While recent reports seem to show
that America's housing market is showing modest signs of improvement, such
would not likely be the case without the massive and ongoing intervention of
the government in Washington.
Let's open by taking a look at a bit
of history as provided by FRED:
Current homeowners' equity (i.e. the
"skin that they have in the game") in real estate for the fourth
quarter of 2012 was $8.223 trillion. This is down 38.9 percent or $5.245
trillion from its peak of $13.468 trillion in the first quarter of 2006.
Here's a look at what happened to homeowners'
real estate assets in total:
Current homeowners' assets in real
estate totalled $19.914 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2012, down $5.085
trillion or 20.3 percent from its peak of $24.999 trillion in the third quarter
of 2006.
In addition, to further help you put
the current situation into perspective showing us that all is still not well
four years on, here is a graph showing the percentage of residential properties
in various states that were in the unenviable state of negative equity in Q3
2012:
Apparently, all is still not healthy despite Washington's ongoing efforts.
According to the recent Bipartisan
Policy Center's report "Housing America's Future", the private
sector in the United States is not pulling its weight in bearing the risk of
mortgage credit. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac neared collapse in 2008,
the federal government had to step in with billions of dollars of support and,
right now, Washington supports more than 90 percent of single-family mortgages
through the aforementioned Fannie and Freddie as well as Ginnie Mae and the
Federal Housing Administration. On top of that, Washington supports
roughly 65 percent of the rental mortgage market. This means that
American taxpayers are highly vulnerable to future housing market corrections.
This issue is becoming increasingly important as the Treasury Department's
investment in "The Enterprises" reached $187.5 billion in October
2012 and could reach as high as $191 to $209 billion by 2015 before dividends
are paid as shown in this Federal Housing Finance Agency press release. Fortunately, in the case of Fannie, the recently announced $59.4 billion dividend will cover some of the $116.1 billion in public funds borrowed from taxpayers to cover losses on trillions of dollars worth of mortgages.
Here is a pie chart showing who held
America's mortgage debt in the third quarter of 2012:
Notice that Fannie and Freddie were
holding 44.2 percent of all outstanding mortgage debt; this totalled $4.64
trillion in total of which $502 billion was held in portfolio and $4.1 trillion
was in mortgages held by third parties, mainly as mortgage-backed securities.
According to the Federal Reserve, in total, there was $13.137
trillion in mortgages of all types in America in Q4 2012 of which $9.923 was in
one to four family residences. This is down from $11.137 trillion in
2008, a drop of 10.9 percent.
Here is a graph from FRED that shows the
ramping up of mortgage debt during the 1990s and 2000s and the decline after
2008:
How do we solve this problem and put an end to the government bailout of the real estate and banking sector?
The Housing Commission behind the aforementioned report suggest that a limited
catastrophic government guarantee be established that ensures the timely
payment of principal and interest on mortgage-backed securities and that this
guarantee should be:
1.) paid for collecting premiums
that are in excess of expected claims and that the premiums are large enough to create a surplus pool for future funding if needed.
2.) triggered only after private
capital in the loss position has been fully exhausted.
3.) applied only to the securities themselves and not to the equity or debt of the entities that issue or insure them (i.e.
AIG).
The authors also suggest that both
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be eliminated since it is obvious that the
implication that Washington/taxpayers will back these government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)
has led to a near catastrophic failure. These GSEs should be replaced with
a wholly owned government corporation that would provide a limited government
guarantee for mortgages. It would not issue mortgage-backed securities
and mortgages, rather, it would simply guarantee investors that they would
receive timely payment of both principal and interest on these securities.
All other participants in this new scenario are at risk for their own
finances with no implicit or explicit guarantee of federal government
assistance. This would put the new government corporation fourth in line
for losses after borrowers and their home equity, private credit enhancers and
the corporate resources of both the issuers and servicers of the mortgage debt
and mortgage-backed securities. This would firmly place the ultimate
responsibility for failure where it belongs, in the hands of the private sector
who was largely responsible for the collapse in 2008 through the unfettered
growth of toxic and unstable (and wealth creating for Wall Street) mortgage
securities.
The Commission notes that the mortgage
lending system has over-reacted to the crisis (that was largely created by them
in the first place), a fact that is preventing well-qualified families from
accessing mortgage credit now. Along with that, lenders are requiring
multiple appraisals of properties and are using distressed properties as
"market comps" where distressed properties are used to establish the
value of a potential borrower's home.
While measures like new home
construction and sales levels are showing improvement and the market price of
homes is coming off of its decade-long lows as measured by Case-Shiller, it is
clear that the underlying problems in America's real estate market still
require rather substantial tweaking before the market can be considered
healthy. Right now, one of the greatest risks in the housing market is
not just to home owners, rather, it is the heavy load currently being borne by American
taxpayers that could prove to be problematic over the long haul unless changes are made to the system as noted above, particularly if the American economy follows its European counterpart into the white porcelain bowl.
When you ask if housing has bottomed out and moving up, my answer would have to be, I don't know, and either do they. However I can state several things without reservation. Calling the home buying we have seen in both the new and existing markets "pent up demand" may be a stretch, many houses still remain empty or under leased, this means the occupants are not fulfilling their obligations. With population growth slowing, values changing, and a slightly more occupants per home, less houses will be needed, more on the subject below,
ReplyDeletehttp://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/01/has-housing-bottomed.html