Thursday, August 30, 2007

A "Tricky, Tricky Issue"

The Washington Post has the scoop this morning on a set of policies the Bush administration will propose to help homeowners through "this bulge [of interest rate resets] in the next 18 to 24 months".

"The official estimated that the change would allow 80,000 more homeowners to receive federally insured mortgages in 2008 on top of the 160,000 already projected to use the program."

  • People who have missed mortgage payments are now ineligible for FHA insurance. In the president's plan, they would be eligible if they fall behind only because the amount they are required to pay each month increases, as is now happening with many mortgages issued from 2004 to 2006.

  • The administration's plan would make FHA loans available to people with worse credit histories, though with higher insurance premiums to cover the increased risk.

  • The administration would ease a requirement that people refinancing into an FHA insured loan must have 3 percent equity in the house. That way, people who are upside down on their mortgages -- meaning they owe more than the house is worth -- can still refinance into an FHA mortgage.

  • Bush also seeks to raise the limit on the size of loans that the FHA can insure, which is $362,000 in states with high home prices. The proposal would move the limit to $417,000 in those high-priced states, the same size mortgages that federally chartered entities such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can purchase. But the administration is not seeking to expand the ability of Freddie and Fannie to offer more federally guaranteed loans, despite calls from some in Congress to do so.

  • Bush will also ask Congress to change the tax laws, temporarily, to make it easier for mortgage lenders to renegotiate loan conditions with borrowers. [The homeowner won't be on the hook with the IRS for forgiven debt on a renegotiated loan].

  • "Tom Lawler, a founder of Lawler Economic and Housing Consulting in Vienna, said he hopes that the administration's plan will not reward lenders that made bad loans or borrowers that lied about their incomes.

    "It's a tricky, tricky issue," Lawler said. "As usual, the devil is in the details."
  • It seems to this blogger that the foreclosure snowball is rolling down the hill faster than Congress can stop it at this point. They'll have to move fast, which seems against their nature. On the other hand, the fall session is starting soon and they'll need something to do.

    23 comments:

    Leroy said...

    This sounds like one of the more reasonable plans actually.

    It should make it easier for some borrowers who got in over their head to refinance, but it doesn't allow them to simply walk away from their bad decision. If they can't pay on a fixed rate loan then the eventual outcome should remain the same.

    The increase in the limit to 417 will help most areas a lot more than the DC area.

    The proposal I like the most is the temporary alteration to the tax laws. If you are able to negotiate a short sale with your lender the last thing you need is for the taxman to come after you for that "income." This won't do a thing to prop up home prices but it will help some people avoid drowning in red ink.

    Leroy said...

    Oh yeah, and I agree that it is looking likely that congress will talk a lot but won't manage to get anything done fast enough to prop up the market. Generally speaking these are not the quickest moving guys in the world. They are already getting to the start of the surge of resets. By spring it will have peaked.

    Harriet said...

    @Leroy,

    I agree about the taxes. I imagine that would have been the absolute last thing to cross most borrowers' minds when they initially signed their mortgage documents. But this has all been so educational, hasn't it?

    There are also several interesting loopholes (or, er, "safe harbor provisions") for getting out of paying capital gains if you sold after owning a home for less than two years (and actually showed a profit). Giving birth to twins is one of them, as is having the HOA dues go up.

    Matthew said...

    This country is pathetic - Capatalism on the way up and Socialism on the way down! They should not interfere with market forces. The housing market rose way too much, way too quickly and now there should be a correction, but because their is an election coming up they will try and stem the tide. The invisible hand should be cut off!

    Leroy said...

    "This country is pathetic - Capatalism on the way up and Socialism on the way down! They should not interfere with market forces. The housing market rose way too much, way too quickly and now there should be a correction, but because their is an election coming up they will try and stem the tide. The invisible hand should be cut off!"

    For the most part agree, but look at it this way.

    With all of the press about "homeowners" losing "their" houses the politicians will be forced to take some action. In an environment like this it is better to back a very conservative proposal than simply try to oppose all proposals because in the long run something will be done. It is better to back small action now because it makes it less likely a full scale bailout will be pushed through in a few months.

    The approach described in the article would do very little to prop up the market. It would offer some meaningful assistance to smaller borrowers by making it easier for them to refinance into fixed rate loans but wouldn't be a bail out. They would still have to pay back what they borrowed.

    The changes to the tax code are an especially positive idea. Those changes will actually probably HELP the market correct. By making it easier to carry out a short sale more borrowers will pursue that course of action.

    Imagine this scenario... Billy Joe gets a job opportunity at his firm's Chicago office. The problem is that he bought a house two years ago that is now worth less than he owes. He knows that even if he can work out a short sale with his lender, he will get hit for 6 figures of income by the taxman. So instead he just resigns himself to "waiting it out" and the house never goes on the market and someone else takes his job in Chicago. Assuming the tax code changes go through... Billy would be on the phone aggressively pushing his lender to allow a short sale so he can take the job he wants. That in turn would put another house on the market at a competitive price.

    Lance said...

    Leroy said:
    "That in turn would put another house on the market at a competitive price."

    I'm not sure if I like the idea of you getting into a house cheaper than you would otherwise ... at my (taxpayer)expense ...

    Like you and others seem to understand when you talk about houses being used as "ATMs", mortgage money never paid back is income as the IRS rightfully recognizes. I find it interesting that you are against taxpayer bailouts for present homeowners but all for a taxpayer bailout (in the way of forgiven taxes on mortgage money) if it will lower the price you have to pay.

    Leroy said...

    "I'm not sure if I like the idea of you getting into a house cheaper than you would otherwise ... at my (taxpayer)expense ... "

    lol... NOW you are against tax breaks for homeowners?

    You keep going on and on about how politicians favor homeowners lance, here is another example!

    "Like you and others seem to understand when you talk about houses being used as "ATMs", mortgage money never paid back is income as the IRS rightfully recognizes. I find it interesting that you are against taxpayer bailouts for present homeowners but all for a taxpayer bailout (in the way of forgiven taxes on mortgage money) if it will lower the price you have to pay."

    This change would help the market correct while avoiding kicking bubble buyers while they are down. What is the point driving someone into bankruptcy? If they don't have the money they don't have the money. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Lenders will still have to agree to short sales. They aren't going to be inclined to do that if they don't think they need to.

    Lance said...

    Leroy,

    LOL ... No, like I've been saying, I'm not surprised that the politicians would want to help out the homeowners. It's just that I find it interesting that you are no longer against this help ... now that you think it might benefit you ... :)

    gold_h2o said...

    The mortgage mess will turn out to be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming Presidential election.

    It's all about promises, promises, promises.......

    Leroy said...

    "The mortgage mess will turn out to be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming Presidential election.

    It's all about promises, promises, promises....... "

    I don't doubt it, but by that point it will be too late to do anything.

    Leroy said...

    "LOL ... No, like I've been saying, I'm not surprised that the politicians would want to help out the homeowners. It's just that I find it interesting that you are no longer against this help ... now that you think it might benefit you ... :) "

    Actually, It has a lot to do with not wanting to see more people driven into bankruptcy than necessary. Like I said before, if you don't have the money you don't have the money.

    Lenders are not going to agree to short sales in cases where they believe the borrower can pay. The only time they are going to agree to such a sale is to avoid something even worse.

    In those cases what is the point of hitting some poor debter with a huge tax bill?

    This would likely speed the correction slightly because otherwise more borrowers would end up trying to sit in their house as long as possible rather than pursuing a short sale, but it isn't going to change the end result.

    Lance said...

    Leroy said:
    "In those cases what is the point of hitting some poor debter with a huge tax bill?

    This would likely speed the correction slightly because otherwise more borrowers would end up trying to sit in their house as long as possible rather than pursuing a short sale, but it isn't going to change the end result."

    Okay ... which is it? If you "can't afford to pay" you won't be sitting long before the bank comes in and takes the house away via foreclosure. But if you can afford to pay, then you can afford to pay your taxes on that debt forgiveness as well.

    For those who truely can't afford to pay, the IRS will work out a payment schedule on a per case basis. And these folks won't have the luxury of sitting on the property as a foreclosure happens fairly quickly in most places after a few months missed mortgage payments.

    I still think you are trying to justify helping these homeowners now that you think their's something in it for you ... i.e., a seller who otherwise could afford to sit on the property till sales pick up, would indeed be motivated to sell now for less since my taxdollars would help subsidize that sale. All the "ATM" money he pulled out of his house with no money down would now be tax free income.

    In effect, not taxing those property owners who enjoyed debt forgiveness ends up helping those who could otherwise just hold on to the property for now and you. You're okay with a tax bailout, as long as you get to share in it ... at MY (taxpayer) expense.

    Leroy said...

    "Okay ... which is it? If you "can't afford to pay" you won't be sitting long before the bank comes in and takes the house away via foreclosure. But if you can afford to pay, then you can afford to pay your taxes on that debt forgiveness as well."

    Huh?

    The whole point of a short sale is to avoid a foreclosure. If the bank thinks you are going to keep paying your mortgage they aren't going to agree to a short sale just for the heck of it.

    So yes, this would help people avoid foreclosure. As it stands many borrowers are going to be faced with two options, sit here waiting to get foreclosed on and evicted...

    or attempt a short sale and end up with the IRS breathing down my neck.

    "In effect, not taxing those property owners who enjoyed debt forgiveness ends up helping those who could otherwise just hold on to the property for now and you. You're okay with a tax bailout, as long as you get to share in it ... at MY (taxpayer) expense."

    The market is going down regardless. If this allows more people to get out from under loans they can't repay anyways it will be in everyone's best interest. The cost is in some uncollected revenue, and to the lenders.

    You have been happy enough to go on and on about your tax break... now you see some people in genuine financial trouble and you want them to hurt because you think it is in your interest.

    Whatever...

    Lance said...

    Leroy said:
    "You have been happy enough to go on and on about your tax break... now you see some people in genuine financial trouble and you want them to hurt because you think it is in your interest."

    No, not that at all. You have been going on and on about your being financially able to buy "the right way" which I assume means without taxpayer assistance. Why are you now so interested in taxpayer subsidies to your purchase ... or as you put it: "That in turn would put another house on the market at a competitive price. ... for you, I guess ... funny how you are now starting to worry about having to compete with the others "holding off" for the right house "at the right price" ...

    I guess what bothers me most is that those who have been screaming the loudest "not fair" are okay with things being "not fair" if they feel they will personally benefit from it ...

    waterinmyear said...

    Debt forgiveness is income.
    If it is not income, what is it? Clearly if you are going to figure where to include it on a cash flow statement, it would be income. It is not an expense.

    So then the question becomes whether we want to restructure the tax code to favor people with(and thus encourage) that particular class of income.

    Seems like a very bad idea to me. It encourages people to spend marginal dollars on consumer purchases, knowing that in the end, if they can't meet their financial obligations, they get a tax-free windfall in the form of debt-forgiveness. Why penalize those who directed their financial resources to meeting their obligations, or alternatively, only took on obligations that they were certain they would be able to meet?

    Leroy said...

    "Why are you now so interested in taxpayer subsidies to your purchase "

    LOL

    You think a change in the tax code to benefit short sellers is the same thing as subsidizing my home purchase?

    You must live in a strange world lance.

    Housing prices are already falling. The only reason someone would NEED a short sale is because they can't sell the house for what it used to be worth. Allowing a short sale to go forward isn't subsidizing anyone's housing purchase. It is simply allowing the market to smoothly function.

    Buyers who bought at non-bubble prices won't need to consider a short sale.

    "Why are you now so interested in taxpayer subsidies to your purchase ... or as you put it: "That in turn would put another house on the market at a competitive price. ... for you, I guess ... funny how you are now starting to worry about having to compete with the others "holding off" for the right house "at the right price" ..."

    You are going to set some kind of record for poor reading comprehension I think.

    "At a competitive price" means at a price the house could reasonably be expected to sell for in the current market. It has nothing to do with me being afraid of "competing" with others or any of the other drivel you wrote above.

    Housing values shot up to unsustainable levels and are now falling again.

    One way or another they will return to a sustainable level. The only question is when and how.

    Making it easier for short sales to proceed will remove some of the stickyness from the market and allow it to more quickly return to sustainable levels.

    When prices are once again in line with incomes they will stop dropping. Sales will return to historical(not bubble) levels, home construction will return to historical (not bubble) levels.

    There is no good reason to want to prolong the downturn longer than it has to be. It will be better for the economy as a whole if the market is able to function smoothly and insure effective allocation of resources.

    Lance said...

    Leroy,

    Slice it however you will, but if the seller gets to pay less transaction costs --- i.e., the taxes on the forgiven debt that would otherwise be owed, than the seller can sell the property for less than they would otherwise ... to you. And my taxdollars are subsidizing your purchase.

    A similar situation would be where no real estate agent is used. A buyer knows he can get a better deal because the seller doesn't have to pay an agent. In this case, a buyer gets a better deal because the seller doesn't have to pay the government the taxes they would otherwise owe. I have thus helped you get your house for cheaper than you would otherwise.

    Lance said...
    This comment has been removed by the author.
    Keith said...

    Actually, this may be the one time where I actually sort of agree with Lance.

    As it stands today, since the short seller is on the hook for taxes on their forgiven debt, they have incentive to get as good an offer as possible. That means the bank can have some degree of confidence that the price the short seller gets is a decent price.

    Now, if the short seller doesn't pay taxes on the debt forgiveness, short sellers will take any price, and the bank won't be able to be sure it was the best price, which means there will be a lot more vetting and hold-up, and the bank will be a lot less willing to forgive debts. That will likely increase foreclosures.

    Lance said...

    Keith said...
    "Actually, this may be the one time where I actually sort of agree with Lance."

    Nope ... no comment on my part ... I just wanted to take a minute and savour Keith's words ...

    Leroy said...

    "Nope ... no comment on my part ... I just wanted to take a minute and savour Keith's words ... "

    Good to hear you value his opinion.

    Keith said...

    "Good to hear you value his opinion."

    Our little L-troll might be growing up.:)

    Leroy said...

    Does that mean we get a bigger troll?