Three Things Still Wrong With The Housing Market

By Charlie Farrell | Aug 31, 2009 |

We’ve gotten a bit of good news lately on the housing front with more new home sales and a slight bump in home prices, but the market is still completely dysfunctional. With the massive government intervention in the housing markets, we won’t know for a long time what our houses are really worth or what we should pay for a new home.

Mortgage Rates. Mortgage rates are way too low and are inflating the value of housing across the country. Here’s why: 

  • Ned Davis Research indicates that the overall delinquency rate on home mortgages is at a record high of about 9 percent. That means it’s very risky to loan money to people to buy a home. This is a delinquency rate that you might expect to see in the junk bond market, where interest rates can be as high as 10 to 15 percent for borrowers.
  • Consequently, interest rates charged to many home borrowers should be much higher to compensate lenders for the risk of default, but rates are at all time lows.
  • Rates are low because the federal government, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is basically providing the banks with the money to lend for mortgages.
  • Since the government isn’t as concerned about future defaults as private investors would be, the risk of loss isn’t being fully priced into the loans.

By keeping rates low, it reduces the monthly payments for purchasers and allows them to continue to pay more for houses than they may well be worth.

Incentives. Many home sales are coming from first time home buyers as a result of the $8,000 tax credit and low down payment requirements. These incentives are drawing more buyers into the housing market than could otherwise afford a home if they had to put 10 percent down and received no tax credit. This also pushes up the price of housing.

Refinancing. Through various refinancing programs, borrowers with no or negative equity in their homes can refinance at lower rates or even receive some form of loan modification. This is great for the homeowner in crisis, but not so good for pricing transparency. It continues to keep more people in homes they probably can’t afford.

Necessary Evil. Given the fragile state of the economy, it may be that continuing to distort the housing market through low rates, tax incentives and refinancings is necessary. But considering that this is what got us into the mess, at some point the subsidies need to be removed and buyers and sellers must stand on their own two feet.

The danger is we won’t have the political will to remove these subsidies, particularly the interest rate subsidies, and the housing market sets itself up for another collapse years down the road.

Bottom line. You won’t have a good idea of what your house is really worth or what you should pay for a new one until the government subsidies are gone.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    steveo@...

    09/02/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Three Things Still Wrong With The Housing Market

    Very well put.

  •  
    2

    thinkfirst

    09/02/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Three Things Still Wrong With The Housing Market

    Yes.

  •  
    3

    No-einstein-but

    09/02/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Three Things Still Wrong With The Housing Market

    I would add that we still haven't faced some of the fundamental fallacies and boondoggles that lead to the mortgage meltdown. To begin with, the whole problem stems from the long-held, but mistaken belief that everyone should be able to own a house. Clearly there are people who just cannot afford to buy a house and who are bad loan risks. The next problem is that government tried to force a situation where anyone who wanted a house could buy one. Unfortunately, the method chosen to make that happen was to reward financial institutions who made risky loans and penalize those who didn't (through the community reinvestment act and its follow-up executive actions). What this brought about was an accumulation of bad loans that institutions had to figure out what to do with. I would have loved to have been in the room when some slippery SOB advanced the notion of bundling bad loans together to "reduce(???!!!)" the risk. [I still find this logic astounding -- if you have lots of little bits of poison diluted in a lot of water, you don't make it less toxic by evaporating off the water and concentrating it; it becomes even more toxic!!!] Then these toxic bundles somehow become highly-rated investments?!? It's debt-laundering! However, this is all old news. The problem is that the only thing that has changed is that it is now harder for the lending institutions to pass on their risk, but the incentives and penalties to institutions to encourage risky loans are still there and I see no sign that they will go away since no one in the legislature is acknowledging the very pervasive role of government at the heart of this issue. What this article points out really, is that now it's made worse because we have a specific incentive for a homebuyer to pay more for a house than they can afford and we've done nothing to address the original issues.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here

Charlie Farrell

Charles Farrell, J.D., LL.M. is an investment advisor with Northstar Investment Advisors in Denver, Colorado. He works primarily with individuals and families on the management and funding of their retirement savings, and is a former tax attorney. His research on retirement and investing has been widely published in major media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, Journal of Financial Planning, and The Investment News.

Charlie Farrell

track your portfolio