Current Housing Indicators |
| CURRENT | PREVIOUS | ||
| Existing Home Sales | 4.49m | ▼ | 4.74m |
| New Home Sales | 309,000 | ▼ | 344,000 |
| Housing Starts | 583,000 | ▲ | 477,000 |
| Building Permits | 547,000 | ▲ | 531,000 |
| HMI | 9 | UNCH | 9 |
| Existing Home Prices | $170,300 | ▼ (annually) | $199,800 |
| New Home Prices | $201,100 | ▼ (annually) | $232,400 |
- 100% Mortgage Financing From USDA
- Despite Government Aid, Foreclosure Crisis is Not Improving
- Housing Data Delivers Mixed Messages
- Appraisals Now Center Stage in Housing Recovery
- Underwater Mortgages Could Sink Even Deeper
- First Time Buyers Rescue Housing: Realtors
- Housing Recovery 'Still In Uncharted Territory': HUD Secretary
- Shadow Inventory Dwarfs Loan Mods
- The Battered Businesses Behind Housing
- Watch Foreclosures, Seriously
MOST SHARED
- Nielsen Ratings Coming to Video Games
- Confessions of a Black Friday Shopper
- 'New Moon' Midnight Showings Earn Record $26.3 Million
- Time Lapse World Series Is A Great Play
- The Week Ahead
- Oil Next Week
- Nov. 20: Unusual Volume Leaders
- This Holiday Season—Little Joy For Those Hard Hit
- Hot Topics at TEDMED
- Latest Bullish Sign for Gold: Central Banks Are Big Buyers
- How Stock Investors Can Play Holiday Travel
- Time Lapse World Series Is A Great Play
- Hirschhorn: Greed...or Fear
- My Top 10 Tech Toys for the Holidays
- iPhone a Better Gaming Platform Than Android?
- May Day For Dendreon
- 100% Mortgage Financing From USDA
- Holiday Tipping: Who And How Much
- Deep Discounts Should Make It a Very Tech-y Holiday
- Credit Markets on Edge About When Fed Will Raise Rates
- Bove: Expect Goldman To Increase Dividend Meaningfully
- Bullish Sign for Gold: Central Banks Are Big Buyers
- Victoria's Secret Hopes to Rekindle Desire for Lingerie
- High Roller Sues Harrah's for Lost Millions
- Wall Street Jobs Slow to Return Despite Record Profits
- Big Shareholders Ask Goldman to Cut Bonuses: Report
- Buying an Expensive House? Government Can Help
- Review: What It's Like to Drive the New Chevy Volt
RSS FEED
Realty Check
![]() |
AP Home For Sale - Reduced Priced |
There are in fact two today: FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair’s plan to guarantee three million mortgages so as to give mortgage investors incentives to modify loans and another proposal in the New York Times editorial pages from Prof. John Geanakoplos. The professor wants to take the power to modify loans away from master servicers and give it to local trustees, thereby relieving the servicers of liability for losses. The theory is that servicers have been slow to modify because they don’t want the loan investors to sue them.
Of course these ideas come on top of the FHA rescue program that just went into effect a few weeks ago and the TARP which has yet to decide how it wants to deal with all the bad loans it’s now allowed to buy.
So where am I going with all this, you ask? Well today I was doing a bit of a think-piece on TV about how that classic fundamental of affordability could actually give us an idea of which local housing markets are ripe for recovery and which still have a ways to fall. Several major cities, like Boston, Denver and Dallas all now have affordability rates that are far better than the 15-year average. These markets are therefore good buys for local residents who live and work in them.
So then I got to thinking: Let’s say you take all the people who claim to be in trouble on their mortgages. Take those mortgages away, lower the value of the house to the current market price, and calculate the monthly payment based on the current interest rate on the 30-year fixed (and I mean conforming, not jumbo) which is around 6.35 percent. Oh, and by the way the historical average on the 30-year fixed over the last 25 years happens to be 7.89 percent, so I’m offering a deal. How many of those folks could still afford the home? My guess is that some could, but many more could not.
What I’m getting at here is that no matter how far we go in modifying, restructuring, writing down principal on loans in order to stop foreclosures, the bottom line is that most of the borrowers in trouble had no business being in the homes they bought in the first place. You can modify their loans for five years, but they will probably lose the home anyway.
Video: Discussing what went wrong with housing, with CNBC's Diana Olick; John Geanakoplos, Yale economics professor; and John Geanakoplos, Ellington Mgmt. Group partner.
Is that mean? It’s not meant to be. I just think that in order to set the market right we need to let prices fall to where they must and start over again with mortgages, buyers and homes that make sense. We’re all losing money here, but that’s because so many people took advantage of free money during the housing boom (and don’t get me started on how those who didn’t take advantage of that free money still get screwed).
I understand the need to restore the credit markets and stop the crash in housing, but keeping folks in homes that are way beyond their means is just prolonging the pain of the inevitable.
Questions? Comments?









