Chairman Emeritus of Trammell Crow Residential Company, the largest multifamily developer in the U.S. for many years.
Homeowners Heading to Pottersville?
Mr. Potter from It’s A Wonderful Life
The Urban Institute has issued a report, Headship and Homeownership: What Does The Future Hold? The report opens,
Homeownership rates averaged around 64 percent until about 1990, when they began to climb dramatically, reaching 67.3 percent in 2006. The housing crisis that began in 2007 and the ensuing recession, from which the US economy is recovering slowly, resulted in a fall in the homeownership rate to 63.6 percent, according to the latest ACS numbers. Such a trajectory has generated important questions about the future of homeownership at all ages. The issues with young adults seem particularly acute. Will young adults want to own houses? Even if they do, will they be able to afford homeownership? The answers to these questions are still unclear, especially because millennials are not just slower to start their own households and purchase homes: they also are more likely to live in their parents’ homes than any generation in recent history. The rapidly changing racial and ethnic composition of the population also has profound implications for household formation and homeownership.
In this report, we dive deeply into the pace of household formation and homeownership attainment—nationally and by age groups and race/ethnicity over the past quarter-century—and project future trends. Considering the great uncertainty about household formation and homeownership, single-point forecasts of homeownership rates and housing demand could seriously mislead policymakers and obscure the potential implications of their decisions. Instead, we offer plausible competing scenarios for household formation and homeownership that generate a range of future national housing demand projections. (1)
I am not in a position to evaluate how well the report projects future trends, but some of its conclusions are worth considering together:
- the homeownership rate will decline from 65.1 percent in 2010 to 61.3 percent in 2030; (46)
- the rapid growth of the renter population will create significant demand for new rental housing construction and encourage shifting of owner-occupied dwellings to rentals; (47)
- very tight credit availability standards will retard homeownership attainment and may exacerbate the growing shortage in rental housing; (48) and
- the erosion of black homeownership needs to be addressed by more than mortgage policy. (48)
Taken together, these conclusions all point to a backsliding in the housing market: the American Dream disappearing for millions of Americans, particularly African Americans, who will end up living in overcrowded Pottersvilles straight out of It’s A Wonderful Life. Just like George Bailey, we have choices to make before that nightmare becomes a reality. But before we decide anything too hastily, we should consider the fundamental goals of housing policy.
I have argued that a “fundamental goal of housing policy is to assist Americans to live in a safe, well-maintained and affordable housing unit.” I am less convinced than most housing scholars that homeownership, given the state of today’s economy, is such a sure road to stable housing and financial well-being. So, instead of blindly focusing on increasing the homeownership rate, I would focus on increasing opportunities for sustainable homeownership. I believe the report’s authors would agree with this, but I think that housing scholars in general need to focus on policies that keep households in their housing, given how much income instability they now face.
Be Careful What You Wish For GSEs
Jim Parrott and Mark Zandi have released a report, Privatizing Fannie and Freddie: Be Careful What You Ask For. The authors go through a very useful exercise in which they break down the cost of reprivatizing. The report opens,
Few are happy with the current housing finance system that has Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in conservatorship and taxpayers backing most of the nation’s residential mortgage loans. Yet legislative efforts to replace the system have largely faltered, raising concern that we may not have the political will or competence to replace it any time soon.
This has created an opening for those who contend that we should not replace the system at all, but simply recapitalize the government-sponsored enterprises and release them from conservatorship. Fannie and Freddie were remarkably profitable prior to the financial crisis, after all, and have been consistently in the black recently. Why embark on the laborious, risky and now stalled process of fundamental reform when we can simply return to a model that we know can provide steady access to affordable, long-term fixed-rate lending?
While we both have serious concerns with the wisdom of releasing the duopoly back into the market, we thought it useful to set those concerns aside for the moment to explore the economics of the move. The discussion often takes for granted that this path would take us back to the world precrisis, but economic conditions and the regulatory environment have changed in ways that would significantly affect how Fannie and Freddie would function as reprivatized institutions. (2)
Parrott and Zandi conclude that
The debate over whether to recapitalize and release the GSEs into the private market is often framed as a choice of whether or not to return to a prior period in lending. For all its shortcomings, the argument goes, at least we know what to expect in the cost and availability of mortgage credit. But this is a misconception. In releasing the GSEs into the private market again, we would release them into a very different regulatory and economic environment, and they would respond, not surprisingly, by charging very different mortgage rates. (4)
I really have no argument with Parrott and Zandi’s paper, but I would note that their conclusions don’t differ so much from the pre-crisis academic papers that attempted to quantify the increase in mortgage rates that would result from privatizing the two companies — fifty basis points, give or take (see, for example, The GSE Implicit Subsidy and Value of Government Ambiguity).
I value Parrott and Zandi’s paper because it reminds us to keep pushing forward with real housing finance reform even though Congress has not yet made any progress on that front.
Thursday’s Advocacy & Think Tank Round-Up
- City lab’s analyzes why Billionaires Don’t Pay Taxes in New York, concludes that recent housing boom has been in the “ultralux” market and that the owners pay a fraction of their share due to a tax code that shifts the burden from owners to renters and from the wealthy to the poor.
- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released an analysis of federal housing subsidy programs and their effectiveness
- Corelogic’s National Foreclosure Report for March 2015 finds that while delinquency rates are down to 3.9% the percentage of mortgagees struggling to make their payments is still above pre-recession levels.
- National Association of Realtors released data showing decreased homeownership rates across regional metro areas of the U.S., analysis of this data lead to the conclusion that continued decline in homeownership means the gains are going to fewer people and likely leading to worsening inequality in the U.S.
- The Roosevelt Institute’s Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy: An Agenda for Growth and Prosperity by Joseph Stieglitz, seeks to completely revamp the rules and regulations that shape our economy, corporate behavior and the financial sector – with a view toward creating shared prosperity. Proposals related to real estate finance include, providing §11 bankruptcy protection for homeowners and creating a public option for the supply of mortgages.
- The Urban Institute released Welding a Heavy Enforcement Hammer has Unintended Consequences for FHA Mortgage Market concludes that the significant, easily triggered liability of both the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act have had a chilling effect, causing some lenders to do less origination to reduce their litigation risk.
Thursday’s Advocacy & Think Tank Round-Up
- Enterprise Community Partners issued a side by side comparison of the four housing finance reform bills currently in congress many of which seek to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- NYU’s Furman Center released its annual Report: State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2014, part I of which is a focus on density – notes that while the population has grown density is actually down.
- The Urban Institute recently released its Affordable Housing Needs Assessment for the District of Columbia in which it makes a neighborhood by neighborhood evaluation of housing need and concludes that on the whole housing costs exceed affordability for the majority of residents.
