Live data from Hacker News

America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

economist.com

11–20 of 152 posts

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#11
post #2

To sum it up, despite there being regulations on CDOs the real problem still exists. That problem is that loans are easy to get the gov stamp. Thos makes it easy for new home owners to get loans. And this makes it easy for sales people to sell the loans. Much of this opinion article is based on an other article [0] which seems less doom and gloom and more about the shift to a majority of state sponsored loans. This i…

This in itself its own issue in that capitalism isn't doing what it should be when everything is subsidized by the gov.

Thus $500k 800 sq ft bungalows. You show me a chronic bubble and I'll show you a 'market' riven with subsidies, tax incentives, government secured debt and pencil whipping regulators. Healthcare, education, housing.... Yet when the bubble pops and the too-big-to-fails have to be 'recapitalized' all we get from the ruling class is more hating on markets.

Your last sentence is interesting:

the fact that too many economies rely on them to fall

I believe you meant that banks can't be permitted to fail. But it could also be read to mean that what we've self inflicted is a system whereby the greater fools are those found holding worthless CDOs (and all of their various derivatives) when the bubble pops; the market is ultimately expressing itself through the failure of financial institutions.

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#12
post #9

Can anyone provide any background/documentation on the claim "Now 65-80% of new mortgages are stamped with a guarantee from Uncle Sam that protects investors from the risk that homeowners default"? I don't really doubt that it's true, I'd just like to learn more about what that is and how it works.

Meaning, the mortgages (default risk) are guaranteed by the government, either explicitly (FHA) or implicitly through a government sponsored interprise (Fannie and Freddie).

After the housing crisis the private market (mostly banks) left very quickly. FHA and the GSEs stepped in and took their share.

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#13
>Partly because the state charges too little for the guarantees it offers, taxpayers are subsidising housing borrowers to the tune of up to $150 billion a year, or 1% of GDP.

The current environment offers housing borrowers money at a price below the market.

The simplest bet with this cash (buying a house and holding) has probably been overdone in the market. House prices are quite high now.

Still, small but crafty borrowers should be able to profit with this cheap money.

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#14
post #5

I am still of the opinion that the government's maximums for its lending are too high at 417k to 1.8m depending where you live.

Where are you getting those numbers?

Looking at https://entp.hud.gov/idapp/html/hicostlook.cfm

I see the majority of FHA limits in Texas (including 'hot markets' like Austin) for a one family house are $271,000.

The average home price in Austin for a single family residence is $334,000.

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#15
post #5

I am still of the opinion that the government's maximums for its lending are too high at 417k to 1.8m depending where you live.

Where are you getting those numbers? Looking at https://entp.hud.gov/idapp/html/hicostlook.cfm I see the majority of FHA limits in Texas (including 'hot markets' like Austin) for a one family house are $271,000. The average home price in Austin for a single family residence is $334,000.

https://www.fanniemae.com/singlefamily/loan-limits

Note: Those are conventional financing limits. Anything above that ($417,000 nationwide, with exceptions as high as $625,500 in certain high-priced markets) is considered a "jumbo" loan, and is typically not government/GSE backed.

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#16
The fact that we were not able to ban mortgage securitization after the crisis is appalling. IMO this is the root of the problems. Make banks hold their loans on their balance sheets!

I also think the point about banks having capital buffers is laughable and not logical. It's like claiming we've solved chronic migraines because we have a stash of Tylenol. The cause has not been eliminated. And let's say there's a crisis and that bank capital is used to cover the losses. Now what? You now have banks which according to our own definition are under-capitalized. They used all their capital for yet another crisis. So now your banking system is weak again. Who is going to give money for these banks to capitalize again if they keep having crisis after crisis? Ah that's right, the taxpayer!

A nation's banking system reflects its cultural values. This is quite true about the USA.

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#17
The last crisis was also heavily related to sub-prime mortgages. How much has sub-prime lending been mitigated?

Before the last crash, you could get "no paperwork" mortgages, you'd just to have a little higher interest rate. Lenders would also squeeze people into ARMs so their initial rates were really low and then would go up after the adjustment period. And nobody cared about things like PMI because prices were going up so quickly. You'd have enough equity in your house if a few years and the PMI would go away.

The general consensus was that if you were in the market to buy, you should buy as soon as possible before prices went up much more.

Thankfully, I live in an area that didn't see the enormous run up of house values. The crash affected our housing and we still had the normal negative effects of a big recession. Housing prices have certainly recovered by now and I do wonder how much of it is still smoke and mirrors. But in markets like Florida and Arizona where house prices got really out of control, have those areas also recovered? That would be more shocking to me.

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#18
post #10

I'd agree that the US housing and derivatives markets are in a much better position than in 2007-2008. Atleast people who are getting mortgages now have some form of documentation, and risk manages are being asked to do their jobs. The crisis now is that, and this is just my opinion, low rates are here to stay. with the amount of money in the system, people are being priced out of homes and as time goes on the amount…

I'm still confused by the CDS bit. Is there a good eli5 article on it? I've already checked the eli5 subreddit and couldn't find anything specifically on the mechanism that allowed shorting.

It's just insurance. One side pays the other side if a certain outcome occurs. In exchange for protection from the outcome, the side seeking protection pays a fee.

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#19
post #10

I'd agree that the US housing and derivatives markets are in a much better position than in 2007-2008. Atleast people who are getting mortgages now have some form of documentation, and risk manages are being asked to do their jobs. The crisis now is that, and this is just my opinion, low rates are here to stay. with the amount of money in the system, people are being priced out of homes and as time goes on the amount…

I'm still confused by the CDS bit. Is there a good eli5 article on it? I've already checked the eli5 subreddit and couldn't find anything specifically on the mechanism that allowed shorting.

A hand wavy analogy is that a CDS is bankruptcy insurance.

So the guy in the movie got the bank to write him an insurance policy on the mortgages (really mortgage derivatives) that other people held. When those mortgages failed, the policy paid out.

Re: America’s housing system still has not been properly reformed

#20
The linked article seems to be a bombastic summary of a longer, more neutral, and better-supported article [1]. Strangely enough, they were published on the same day and apparently are both featured in the print edition? It seems like The Economist is doing A/B testing to see what draws more outrage from its readers: "Nightmare on Main Street" or "Comradely Capitalism"?

The linked article is confusing and uninformative. I suggest reading the longer version.

[1] http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21705316-how-america-...

Post reply on HN