June 16, 2013

Fed Study: Angeleños really did use houses as ATMs

In the latest installment of Formerly Middle Class People Deserved To Lose All Their Money, the Wall Street Journal informs us of a study from the Federal Reserve Board’s Steven Laufer. Not too surprisingly, the paper says these longer-term FBs would have been fine if they hadn’t kept taking equity out of their houses just because they could.

Study: How Using Homes as ATMs Fueled Foreclosures

130614-la-townhomesBy Nick Timiraos, The Wall Street Journal
May 28, 2013, 11:58 AM

The conventional wisdom of the housing crisis goes something like this: Too many people bought homes as the housing bubble inflated. Some were unlucky in their timing, while others overextended themselves by putting too little money down. All of these top-of-the-market purchases led to an explosion of foreclosures once home prices dropped sharply and the economy hit the skids.

Amid the current debate about whether a new bubble is forming in the housing market, it’s worth looking at a paper published in March that challenges conventional wisdom by showing that a significant share of foreclosures came from people who bought their homes before 2004.

So why did so many people who bought their homes before the housing bubble fully inflated end up losing their homes anyway?

20130614-la-freemoneyThe paper concludes that if only California had laws like Texas (which forbids borrowing more than 80% of home equity), not only would fewer FBs gotten F’ed, but homeowners (as opposed to homedebtors) would have had more money to spend because houses wouldn’t have cost so much.

Which is ridiculous, because why do you think these FBs borrowed all that equity in the first place? They sure as heck didn’t invest it in infrastructure.  Heck, no.  They spent it.  We’re cheered to see Larry Roberts (OC Housing News) agrees with us.

Then again, that study also says people defaulted because (among other reasons) they assumed their home prices would keep going down. This shows why the study was in Los Angeles instead of the Real Bay Area. Everyone knows in the RBA, prices only go up.

There’s also a very important reveal in the paper. Laufer’s model shows that home prices would be 14% lower if all that equity extraction hadn’t taken place. And as we know, the Real Estate industry will simply not allow that to happen.  They might as well throw away tax-deductibility of mortgage interest too.

Comments (4) -- Posted by: madhaus @ 5:02 am

May 6, 2012

12 “facts” that “may” “surprise” you about the “housing bust”

While the parent company of the Wall Street Journal, News Corporation, is getting a proper punching across the pond, let’s see how Rupert Murdoch’s business-as-usual cheerleader reports on the causes of The Second Great Depression.

Twelve Facts That May Surprise You About the Housing Bust

By Nick Timiraos, The Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2012

120505-foreclosure-sign-wsjWhat if the conventional wisdom about the mortgage crisis is all wrong?

That’s the implication of a new paper from economists at the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Boston that’s bound to spark debate because, if their premises are correct, it sharply undercuts the justification for much of the new regulation that’s been erected over the past two years.

Three economists, Christopher Foote,Kristopher Gerardi, and Paul Willen, present two narratives of the financial crisis in trying to answer why so many people made so many dumb decisions.

The first view is that the financial crisis was an “inside job” where various industry players, from the mortgage lenders to mortgage traders, took advantage of unsophisticated rubes, from homeowners to mortgage investors.

They largely discard that view for a second one—the “bubble theory” where delusional attitudes about home prices, not distorted incentives, fueled poor decision making.

120505-mcmansion-broken-windowsThis is the Wall Street Journal.  Does anyone think for a New York minute that they’d get behind the Inside Job view of the housing debacle?  Of course not.  It was obviously the fault of strawberry pickers, the Community Redevelopment Act of 1977, Barney Frank, and undeserving minorities who never should have been allowed to own property ever ever ever.  (Uppity rabble might then expect the vote, too.)

And as for the origin of this paper?  The Boston Federal Reserve?  Everyone working there is hoping to get hired by one of those market manipulators, so don’t look for their facts to bear much relation to what really happened.

Here’s the authors’ abstract of the excuse for wrecking the whole economy report:

This paper presents 12 facts about the mortgage market. The authors argue that the facts refute the popular story that the crisis resulted from financial industry insiders deceiving uninformed mortgage borrowers and investors. Instead, they argue that borrowers and investors made decisions that were rational and logical given their ex post overly optimistic beliefs about house prices. The authors then show that neither institutional features of the mortgage market nor financial innovations are any more likely to explain those distorted beliefs than they are to explain the Dutch tulip bubble 400 years ago. Economists should acknowledge the limits of our understanding of asset price bubbles and design policies accordingly.

Translation: if we blame the meltdown on irrational exuberance, then none of our friends will have to give up their bonuses. Or their freedom.

120505-fed-theoriesThe above diagram is from the research paper, and it neatly blames the victims for believing housing prices only go up.  Notice who’s missing from the picture?  Realtards.  You know, the people who tell you that housing prices only go up.

Fact 1: Resets of adjustable-rate mortgages did not cause the foreclosure crisis.

120505-mortgage-ratesBanks weren’t wrong for issuing adjustable rate loans, borrowers are the problem for having crap credit.  Bad credit meant those borrowers could have an adjustable loan or remain renters. 

Hey, what do you expect when you loan to a bunch of deadbeats?

We’ve got 11 more of these delightful “facts” waiting for you after the break.


Comments (16) -- Posted by: madhaus @ 5:15 am