shame on the GOP candidates

shame on the GOP candidates

"Shame on the Republican candidates for president. Shame on them for showing up at debate specifically targeting the US economy with not one credible, rational, even reputable notion of what to do about the nation's housing mess. It baffles the mind that this sector of the economy, responsible for about 18 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, is in freefall, and yet eight potential new leaders of this nation not only don't understand the problem but don't have a clue what to do about it. My favorite, and I write this with as much sarcasm as a computer keyboard will afford, is the argument that the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill is to blame for housing's current despair. Foreclosures, falling home prices, negative equity, nil consumer confidence, record low home building...yep, gotta be Dodd-Frank. 'If the Republican House next week would repeal Dodd-Frank and allow us to put pressure on the Senate to repeal Dodd-Frank, you would see the housing market start to improve overnight,' Speaker Newt Gingrich told the crowd in Michigan last night. His reasoning is that, 'It kills small banks, it kills small business.'

Increased regulation has certainly made the life of a banker today tougher, but the fact that there was zero regulation ten years ago allowed and encouraged reckless behavior on Wall Street. It created the supremely negligent subprime mortgage
trading bonanza that brought down big banks, little banks and homeowners alike...and threatened to take down the entire US economy. Were we to do nothing to change that? And Mr. Gingrich, if I may, how would repealing Dodd-Frank suddenly help the 4 million borrowers behind on their mortgages today and the 2.2 million in the foreclosure process today keep their homes? How would it put a bottom on home prices? Do you honestly believe that it would suddenly open the mortgage markets wide, allow banks to somehow fix all the troubled loans on their books and fuel a gigantic lending spree that would ignite home buying and selling again like the good old days? Is that even what we want? Let me just finish with Mr. Gingrich's last note, 'The banks are actually profiting more by foreclosing than encouraging short sales.' That's just flat out wrong.

To begin with what bank has ever profited from a foreclosure OR a short sale? Industry sources tell me that a short sale nets the bank on average 20 percent more than a foreclosure. Short sales speed up the time frame for disposal of the property as well, as foreclosures can take years to process. During that time, foreclosed borrowers can destroy the property, flushing cement down the toilet and stealing everything in the home that is and isn't nailed down. In a short sale, the homeowner lives in the home until the deal is done, and because they are not getting a huge hit to their credit and being kicked out by a sheriff's deputy, they generally don't destroy the house. In a short sale, the bank knows exactly what it's getting, unlike in a foreclosure when the bank has to take back the house in some unknown condition, market it and re-sell it at an unknown distressed price. 'Nuff said.

My second favorite argument is that it's all Fannie and Freddie's fault, and if we take them down, housing comes back in a flash. 'For these geniuses to give 10 of their top executives bonuses at $12 million and then have the guts to come to the American people and say, 'Give us another $13 billion to bail us out just for the quarter,' that's lunacy,' Rep. Michelle Bachmann argued on CNBC last night. 'We need to put them back into bankruptcy and get them out of business. They're destroying the housing market.' No question, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are bleeding money, costing the taxpayers billions already and potentially billions more in the near future. Something needs to be done to change that, but 'bankrupting' Fannie and Freddie would take down the US economy as we know it, and it boggles the mind that a person running for president wouldn't understand that. She in fact noted that Fannie and Freddie support the bulk of the mortgage market. That's true. Without them there would be no lending. Does she think the private market would just come running back in and give the nation's beleaguered borrowers 3.99 percent 30-year fixed across the board? Only Herman Cain seemed to get that. He argued that we need to fix unemployment first with his various proposals. 'Okay. After I did those three things that I outlined, then deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You don't start solving a problem right in the middle of it. So we've got to do that first,' he reasoned.

Fixing unemployment was the only housing plan the candidates could offer. When CNBC's Maria Bartiromo asked Governor Mitt Romney, 'Not one of your 59 points in your economic plan mentions or addresses housing. Can you tell us why?' He responded, 'Yes, because it's not a housing plan. It's a jobs plan.' I don't love that answer, but at least I can respect it. 'Our friends in Washington today, they say, 'Oh, if we've got a problem in housing, let's let government play a bigger role.' That's the wrong way to go. Let markets work. Help people get back to work. Let them buy homes. You'll see home prices come back up if we allow this market to work,' argued Romney. There are plenty of analysts who agree that the market needs to work itself out, as painful as that may be to average Americans, many of whom are in line to lose their homes. Until the foreclosure mess runs its course, and all those homes are filled with borrowers who can afford them, home prices will not recover, plain and simple, goes the argument. I'm not saying here that the Obama Administration has done anything particular stellar to stimulate a housing recovery. A small refinance program for underwater borrowers isn't the cure-all, and forcing banks to write down mortgage principal is not politically nor technically feasible. But without some plan, this crisis could go on for a decade, like it did in Japan, as President Clinton noted recently in an interview. I'm not saying I have the answer, the great plan to fix our nation's housing crisis. But I'm not running for president."

New foreclosure plan

Big investors are showing interest in an evolving Obama administration plan to sell off foreclosed homes, although the government will have to make the offer sweet enough to coax private funds. The White House is assessing how best to encourage private companies and investors to snap up foreclosed properties held by the government and convert them into rentals. Officials want private partners to take over as much as $30 billion in single-family properties that are currently on the books of government-run Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration। Several money managers with large fixed income funds are interested, according to sources, and a request for ideas on how to construct a program received nearly 4,000 responses. The foreclosure conversion program would come as the next step to complement other government supports for housing, including an expanded refinance program announced on Monday.

The main question for prospective investors, which include broker-dealers and firms already overseeing similar rental programs, is the type of financing the government will make available—an issue officials are still struggling with. "In order to get a better bid, there has to be some incentive involved to get qualified investors involved," said Ron D'Vari, co-founder and chief executive of NewOak Capital. "The reality is not a lack of interest, but so far it looks like a lack of financing." Incentives could include low interest rates, tax benefits or some type of rental assistance, said D'Vari, a portfolio adviser who has been involved in mini-bulk auctions of real estate-owned properties, or REOs, in California. REO properties are those acquired by a lender, whether a bank or the government, after an unsuccessful auction attempt. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA own about 250,000 properties, close to a third of the country's REO pool.

One key challenge would be finding big enough blocks of properties in specific geographic areas that could be sold at one time. Analysts say this is what it would take to make the program attractive to large institutional investors. The transaction and liability costs property managers will face as they try to bring deserted units back up to code also pose a hurdle. The government also needs to determine how it will protect taxpayers, and it might explore ways to pair up with investors and allow Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA to keep some type of an ownership stake in the rental properties. A public-private partnership, somewhat along the lines of a program the Treasury tried to use to soak up toxic bank assets during the financial crisis, would allow the government to gain from the sales. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA have already undertaken some small efforts to reduce the backlog of foreclosed homes. They have donated a few vacant properties for demolition and have held some small auctions. Having already received $141 billion in taxpayer support since being seized by the government in 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie are under enormous pressure to make sure they maximize the returns from the properties they hold. "This has got to be thought out. Fannie and Freddie would need to assess if they are getting the return they need from a rental," said Ken H. Johnson, a real estate professor at Florida International University. Johnson said one way to get over the hurdle would be for the two agencies to be given an explicit mission of market stabilization.

A summer of modest economic growth is helping dispel lingering fears that another recession might be near. Whether the strength can be sustained is less certain. The economy grew at an annual rate of 2.5% in the July-September quarter, the Commerce Department said Thursday. But the growth was fueled by Americans who spent more while earning less and by businesses that invested in machines and computers, not workers. The expansion, the best quarterly growth in a year, came as a relief after anemic growth in the first half of the year, weeks of wild stock market shifts and the weakest consumer confidence since the height of the Great Recession. The economy would have to grow at nearly double the third-quarter pace to make a dent in the unemployment rate, which has stayed near 9% since the recession officially ended more than two years ago. For the more than 14 million Americans who are out of work and want a job, that's discouraging news. And for President Barack Obama and incumbent members of Congress, it means they'll be facing voters with unemployment near 9%. "It is still a very weak economy out there," said David Wyss, former chief economist at Standard & Poor's. For now, the report on US gross domestic product, or GDP, sketched a more optimistic picture for an economy that only two months ago seemed at risk of another recession.

Some economists doubt the economy can maintain its modest third-quarter pace. US lawmakers are debating deep cuts in federal spending next year that would drag on growth. And state and local governments have been slashing budgets for more than a year. Obama's $447 billion jobs plan was blocked by Republicans, meaning that a Social Security tax cut that put an extra $1,000 to $2,000 this year in most American's pockets could expire in January. So could extended unemployment benefits. They have been a key source of income for many people out of work for more than six months. Nor is the economy likely to get a lift from the depressed housing market. Typically, home construction drives growth during an economic recovery. But builders have been contributing much less to the economy this time. Wyss said that the collapse of housing had probably depressed annual growth by as much as 1.5 percentage points in the past two years. Paul Ashworth, chief US economist for Capital Economics, predicts that growth will cool in the fourth quarter and next year. "While our baseline forecast does not include an outright contraction, we expect GDP growth to average a very lackluster 1.5% next year," Ashworth said in a note to clients.

Will you sell your house after 2012?

YOU SELL YOUR HOUSE AFTER 2012? This Is True… Will you ever sell your house after 2012? Call your Democratic Senator’s Office to confirm this hidden fact about the ObamaCare regulation. Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It’s in the health care bill. Just thought you should know. SALES TAX GOES INTO EFFECT 2013 (Part of HC Bill). Why 2013? Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections? REAL ESTATE SALES TAX So, this is “change you can believe in”? Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax. The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013
If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Does this stuff make your November and 2012 vote more important? Oh, you weren’t aware this was in the obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren’t alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren’t aware of it either http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. VOTERS NEED TO KNOW.

MBA - homeownership may drop further

The drop in the homeownership rate from an all-time high of 69.2% in 2004 to 66.4% in the first quarter of 2011 reflects a decline from unsustainable levels to something closer to historicalaverages, according to a study released today by Mortgage Banker's Association's (MBA) Research Institute for Housing America (RIHA). While the homeownership rate may have bottomed out, it could fall another one or two percentage points because of tightened credit and other factors, the paper says. Titled "Homeownership Boom and Bust 2000 to 2009: Where Will the Homeownership Rate Go from Here?," the study was conducted by professors Stuart Gabriel of UCLA's Anderson School and Stuart Rosenthal of Syracuse University. They found that the increase in the homeownership rate in the middle of the last decade extended to all age groups but was most pronounced among individuals under age 30. These increases coincided with looser credit conditions that enhanced household access to mortgage credit, along with less risk-averse attitudes toward investment in homeownership. Following the crash, these trends have reversed and homeownership rates have largely reverted to the levels of 2000.

"How much more might the homeownership rate fall? The answer depends on uncertain forecasts of attitudes towards homeownership and changes in the credit market and economic conditions," concluded Rosenthal. "If underwriting conditions and attitudes about investing in homeownership settle back to year-2000 patterns and, if the socioeconomic and demographic traits of the population look similar to those of 2000, then the homeownership rate may have bottomed out and will not decline further. If, instead, household employment, earnings and other socioeconomic characteristics over the next few years remain similar to those in 2009, then homeownership rates could fall by up to another 1 to 2%age points beyond 2011. Those declines are likely to be greatest in cities and regions in which house prices were most volatile in the last decade."

hard to make a call on housing

[Friday's] report on consumer confidence, or the striking lack of it, is yet another sign that housing is going to be in a very sticky state for a while. It's hard to say whether housing is weighing on confidence or lack of confidence is weighing on housing; the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Next week is a big week for housing because we get the all-important readings on existing and new home sales for May. The pending home sales index, based on contracts signed, not closings, fell dramatically in April, and that has the housing prognosticators building another arc for the flood of bad news yet to come. Home builder sentiment fell in June, largely based on competition from distressed properties and high material costs, but you can bet the builders know we're in for some tough sales numbers in their market as well.

I know I've said this before, but here I go again: All real estate is local, but confidence is national. Potential summer buyers, who are historically few and far between, will be watching the national numbers, as they try to time the bottom of the market, which is of course impossible to do. You can't time the bottom of this market, because it will likely bounce along the bottom for several years. You also have no historical perspective because we've never seen a crash like this ever before. The two greatest factors that will keep us bouncing are the huge volume of distressed properties and uncertainty over the direction of new regulation in the mortgage market.

Regulators pushed back the deadline for a huge decision on risk retention for the mortgage market, and that has talk abounding that the entire proposal is going back to the drawing board. This is the proposal that would require, among many other things, a 20% down payment on loans for them to be exempt from risk retention. Without that, banks would have to hold 5% risk on their books when securitizing the loan.

All this uncertainty in the mortgage market, piled on top of all kinds of new regulations now going into action, just makes lending more expensive for the banks and borrowing more expensive for consumers. It's no surprise that confidence in housing is so low, despite the fact that now may in fact be one of the best times to get into the housing market. You just have to have a long view, which foreign buyers apparently have but Americans sorely lack.

Cheaper to buy than to rent in 72% of largest U.S. cities

Despite the rising number of renters across the country, it is cheaper to buy a home rather than rent one in 72 percent of the 50 largest cities in the U.S., according to an index released by real estate search and marketing site Trulia.

"Since the start of the 'Great Recession,' many former homeowners have flooded the rental market. Following the principles of supply and demand, renting has become relatively more expensive than buying in most markets," said Pete Flint, CEO and co-founder of Trulia, in a statement.

"Though necessary for achieving true economic recovery, stricter bank lending practices have also further aggravated the struggling housing market in the short term. Even highly qualified homebuyers face intense scrutiny on their income, savings, existing debt and credit history before they can get a mortgage loan."

Trulia's rent vs. buy index compares the median list price with the median rent on two-bedroom apartments, condominiums and townhomes listed on Trulia.com as of Jan. 10, 2011.

A price-to-rent ratio of 1 to 15 means that it's much cheaper to buy than to rent in a particular city. A ratio between 16 and 20 means that it's more expensive to rent than to buy, but, depending on the family's situation, buying could "make financial sense," the site said. Any ratio above 20 indicates that owning is much more costly than renting in a city.

In 36 out of 50 of the country's most populous cities, buying a two-bedroom home is less expensive than renting one. These cities include many areas that have been hit hard by foreclosures, such as Las Vegas, Phoenix and Fresno, Calif.
Article continues below

Price to Rent Ratio


In 10 cities, renting is cheaper, but buying might make more financial sense, according to Trulia. These cities include Los Angeles, Boston, and Fort Worth, Texas.

The index considers the total cost of homeownership compared to the total cost of renting. Calculations for the total cost of homeownership include mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, hazard insurance, closing costs at time of purchase, homeowners association dues, and private mortgage insurance. The homeownership cost calculation also includes tax advantages from mortgage interest, property tax and closing-cost deductions.

Calculations for total rental cost include rent and renters insurance.

The total cost of homeownership was highest, compared to the cost to rent, in New York; Seattle; Kansas City, Mo.; and San Francisco.

"Although owning a home is relatively more affordable in most cities, market conditions have caused an interesting demographic swap between traditional renters and buyers," said Tara-Nicholle Nelson, consumer educator for Trulia, in a statement. Nelson is also an Inman news columnist.

"For example, lifelong renters are seizing the opportunity to become homeowners while affordability is high. At the same time, a growing number of longtime homeowners are finding themselves tenants -- some by choice and others by necessity."

Through newly acquired startup Movity, Trulia created interactive maps comparing each city's population, projected job growth, and unemployment and foreclosure rates.