We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
Unfortunately, what passes for help to homeowners in Washington might look more like handing out money to banks anywhere else.
The basic story is fairly simple. Tens of millions of homeowners are now underwater. They owe more on their mortgage than the value of their home. The reason is that they bought homes at bubble-inflated prices earlier in the decade. Economists and other policy wonks insisted that housing was a great buy, even as house prices got ever more out-of-line with fundamentals.
Needless to say, the Wall Street crew was eager to cash in on the mania, peddling deceptive mortgages and reselling mortgage-backed securities all over the world. These deceptive mortgages have reset to higher interest rates, leaving many people unable to afford their mortgages. However, even at lower interest rates, homeowners who purchased houses at bubble-inflated prices would find themselves paying far more for their homes than they would to rent a comparable house.
As a result, these homeowners are effectively throwing money away every time they make a mortgage payment. They would be much better off renting the same house and putting the savings in a retirement account or some other form of investment.
The gaps between mortgage payments and rent are often quite large. A study that we put out at the Center for Economic and Policy Research calculated that a family who purchased a small home in Los Angeles near the peak of the bubble could save $1,640 a month by renting rather than owning. This comes to almost $20,000 a year. In Phoenix, a family who purchased a home near the peak of the bubble could save $420 a month or $5,000 a year. In Miami, the savings would be $1,940 a month, more than $23,000 a year.
These homeowners also have no reasonable prospect of ever getting equity in their homes. In many cases they are 20 or 30 percent underwater, possibly owing over $100,000 more than the current value of their home. Many of the people who never saw the housing bubble are arguing that house prices will return to their bubble peaks. No doubt, these people also expect a resurgence of the Internet stocks of the late 90s.
In reality, there continues to be an enormous over-supply of housing as reflected by the record vacancy rate. This huge over-supply is causing nominal rents to actually decline for the first time ever. Once the homebuyers’ tax credit and other extraordinary subsidies end, house prices will resume falling to bring supply and demand into balance.
In this context, it is extremely unlikely that the vast majority of underwater homeowners will ever accumulate a penny in equity. Keeping them in their homes as owners means wasting thousands of dollars a year on excess housing costs only to be forced to arrange a short sale or face a foreclosure at some future point in time.
So, who benefits from “helping homeowners” in this story? Naturally the big beneficiaries are the banks. If the government pays for a mortgage modification where the homeowner is still paying more for the mortgage than they would for rent, then the bank gets a big gift from the government, but the homeowner is still coming out behind.
In some cases the government may pay enough to buy down principle that the homeowner is no longer underwater, but the bulk of this money is a gift to the bank, not the homeowner. If a homeowner is $100k underwater and the government pays the bank $50k to write the loan down to the current value of the house, then the bank has pocketed $50k, while the homeowner is essentially left just breaking even. This is very generous to the bank, but homeowners have nothing to show in this story.
President Obama has proposed putting up $70 billion to help homeowners in this way. This help for homeowners is likely to end up as a larger subsidy to the banks than the rest of the TARP program. The reason is that the rest of the TARP program was a loan. The loans were at below market interest rates – thereby providing a subsidy to the banks – but most of the money is getting paid back.
The original batch of lending to banks was $250 billion. Even if we assume an average interest subsidy of 10 percentage points (a very large subsidy), this still implies that the lending portion of TARP only handed $25 billion to the banks, far less than the $70 billion that we are prepared to hand them under the guise of helping homeowners.
There are simple low-cost ways to help homeowners who were victims of the housing bubble and the lending sharks. The most obvious way would be to give homeowners the right to rent their home at the market price for the next decade. But this would mean hurting the banks rather than giving them taxpayer dollars, and we still don’t talk about hurting banks in Washington, D.C.
DEAN BAKER is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy.
This column was originally published by the Guardian.