2009 Homeowner Affordability and Stability - early details

New Initiatives To Help Homeowners

President Obama recently unveiled his plan to help stabilize the housing market and keep millions of borrowers in their homes.

The Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan includes two initiatives to help struggling homeowners. One is a refinancing program for homeowners with less than 20% equity in their homes, or who owe more than their home is worth. The second program attempts to lower monthly payments for homeowners at risk of losing their home. In adition, the plan includes a third initiative to support low mortgage rates by strengthening confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

More details are to be released March 4.

What We Know Right Now:

Refinancing Initiative
Under current rules, those families who own less than 20% equity in their homes have a difficult time refinancing and taking advantage of the historically low interest rates. This initiative is open to homeowners who have conforming loans which are guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who owe up to 5% more than their home is worth.

Stability Initiative
This initiative is designed to provide help to families as well as entire neighborhoods by helping reduce foreclosures and stabilize home prices. It is intended to help homeowners who are struggling to afford their mortgage payments, but cannot sell their homes because prices have fallen significantly.

The goal of this initiative is simple: "reduce the amount homeowners pay per month to sustainable levels." To accomplish this, lenders are encouraged to lower homeowners' payments to 31 percent of their income by lowering their interest rate to as low as 2% or by extending the terms of the loan. In addition, lenders can also lower the principal owed by the borrower, with Treasury sharing the costs.

More Info

A question and answer document is available HERE courtesy of the National Institute of Financial Education. I'll provide updates as I receive them, and if you want to learn more after March 4th, please send me a note.

Join the Savings Craze! The Paradox of the Paradox of Thrift

Experiencing a recession is great way to force a reassessment of your financial behavior. The Great Depression is famous for shaping a generation of frugal citizens/consumers. Do you feel like you have not been saving enough money? America Saves Week dot Org has a 12 step program for you. Join the craze!

But wait, popular economic theory of the day warns of 'the Paradox of Thrift'. What may be good for the individual is not good for the collective. Waxing economical takes place here, here, and here. Is there a moral dilemma here? Is this why we've been trained to act as consumers, rather than citizens?

Paul Kasriel has another angle. Debunking the Paradox with some tough love for WSJ contributer Daniel Henninger.

Why I Love Rick Santelli

This is a pretty powerful moment, representing the sentiment behind the counter-argument for Economic Stimulus. This is being called Santelli's 'Chicago Tea Party'. You can see Santelli expand the viewpoint here on the Today Show.

Today's View of Capitalism is a Joke

In traditional capitalism, you have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

In American capitalism you have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

In French capitalism you have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

In Italian capitalism you have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You break for lunch.

In Real capitalism you don’t have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don’t have any cows to put up as collateral.

In Enron Capitalism you have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

In Californian Capitalism you have two cows. They are happy.

In Arkansas capitalism you have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute.

UPDATE: Proposed Changes to Tax Credit, Conforming Limits

Republican amendments to the current stimulus package up for vote later today include:

-Restoring the $729,750 loan limits in some areas

-Temporarily offer homebuyers a tax credit worth $15,000 or 10% of a home’s purchase price, whichever is less, with the option to utilize all in one year or spread out over two years. The credit does not have to be paid back. It would be available to all purchases of any home from date of enactment for one full year - no longer just a first time homebuyer credit, and borrowers would be able to claim the credit against the 2008 tax return.

-Other details:

1. buyers must occupy the home for two years as their principle residence
2. includes a two year recapture provision (if they leave the home in two years they lost the credit)
3. purchases of homes by investors are ineligible
   

The bill is still working its way through Congress, and the House of Representatives must still negotiate with the Senate since the House bill does not contain the credit.

Proposed Changes to Homebuyer Tax Credit, Conforming Limits

Rumors are going around about the following ideas, supposedly on the table for legislative discussion:

First Time Buyer Tax Credit Change:
Currently, the credit is up to $7500 for qualified first time buyers, and the funds are expected to be repaid at the rate of $500 per year for the ensuing 15 years.

Proposed changes are for increasing the credit to $14,000, and also to make it forgivable. In other words, no requirement to be repaid. Ever.

That is a significant change, and would represent a MAJOR incentive to enter the market.


Conforming Loan Limits:
Currently, the limit is 417k nationally, and in some high cost areas, it can be as high as 625,500. All 9 Bay Area counties are currently at 625,500. During 2008, the ceiling was higher – 729,750, but the “temporary” classification caused the lenders, who still operate in a free market world, to have almost zero interest. It didn’t really work. The 625,500 level was more conservative, but permanent. It has helped, but not quite as well as intended.

Proposed changes would reinstate the ceiling at 729,750 for qualified California property, or, according to one source, raise the ceiling to ~$932,000 for qualified California property.

Also potentially significant change, unlocking many borrowers with high outstanding loan balances on expensive property. No way of knowing if lenders will have an appetite for these deals or not, but it’s something to keep an eye on…

What If You Could Set Your Own Tax Assessment Value?

Here in California, Prop 13 puts limits on periodic tax assessments, but in many other states the values change up and down with the county assessor's opinion of the value of the property. There is an inherent conflict here where the county wants maximum tax revenue, and homeowners don't want to have to deal with a bureaucratic protest every year when their tax bill feels like an insult.

Paul Kasriel recalls a concept for a solution to this conflict, as discussed by a former Fed official, and how it might relate to current challenges we are facing with "fixing" the economy. Specifically, he is looking at the "bad bank" concept currently being mulled over, and how current banks and the bad bank would theoretically agree on a value for the "bad assets".

But backing up a step, I found the basis for the analogy more interesting. The self-assessment theory works as follows:

• Let the owner of the real estate place the value on his property.
• The taxing authority has the right to purchase the property at the owner-decided value.

Owners are deterred from placing too low a value on their properties, and no incentive to place too high a value on their properties. An efficient system for maximizing and fairly taxing the property in the county. The alternative, which is related to the cringing sounds you hear from economists watching government regulation, intervention, and inter-mediation in this broken-down marketplace, is one where there are more rules, regulations, loopholes and inconsistencies.

It's a very thought-provoking piece. 2 pages of your time...