Restricted Credit Will Impede Housing Recovery

Financial FAQs

As if we need more evidence that the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau and government regulators have listened to the wrong people when drafting their Qualified Mortgage requirements (that lowers the maximum debt-to-income ratio to 43 percent for non-agency mortgages, disallows interest only options and 40-yr amortization for starters), while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac add huge fees and stricter underwriting criteria to anyone below a 700 credit score (which is almost perfect in today’s trying markets), the latest new-home sales should convince us.

Graph: Calculated Risk

The Census Bureau reports New Home Sales in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 406 thousand, while May sales were revised down from 504 thousand to 442 thousand, and April sales were revised down from 425 thousand to 408 thousand. Inventories rose to a 5.8-month level from 5.2 months in May.

The National Association of Home Builders tried to put a good face on the numbers. "With continued job creation and economic growth, we are cautiously optimistic about the home building industry in the second half of 2014," said NAHB Chief Economist David Crowe. "The increase in existing home sales also bodes well for builders, as it is a signal that trade-up buyers can move up to new construction." Regionally, new-home sales were down across the board. Sales fell 20 percent in the Northeast, 9.5 percent in the South, 8.2 percent in the Midwest and 1.9 percent in the West.

But this is not good news for housing advocates so late in the recovery. For one thing, government regulators and the Obama administration are way behind the housing curve in choosing to tighten credit standards long after the problem of too easy credit was solved. The Federal Reserve and regulators have outright banned low teaser rate, negatively amortized,‘liar’ loans, and loans that don’t require income and asset verification. Mortgages delinquencies are down, existing-home sales are back to a 5 million annual sales rate, and record low interest rates should make it easier to qualify.

So why are regulators still chasing phantoms, and continue to punish lenders five years after the housing bubble burst? Instead, it’s time to encourage them to lend some of their record $1 trillion in excess reserves held by the Federal Reserves in MZM accounts (i.e, at zero interest). Without a housing recovery, there will be no substantial economic recovery, say many major economists.

For instance, former Fed Chair Bernanke has said too-tight credit conditions have squeezed both prospective homebuyers and builders. "Why has the recovery in housing been so slow? One important factor is restraints on mortgage credit," Bernanke said in 2012, adding that total outstanding mortgage credit has shrunk by about 13 percent since its peak in 2007.

Just how weak are home sales? Five years after the end of the recession, sales of new single-family homes still remain far below an annual average of more than 770,000 over the 20 years leading up to a 2005 peak, government data show.

Fannie Mae is growing more optimistic this month about U.S. sales of new single-family homes, and now sees 2014 hitting the highest level in seven years. Fannie’s  FNMA July housing-market forecast estimates that sales of new single-family homes will reach 486,000 this year — the most since 2007 — a bit higher than June’s estimate of 478,000, which would have been the greatest since 2008.

However, despite the uptick in the July forecast, over the past year Fannie has slashed its outlook for new-home sales, showing just how disappointing the market’s been in 2014. Back in July 2013, federally controlled Fannie had expected 2014 sales of new single-family homes to hit 588,000.

Rising mortgage rates, a low supply of new homes and unusually poor winter weather each took a bite out of residential sales this year. It’s also been tough for many borrowers to meet lenders’ strict credit standards, as we said. But it is home sales, and new-home sales in particular that has to improve to boost inventory and keep housing prices in the affordable range.

Harlan Green © 2014

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Greenspan’s Greed and The Federal Deficit

Popular Economics Weekly

The deficit this year is expected to be $514 billion— just 3 percent the size of the economy and significantly less than the $1.4 trillion deficit Congress ran up when it pumped stimulus into the economy in 2009.

“Although the deficit in the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline projections continues to decline as a percentage of GDP in 2015, to 2.6 percent, it then starts to increase again in 2016, reaching 4.0 percent of GDP in 2024,” said the CBO. “That figure for the end of the 10-year projection period is roughly 1 percentage point above the average deficit over the past 40 years relative to the size of the economy.”

Why do we have such a large federal budget deficit today, in spite of the current reductions of CBO projections? It now totals $17 trillion counting the US Treasury’s own debt to itself—when we had 4 consecutive annual surpluses in the Clinton years of 1997 to 2001, and an overall budget deficit reduced to $3.2 trillion in privately-held debt.
The answer in a nutshell is unrestrained human greed, something that even Alan Greenspan recognized, though he wouldn’t admit it was the result of his own laissez faire market ideology of lower taxes and less market regulation.

''It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past,” he famously lamented in 2002 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. “It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously.”

That quote was not only fatuous—humans have always become more or less greedy depending on those so-called opportunities for greed—but it was his decision to back GW Bush’s deficit spending that erased the Clinton budget surpluses.

Graph: FactCheck.org

There were of course 2 recessions—in 1991 and 1997, plus the wars on terror, plus TARP and the Bush era tax cuts. But it was then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s testimony that enabled the Bush/Cheney record deficits of those and subsequent years such as on January 26, 2001 Senate testimony:

"Continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private -- more technically, nonfederal – assets,” he said at the time. “At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. ... This development should factor materially into the policies you and the administration choose to pursue."

In fact, it was the unregulated greed of Wall Streeters that Greenspan had in fact encouraged in opposing regulation of derivatives—used by regulated banks, as well as unregulated hedge funds—that led to the Great Recession that bankrupted millions.
The Clinton surpluses had almost balanced long-term federal debt, and first Bush Treasury Secretary John O’Neill lost the debate on what to do with that surplus. He had wanted the surplus to strengthen social security, Medicare, and other government spending programs. O’Neill was fired for his opposition to the Bush tax cuts.
In other words, Greenspan gave Bush the cover he needed after 9/11 to use that surplus to finance tax cuts on capital in particular—including abolishing the inheritance tax, lowering capital gains and dividend taxes almost 50 percent—that mainly benefited Wall Street and its investors, rather than Main Street.

“Why did corporate governance checks and balances that served us reasonably well in the past break down?” he asked. “At root was the rapid enlargement of stock market capitalizations in the latter part of the 1990s that arguably engendered an outsized increase in opportunities for avarice. An infectious greed seemed to grip much of our business community.”

We have you to thank, Dr. Greenspan, for those "opportunities for avarice" that resulted from of your unbridled enthusiasm for such policies at that time. It also brought on the Great Recession and record deficit we have today.

Harlan Green © 2014

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Beware of the Taperians!

Popular Economics Weekly

Now that the Fed has begun to reduce its QE3 securities’ purchases $10B per month in January, what will that do for growth? My answer is it’s too soon to say. Firstly, beware of the ‘Taperians’, those who would end QE3 too soon. As outgoing Fed Chairman Bernanke explained in his most recent speech, without QE3 we might have regressed back into a recession.

“"Skeptics have pointed out that the pace of recovery has been disappointingly slow, with inflation-adjusted GDP growth averaging only slightly higher than a 2 percent annual rate over the past few years and inflation below the Committee's 2 percent longer-term target," Bernanke said at the American Economic Association annual meeting in Philadelphia. "However, as I will discuss, the recovery has faced powerful headwinds, suggesting that economic growth might well have been considerably weaker, or even negative, without substantial monetary policy support. For the most part, research supports the conclusion that the combination of forward guidance and large-scale asset purchases has helped promote the recovery."

Then there are the political ‘headwinds’. Will the next 2 years’ budget agreement mean no more budget fights for a while, or will opponents to Obamacare continue to throw up roadblocks to its implementation in the 35 states that wouldn’t set up their own health care exchanges? This would make it more expensive and wasteful of government resources, needless to say.

Yet it seems at least one Fed Governors has been sounding the need to end QE3 before its time—Richmond Fed Governor Jeff Lacker. Lacker has been most vocal in wanting to rein in QE3 almost from its start last fall, and one who most consistently voted against continuing it at subsequent FOMC meetings. The reason? He’s an inflation hawk, or ‘inflationista’ (P Krugman’s term), as well as deficit hawk that fears all those bonds bought by the Fed will create runaway inflation (and deficits), once they are sold back into the economy.

In other words, he belongs to the ‘confidence fairy’ camp (another Krugman term) that believes business confidence is the key to growth, instead of consumer demand for their products, and businesses will lose confidence when interest rates and debt servicing costs rise, increasing budget deficits. But what about consumer confidence, when consumers are currently spending at a 4 percent annual rate, which is the largest component of overall demand?

“Businesses also appear to be quite reticent to hire and invest,” said Lacker in his most recent report. “A widely followed index of small business optimism fell sharply during the recession and has only partially recovered since then. Interestingly, when small business owners were asked about the single most important problem they face, the most frequent answer in the latest survey was "government regulations and red tape." This observation accords with reports we've been hearing from many business contacts for several years now. They've seen a substantial increase in the pace of regulatory change and a substantial increase in uncertainty about the shape of new regulations. Both are said to discourage new hiring and investment commitments.”

Graph: DShort

However that is not all survey results show in the December 10 NFIB report reported. “The net percent of all owners (seasonally adjusted) reporting higher nominal sales in the past 3 months compared to the prior 3 months was unchanged at a negative 8 percent. Fifteen percent still cite weak sales as their top business problem, but it is the lowest reading since June 2008. The net percent of owners expecting higher real sales volumes rose 1 point to 3 percent of all owners after falling 6 points in October (seasonally adjusted), a weak showing.”

In fact, the lack of consumer demand for their products is still the chief problem, not federal regulations or high taxes, as shown by their lack of need for more credit. “…only 2 percent of NFIB members cite credit and interest rates as their top business problem, and a record 66 percent expressed no interest in a loan, obviously due to their dismal view of the future of the economy. It’s not a problem of credit supply; it’s a lack of credit demand due primarily to poor economic prospects.”

What does Lacker say about consumer demand, the largest driver of economic growth, as we said? That consumer sentiment is still depressed because of economic ‘uncertainty’. “Although consumption grew rapidly at the end of last year, we have seen similar surges since the last recession, only to see spending return to a more moderate trend. Consumer spending trends are likely to depend on whether the dramatic events of the last few years are only a temporary disturbance to household sentiment or if they instead represent a more persistent shift in attitudes about borrowing and saving. At this point, I am inclined toward the latter view (i.e., that household sentiment remains depressed).”

Once again he talks about sentiments, rather than real income and wealth, which are the main determinants of consumer spending. It is their actual wealth that determines consumers’ spending habits, much more than what they feel about future prospects, research has shown.

So it’s true consumers are still being cautious, but several factors are improving consumer confidence. For example, said Bernanke, “notwithstanding the effects of somewhat higher mortgage rates, house prices have rebounded, with one consequence being that the number of homeowners with "underwater" mortgages has dropped significantly, as have foreclosures and mortgage delinquencies. Household balance sheets have strengthened considerably, with wealth and income rising and the household debt-service burden at its lowest level in decades.

If in fact Fed Governor Lackey believes consumer and business uncertainty is still too high, he should not be supporting an early end to the QE3 taper. Consumers and businesses are still facing an uncertain future. Is this the time to be taking away the credit ‘punch bowl’, with the private sector holding back?

So beware of those Taperians which cite the shortcomings of governments, rather than their own policies that hamper future prosperity.

Harlan Green © 2013

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

So-called Qualified Mortgages Are a Problem

The Mortgage Corner

The new rules coming into effect in January 2013 for most conforming loans—i.e., those guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will cause a definite drop in mortgage lending. The Consumer Protection Financial Bureau, created under Dodd-Frank has labeled such mortgages as Qualified Mortgages.

Financial institutions in the business of originating mortgages that they plan to resell on the secondary market to government-sponsored mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have to raise their standards for approving loans. That is likely to have the biggest impact on working-class families, many of whom are struggling with consumer debt and are living paycheck to paycheck.

Two of the most important new rules created by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau related to housing are the Ability-to-Repay rule and the 3 percent test rule.

The Ability-to-Repay rule, also known as the Qualified Mortgage rule, says borrowers' total debt liability -- including housing -- should not exceed 43 percent of income. A Qualified Mortgage is one that would be qualified for resale on the secondary mortgage market.

Yet borrowers with up to 50 percent total debt liability (DTI), excellent credit and savings that qualify today, would be excluded. And other rules, such as no interest only programs, no more than 30-year amortizations, lower debt-to-income qualification levels, and perhaps lower maximum loan to value amounts, will severely restrict homeownership.

So the regulations also could have the unintended effect of making it more difficult for many working-class families to qualify for mortgage loans offered by major banks, as an example. This is because higher income is required, hence such families will qualify for lower-priced homes.

The 3 percent test rule says 3 percent of the mortgage amount is the maximum amount of fees that banks can charge a borrower in order for the home loan to be classified as a Qualified Mortgage that can be resold in the secondary market.

"If you are a bank that pretty much originates and sells your mortgages, you are now playing under these rules," said Ernie Hogan, executive director of Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group. "If you are a bank that originates mortgages but keeps them and holds them for 30 years, you can vary from some of these rules."

Mr. Hogan believes this rule will make lower-priced homes more expensive for banks because they will not make as much money on that kind of business.

"It will hurt working-class families buying homes for $75,000 or less," he said. "Those loans will be classified as a high-cost loan. You are going to lose people in the mortgage industry looking at that segment. That's what we think will happen. Banks will make a better spread on higher-priced homes."

Don Frommeyer, president of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, said the 3 percent rule also will be a problem for mortgage brokers. He said brokers will have a harder time collecting their fee on homes priced below $160,000 because every cost to the customer in the home buying process goes toward the 3 percent. For a mortgage of $100,000, for example, all origination fees -- including the mortgage broker fee -- would be limited to a total of $3,000.

This will also mean a step backward in the incipient housing recovery, as qualification standards were already tightened by the Federal Reserve last year for conventional loans guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, in an attempt to lessen mortgage fraud and predatory lending practices.

But predatory lending wasn’t much of a problem before subprime loan programs were introduced in early 2000 that were basically liar loans, with little or no attempt to verify incomes and assets. Conversely, loans underwritten to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac standards have never had this problem, with default rates not much higher than historical averages since the housing bubble.

So there is conjecture that a major reason for even more restrictive rules is an attempt to get Fannie and Freddie, now wards of the government, completely out of the mortgage purchase and guarantee business. But who then would be left, since they have been guaranteeing more than 90 percent of all mortgages originated since the end of the Great Recession. Need we say any more restrictions on them could step this real estate recovery in its tracks?

Harlan Green © 2013

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Dr. Robert Shiller Says No Housing Boom

The Mortgage Corner

Dr. Robert Shiller, Yale Econ Professor, and co-creator of the Case-Shiller Home Price Index, has become very cautious in his latest articles. Don’t expect much in the way of a housing boom in 2013. He isn’t even sure even prices will continue to rise as they have over the past 3 years given all the headwinds, such as tighter mortgage regulations, a declining percentage of homeowners versus renters, and low consumer expectations in general.

This is in spite of the fact that home sales are up some 5 percent, and his own price index is 5.5 percent higher in one year, for the strongest year-over-year growth since August 2006 with increases in 19 of 20 cities..

“On the one hand, there were sharp price increases in 2012, with the S.&P./Case-Shiller 20-City Index, said Dr. Shiller, “which I helped devise, up a total of 9 percent over the six months from March to September. That comes after what was generally a decline in prices for five consecutive years. And while prices dropped very slightly in October, the trend was quite encouraging for the market.”

“But some of these changes were seasonal,” he continues. “Home prices have tended to rise every midyear and to fall slightly every fall and winter. And for some unknown reason, seasonal effects have become more pronounced since the financial crisis.”

Yet he cites a consensus of some 100 economists that real prices will rise 1 to 2 percent over inflation in coming years. Folks, that is the historical norm for housing prices in the 20^th century that Dr. Shiller himself cites in his second edition of Irrational Exuberance.

Why so much pessimism from the Oracle who actually coined the term ‘irrational exuberance’ that Fed Chairman Greenspan used in his famous speech so many years ago?

Graph: Calculated Risk

I believe he is neglecting what is behind the current surge in home buying—pent up demand, and record low interest rates that the Fed has vowed to keep low until the unemployment rate falls to the 6 percent range from the current 7.8 percent. Pent up demand is a powerful driver of home building, for one thing. And household formation is predicted to double to some 1.3 million per year in coming years from a low as 350,000 annually during the Great Recession.

That, and real interest rates make homes the most affordable in history, according to the National Association of Realtors. While this won’t bring us back to boom times, it will at least restore housing to its proper place in the economy.

Even though national existing-home sales declined 1.0 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.94 million in December from a downwardly revised 4.99 million in November, sales are 12.8 percent above the 4.38 million-unit level in December 2011, says the National Association of Realtors.

Graph: Calculated Risk

The result is total housing inventory at the end of December fell 8.5 percent to 1.82 million existing homes available for sale, which represents a 4.4-month supply at the current sales pace, down from 4.8 months in November, and is the lowest housing supply since May of 2005.

This means new-home construction will have to pick up to satisfy the increasing demand for housing, as we have said in past weeks. And the outlook is good, with privately-owned housing starts in December at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 954,000. This is 12.1 percent above the revised November estimate of 851,000 and is 36.9 percent above the December 2011 rate of 697,000, according to the US Census Bureau.

Graph: Econoday

On a year-over-year basis, private residential construction spending is now up 19 percent. Non-residential spending is up 8 percent year-over-year mostly due to energy spending says Calculated Risk. Public spending is down 3 percent year-over-year, and that is the real problem. Governments should be spending much more on public infrastructure, when and if the economy returns to more normal growth.

Hence we do not share Dr. Shiller’s uncertainty about the direction of home prices. Extremely tight housing inventories mean demand has picked up substantially. It all might depend on one’s definition of a housing ‘boom’. No one expects a return to the bubble years when consumers borrowed more than they earned. Maybe it’s a relief just to return to a more normal housing market?

Harlan Green © 2013

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Romney’s 5-Point Plan—Very Primitive Economics

Financial FAQs

Romney’s “Five Point Plan to Grow the Economy” that he touts on his website, is primitive economics almost beyond belief. It returns us to 19th century government of the few by the few with few regulations or insurance against the kinds of events that brought on the Great Depression and Great Recession, for starters.

Conservatives in general and Mitt Romney don’t seem to understand the most basic concept of modern economics--insuring against major disruptions—that is indispensable to run a modern economy. Insurance isn’t only about insuring the many to protect the most vulnerable—whether against physical disasters such as the Midwest drought, or financial disasters such as the Great Depression, or catastrophic illness. It is really about all of our citizens being for one, and one for all. It is why we tax ourselves to pay for a government, because government is really the protector of last resort against the most basic risks in a world grown increasingly complex and uncertain.

Modern economies can’t do without it, yet Romney says he opposes most modern forms of protection in his 5-point plan by continuing to reduce taxes that would starve government of revenues, as well as cap spending on regulation enforcement. He would also repeal the Affordable Care Act that insures 30 million more Americans. Instead he proposes more of GW Bush’s ‘Ownership Society’ which seeks to return us to the era of laissez faire, free, unregulated markets that existed 100 years ago. And we know the damage those institutions which evaded or ignored modern financial regulation did to financial markets.

Then was a much smaller, less complex world where most Americans were still living on farms. But the farming world collapsed in the 1920s when mechanization caused farming prices to plunge, ultimately bringing on the Great Depression. That is when the modern, industrial world came into being, requiring New Deal insurance; including social security, unemployment insurance, and even workman’s compensation to cushion the effects of modern business cycles on the urban unemployed who could no longer return to the farm during tough times. And unions came into being to organize workers so they could bargain for better than minimum wages and benefits.

The centerpiece of Romney’s plan is to continue to cut taxes for both individuals and corporations. This is when corporations have the highest profits as a percentage of GDP in history, while most individual tax cuts have benefited the wealthiest, thus creating the worst income inequality since the 1920s.

Graph: CBPP

And in starving the government of revenues he would  impose a regulatory budget cap, “reform” regulations so that coal-fired power plants would no longer have to control their pollution (thank you, Koch Brothers, for your $millions in contributions), open ANWAR, the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve to oil drilling, and in general continue to support our most polluting, non-renewable energy resources.

Returning the U.S. to an almost primitive society is already happening, of course, with continuing Republican attempts to block Dodd-Frank regulation, privatize Medicare and social security. The Great Recession was a product of Adam Smith’s primitive economic theory that said an ‘invisible hand’ controls markets for the benefit of all.

Really? That hasn’t been the case during the past two GW Bush recessions, including the Great Recession. $Trillions were lost during those recessions that were the result of inflated asset bubbles bursting, as regulations were ignored or evaded which controlled financial risk-taking. The Bush record is not pretty, and that is the most recent record to look at that is the result of primitive economic thinking.

Graph: Calculated Risk

The historical graph of economic growth shows most clearly which policies work to grow the economy—primitive economic policies, or using government as an active participant in growth? In fact, all recent recessions since 1980 have occurred during Republican administrations; from President Reagan’s in 1980, 1983, Bush I in 1991, and GW Bush in 2001 and 2007-09. Policies that starve government of what is needed to govern effectively starves all of U.S. Need we say more?

Harlan Green © 2012

What Has Caused Record Inequality (and Greater Recessions)?

Popular Economics Weekly

Economists Lawrence Mishel and Heidi Shierholz of the labor think tank Economic Policy Institute (EPI) have been asking a question in their latest work that is at the root of our various economic crises, “Why did the richest 1 percent of Americans receive 56 percent of all the income growth between 1989 and 2007, before the recession began (compared with 16 percent going to the bottom 90 percent of households)? Why are corporate profits 22 percent above their pre-recession level while total corporate sector employees’ compensation (reflecting lower employment and meager pay increases) is 3 percent below pre-recession levels?”

The answers have become becoming blindingly obvious in the glare of the Great Recession. A concerted effort by business interests in general, and Republicans in particular, instigated a massive transfer of newly created wealth from wage earners to the owners of capital via various measures, including lowering upper income tax rates, restricting employees collective bargaining, rolling back regulations on financial institutions, and the like.

Such a wealth transfer has caused tremendous harm to our economy and society. The major casualty has been recurring recessions since the 1970s brought on in large part by mountains of debt. In fact, most of that debt was taken out by households with declining incomes who took advantage of increasingly available credit to borrow to make up for their income shortfall.

What created the wealth? Information age technologies, which massively increased worker productivity. Labor productivity has increased 254 percent since 1948. Hourly wages, however, increased just 113 percent. That can be seen in Figure A from the EPI, which presents both the cumulative growth in productivity per hour worked of the total economy (inclusive of the private sector, government, and nonprofit sector) since 1948 and the cumulative growth in inflation-adjusted hourly compensation for private-sector production/nonsupervisory workers (a group comprising over 80 percent of payroll employment).

Figure A: EPI

That transfer of wealth since the 1970s has been well documented in books such as, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson’s, “Winner Take-all Politics” that documents the massive lobbying effort by businesses to bring in business-friendly legislation and administrations resulting not only in the ownership of much of Congress, but an extremely conservative, corporate-friendly Supreme Court that in Citizen’s United now allows unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns, and so corporate control of 2 of the 3 branches of government for years to come.

The other side of that coin is blatant attempts by Republicans to suppress incomes by taking away collective bargaining rights of both private and public sector workers, such as happened in Wisconsin. The result is the almost disappearance of the middle class that has been the main driver of growth since WWII.

Big Business chose to raise their own incomes and that of their shareholders, but not their workers’ incomes, in other words. Yet Big Business was more than willing to lend consumers money via Wall Street and relaxed banking regulations, so much so that the personal savings rate dropped to almost zero during the Bush II administration, as the Calculated Risk graph clearly shows after peaking in 1980. Those consecutive recessions—6 since 1973—have been a tremendous drag on economic growth, in spite of the productivity increases.

Graph: Calculated Risk

According to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, the percentage of households holding revolving credit card debt rose from 16 percent in 1970 to 71 percent in 2004.

“Essentially, economic policy has not supported good jobs over the last 30 years or so,” said EPI. “Rather, the focus has been on policies that were thought to make consumers better off through lower prices: deregulation of industries, privatization of public services, the weakening of labor standards including the minimum wage, erosion of the social safety net, expanding globalization, and the move toward fewer and weaker unions. These policies have served to erode the bargaining power of most workers, widen wage inequality, and deplete access to good jobs. In the last 10 years even workers with a college degree have failed to see any real wage growth.”

All this has been part of an even larger trend, the maturing of our economy from industrial to a service-oriented economy dependent mostly on consumer demand, rather than capital investment as in the past. The result has been documented by Rutgers Economic Historian James Livingston. Though most economic activity over the past 100 years is generated by consumer spending, it hasn’t benefited most consumers.

This has to change. We can no longer tolerate such a diversion of wealth that has weakened our economic and social fabric so much that we have fallen behind the rest of the developed world in education, health care, ageing infrastructure, and even environmental protection.

Harlan Green © 2012

What Will Bring Back Real Estate?

The Mortgage Corner

We are now beginning to see what is holding back the residential real estate market. The lack of jobs is one cause, of course. But two other factors—the reluctance of lenders and their loan servicers to modify loans, faulty—even fraudulent—foreclosure practices, and too restrictive mortgage credit may be even bigger factors.

Both new-home construction and existing-home sales have been languishing at the bottom of the market since January 2009 with a brief surge during the homebuyer tax incentives of 2010. The beginning of this year’s selling season is giving it some lift, with March housing starts and existing-home sales up.

The National Association of Realtors reports March was a "decent" month for existing home sales with a 3.7 percent gain to a slightly higher-than-expected annual rate of 5.1 million. Prices firmed slightly, up 2.2 percent for the median reading to $159,600. Yet year-on-year, contraction of 5.9 percent is a little deeper than 5.2 percent in the prior month. Slightly more homes were on the market, 3.549 million, but the solid rise in sales brought down the supply reading slightly to a still very heavy 8.4 months.

The report warns that credit standards are still too tight, reflected in a record all-cash sales rate of 35 percent in the month. Distressed sales made up 40 percent of all sales for the highest rate in nearly two years. The housing market may be lifting slightly but is still near the bottom, as we said.

A look at the distressed markets will tell us why in this Calculated Risk graph. A total of some 2 million housing units are delinquent. Although 30-day lates are slowly declining, the pending Foreclosed (FC), and REO (bank-owned) inventory of about 1 million units hasn’t declined since July 2009.

And the new measures promulgated by the Federal Reserve may take time to implement. For instance, one measure is requiring banks and mortgage servicers to have one point of contact for borrowers either in trouble or wanting to modify their mortgages. Another is not allowing banks to proceed with a foreclosure if it is simultaneously working on a loan modification.

Qualifying for mortgages has become harder, with credit scores below 680 for even Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac conforming loans no longer qualifying. That means those millions who might have lost their homes could be out of the home buying market for years. That is, they may have solved their financial problems, but it takes many years to get a credit score back above the 680 level.

The Case-Shiller Home Price Index is of no help, as home prices are still declining in most of its 20 metro markets. Its survey tells us that housing prices may have another 10 percent decline, based on historical price-to-rent ratios.

Here are the Federal Reserve “consent decrees” with the 10 largest commercial banks that include Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank:

• strengthen coordination of communications with borrowers by providing borrowers the name of the person at the servicer who is their primary point of contact;
• ensure that foreclosures are not pursued once a mortgage has been approved for modification, unless repayments under the modified loan are not made;
• establish robust controls and oversight over the activities of third-party vendors that provide to the servicers various residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation, or foreclosure-related support, including local counsel in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings;
• provide remediation to borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of wrongful foreclosures or other deficiencies identified in a review of the foreclosure process; and
• strengthen programs to ensure compliance with state and federal laws regarding servicing, generally, and foreclosures, in particular.

The Fed concluded its announcement with a warning:  “The Federal Reserve will closely monitor progress at the firms in addressing these matters and will take additional enforcement actions as needed.”

Harlan Green © 2011

Redistributing Wealth—Not a Zero Sum Game

Popular Economics Weekly

No one wants to talk about the elephant in the room during this election season, wealth redistribution. Yet that is guiding policy makers on both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats are trying to restore middle class incomes by preserving the so-called middle class Bush II tax cuts for those incomes below $250,000, for example. Repubs meanwhile want to preserve all of the tax cuts, including for the wealthiest.

That is just one example of the mentality of both sides. In their minds, this economy is a zero-sum game, and so why discuss it? It is an I Win-You Lose world, in other words, which is fueled by the fear that many will miss out on a barely recovering economy. Yet that doesn’t have to be so.

Wealth redistribution should be discussed, since most income segments have seen a decline in their real (after inflation) incomes since the 1970s—except for the top one percent income bracket. And we cannot afford such growing income inequality, now the greatest since 1929, since economists are discovering that it was a main cause of the 2007-09 Great Recession as well.

The largest share of the nation’s income now goes to the wealthiest households. For example, according to the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, between 1979 and 2007:

• The top 1 percent’s share of the nation’s total after-tax household income more than doubled, from 7.5 percent to 17.1 percent.
• The share of income going to the middle three-fifths (or 60 percent) of households shrank from 51.1 percent to 43.5 percent.
• The share going to the bottom fifth of households declined from 6.8 percent to 4.9 percent.
• The share going to the bottom four-fifths (80 percent) of the population declined from 58 percent to 48 percent.

Yet overall, the long term, historical personal income rate of increase is 5.6 percent per year. So the I win-You lose mentality is a fallacious (and even specious) economic argument. In fact, modern economic theory says just the opposite—when income is more fairly distributed via progressive taxation and other wealth equalizing policies (including universal health care).

Put more money into consumers’ pockets (i.e., the lower and middle class income brackets that spend the most), and we all win. Mainstream economic theory states that it creates greater aggregate demand for all—i.e., demand for not only more goods and services, but investments that create jobs. And demand can be created from either the public or private sector.

This win-win policy is a well-known truth most explicitly formulated by John Maynard Keynes, the economic theorist most reviled by conservatives who oppose most forms of government spending—except for defense, of course.

Conservatives don’t like social security or universal health care either, of course, because conservatives wish to preserve their wealth—won over many years of hard fought battles with unions and progressive liberals under President Reagan’s “government is the problem” mantra. And with Ayn Rand disciple Alan Greenspan running the Federal Reserve during this time, the floodgates were opened to allow the so-called ‘free market’ rewards to flow to those most able to exploit its opportunities.

Of course the call to more individual freedom that Ayn Rand espoused has to be enabled by smaller government, which also meant lesser regulation. President Reagan’s mantra is good for a world of entrepreneurs in a Darwinian dog-eat-dog world of global competition, in which the lowest wage earning companies and countries with least environmental safeguards end up being the producers, while the rest of us become consumers.

The problem with producing less and consuming more, however, is that consumers also have to make a decent living if they are to spend more, which is impossible with declining wage and working standards. Only those at the top—the most educated and entrepreneurial, in a word—are able to exploit those opportunities. Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert Reich has explored this in his, “The Future of Success”, and subsequent books.

There is another disadvantage to such growing inequality, as well. It leads to more severe recessions, as we have said. The greatest periods of income inequality, 1928-9 and 2007-08, also led us into the severest economic downturns—the Great Depression and Great Recession. There is no good economic or political reason for such inequality to continue, if we want more sustainable—and predictable--growth.

Harlan Green © 2010

Why Financial Reform?

Financial FAQs

It is becoming clearer that economic self-interest under the guise of trickle-down economics no longer rules in the debate over financial market regulation. There must be regulations that protect the self from itself, and the predatory behavior of others. The SEC’s charge that Goldman Sachs committed fraud in marketing Collateralized Debt Obligation insurance on the worst of subprime mortgage pools is the opening salvo in a campaign to make the players who almost drove financial markets over the cliff responsible for their deeds.

“The SEC suit again Goldman, if proven true, will confirm to people their suspicions about the total selfishness of these financial institutions,” said Wall Street historian Steve Fraser, as quoted in the New York Times. “This is way beyond recklessness. This is way beyond incompetence. This is cynical, selfish exploiting.”

Even President Bill Clinton said recently on ABC’s “This Week” that had he known the damage that unregulated derivatives could wreak on an unsophisticated public as well as sophisticated investors, he would never have backed the 1999 legislation that deregulated them. “I have said many times since then, I made a mistake.”

And even economists are beginning to see the light. A Cambridge, U.K. conference sponsored by currency trader George Soros is looking for other systems that might take us away from economic self-interest. Britain’s chief regulator said, "We need a fundamental challenge to recent conventional wisdom…a dominant conventional wisdom that markets were always rational and self-equilibrating."

Some of the difficulty in pinning down responsibility has been misconceptions about a capitalist economy, said 2001 Nobelist George Akerlof. There is always an element of ‘snake oil’ in all financial markets, which tend to be overlooked even by regulators. What is overlooked is their agenda, such as the ratings’ agencies underestimation of risk, or regulators’ inability to spot a Bernie Madoff. Regulators such as the SEC were either too overworked, or too unsophisticated in not looking under the covers of many offerings. And rating agencies were paid by the companies issuing the securities, hence tended to soften their risk analysis so that even some subprime-based securities were rated AAA.

Secondly, no one seemed to even understand the consequences. A string of unprecedented financial innovations created institutions that “don’t take into account the kind of communities we want to build”, said economist Robert Shiller in a recent New York Times Op-ed. Yet as leaders of their respective institutions it was certainly their job to foresee any downside consequences. There were certainly precedents, such as the creation of extreme asset bubbles in Japan. In fact, the Federal Reserve had worried about Japanese-style deflation in the early 2000s, the result of Japan’s own busted real estate and stock bubbles.

On the contrary, the biggest players only saw the upside. Greenspan in fact trumpeted the advantages of exotic (and unregulated) derivatives that spread the risk more widely, that he thought lessened the dangers of default. Yet Greenspan of all people should have foreseen the crash.

I remember well that he encouraged risky mortgages by recommending adjustable rate mortgages as preferable to fixed rates because their interest rates were lower, even though he admitted at hearings he only borrowed at fixed rates! A housing bubble was most unlikely, he said, because home owners couldn’t buy and sell their homes like stocks. Their transaction costs were higher, the housing market was less liquid—and moving costs were considerable.

This was when the Fed had been holding down short-term interest rates in 2003-4 almost as low as today in a bid to fight Japanese-style deflationary fears, and boost a recovery that hadn’t yet added one net job from the end of the 2001 recession. Because inflation was so low then—below 1 percent—the cost of money was in fact less than zero, which made it advantageous to mortgage with little or no down payment.

Why could some of the “smartest guys in the room” so miscall the worst downturn since the Great Depression? Greenspan for one, a disciple of Ayn Rand, believed that free markets embodied the highest moral order (his words). What made it moral? Greenspan, as Ayn Rand, et. al., believed that free market forces were the most efficient and impartial allocator of resources. So when crises did occur, they functioned as a market clearing device, and any attempt to mitigate their effects only prolonged the adjustment to new circumstances. Such crises embodied the forces of ‘creative destruction’ and shouldn’t be tampered with, in other words.

This is why many conservative economists who decried the stimulus spending said “let the banks fail”, so that bad debt can be wiped out. Creative destruction—the replacement of failing businesses with more vibrant ones—happened in nature, so why shouldn’t it be allowed to happen in the urban jungle?

The problem was that Greenspan’s ideology was outdated, and had become group think. The invisible hand of Adam Smith was no longer sufficient to control market forces that had become complex beyond understanding. Bubbles were caused by ignorance of fundamentals, including fundamental market forces that could go easily out of control when greater risk taking was encouraged, with no limits on borrowing.

Household incomes had been steadily shrinking in real (after inflation) terms since the 1970s, except for a short while in the 1990s, so the housing bubble and easy credit encouraged many households to spend borrowed money to keep up their standard of living, a standard that was now beyond their means.

A sustainable economic system in today’s world has to take more than individual self-interest into account, since more than the individual is affected. Financial markets are today intimately linked, so that markets may collapse world-wide if leaders are not held accountable for their risk-taking. Alan Greenspan made a choice of individual gain without regard for its consequences when he chose to ignore the housing bubble. But the captains of industry-and government-have to be held accountable for the welfare of all those affected by their actions as well.

Harlan Green © 2010