Home Run: Can it get around the bases

The Utah Legislature recently passed the Home Run grant, administered by Utah Housing Corporation. In short the grant provides $6,000 if you purchase new construction (single family) in the state of Utah. Why are we encouraging them to buy new homes? Well, its because we have hundreds of homes sitting empty from unsustainable building (encouraged by irresponsible financing and real estate speculation). Some are calling the grant the "Clark Ivory Bailout Bill". Lets talk about the good, and the bad.

THE GOOD

Right now we have hundreds of empty new homes. Empty houses are a target for vandalism and theft. The more empty homes there are the greater the risk. Moving them is good.

Contractors are struggling. They have huge loans on these subdivisions that they cannot pay on....because the borrowed planning on selling homes to pay along the way (fairly standard procedure). This could keep some of them from going under and save jobs.

The grant is for anyone buying a new home, not just a first time home buyer. Those who may be ready to move up could do so, and their cheaper affordable homes would become available to families who should be buying those rather than newer more expensive homes.

The grant requires a fixed interest rate 30 year loan.

Income guidelines are pretty loose.....$75k for single, $150k for a couple.

THE BAD

As noted above, some see this as a bailout for builders who overextended themselves. Are we really helping homeowners or are we encouraging them to purchase overpriced homes?

This hurts homeowners who are trying to sell. A family whose home is being foreclosed upon will have an even harder time selling their home, since the an incentive to buy new is essentially a disincentive to buy existing used homes. This is really poor judgment on the part of the legislature, as it increases the risk of foreclosures in Utah.

Why buy new when there are so many more affordable homes out there? My fear is we are once again encouraging potential buyers to look at homes that are out of their price range. Contractors are not the only ones who stand to benefit here. Lenders and realtors are paid commission based on the sales price. If they can get consumers to buy newer more expensive homes, who are we really helping? Is this an incentive for homebuyers or a subsidy for builders, realtors and lenders?

No education requirement for new home buyers. Of course not. That would make sense.

My overall Impression: Not good. The bill seems designed to help lenders, builders, and realtors. It encourages the purchase of newer homes (most of which are more expensive than existing market options) while hurting families that are already struggling. It does NOTHING to address the issue of households in foreclosure and will probably exacerbate the problem. How many families could we have helped with this money? 1,600 grants for new homes...... The amount of help it will provide, cash incentive to borrowers, commission to realtors/lender, bailing out builders, compare to the costs; higher risk of unaffordable loans, money "lost" in higher commissions on higher home sales, and the collateral damage caused by a disincentive to buy existing homes that are in trouble. I touched on the real costs of foreclosure in a prior post, we are talking tens of thousands of dollards (minimum) for each foreclosure, and over a hundred thousand dollars when you consider the collateral damage to credit, surrounding homes, crime etc. Now imagine 1,600 of those homes foreclosing because some one purchased a new home instead. Who is the Utah legislature looking out for, their constituents or an aggressive lobby by real estate professionals? I think the answer is clear.

Housing Tax Credit: Take Two

Second verse, same as the first, a little bit louder, a little bit....better?

The word is out on the new housing "tax credit" compliments of the Obama administration. The bill looked too good to be true coming in, and endured a good trimming before an end result was reached. The lighter bill will certainly be cheaper for the government (and us, our money after all).

First things first. The amount was cut from $15,000 to $8,000, bringing it closer in line to the false "tax credit" we currently have. The reduction in cost means they could in theory serve more people and will keep the whining down from those who purchased last year and only qualified for the $7,500 interest free loan version.

This brings me to my second point. This one is a genuine credit. It is fully refundable, meaning even if you have no tax liability you can get paid the full $8,000. Since it is a credit and not a tax deduction we are talking dollar for dollar benefits.

While the reduction from $15,000 to $8,000 may seem like a big deal, it isn't the most important change made in the bill. That honor goes elsewhere. The senate version allowed the credit to be claimed by any home buyer who purchased during the time frame. The house bill, the one ultimately adopted, limits this to first time home buyers who purchase from 1/1/2009 to 11/30/09. This cuts the majority of those who might have claimed the credit out of the picture. Think of it this way. Bob the first time home buyer purchases a home from Ted...who is buying a house somewhere else from Jerry, who is buying a home in the city where his new job is etc... Under the senate plan all of these individuals would claim the credit. Under the new bill only Bob gets the credit. The limitation may keep some homeowners, who would have viewed this as an ideal time to purchase somewhere else, sitting on the fence while waiting for the market to stabilize.

Now, what do I think of the above? Well, it certainly is cheaper! I am guessing the cost of the new bill will be 1/5 or less of what he old one would have cost us. This would be good news if I didn't believe that the money will simply be spent elsewhere rather than "saved". If if is for rum exports to Puerto Rico, as some of the stimulus package is, well, I can't help but think it would have been better spent in the housing tax credit.

What will it do? Some are estimating as many as 300,000 first time home buyers will take advantage of the incentive and take the plunge. Sadly, this is only a drop in the bucket compared to the number of foreclosures we are seeing. Heck, households lost more jobs in the last couple of months than that paltry number! It will benefit a few...it won't do much to stimulate the economy (a familiar refrain the more I look at the "stimulus" bill).

Other problems remain as well. The credit does nothing to address the issue of down payments. Our savings rate has been ridiculously low over the last few years...how many of those first time buyers have actually saved anything at all? Are they purchasing homes with no money down....at with 100% LTV ratios....haven't we been down this road before? There is a reason private mortgage insurance exists (the insurance the borrower pays if they have less than 20% down payment, this insurance protects the lender). It exists because studies show that those who make smaller down payments are more likely to walk away from their home and/or let payments lapse.

Proverbs say that "Where there is no vision, the people perish". Until we catch the vision of personal responsibility and SACRIFICE, understanding that a home is something to be worked for and not a right, I think we will continue to see home owners perish.

I am going to pretend it is my bill now. The credit is only available in the form of a match, 2:1, for what the family is bringing to the table. They want $8,000, they better bring $4,000 for down payment. What about those who don't have it? They could set up a plan with a bank to save X number of dollars a month to reach their goal, and those who enrolled during the time frame of 1/1/09 to 11/30/19 and stick to their plan would still qualify for credit. For example: Bob wants to buy that house, but hasn't saved a dime. He decides to he can save $150 a month. He sets up a savings account with Wiser Bank and commits to saving $150 a month for the next 27 months. At the end of 27 months he has his downpayment, and his $8,000 match. This won't do much to stimulate the economy now (if anything saving money will hurt it a bit) but in the long run I think it is a smarter move than throwing good money after bad and allow potential homeowners who can't buy now a chance to work towards it in the future. I suspect those who worked and sacrificed to get the credit are more likely to make their payments than those who got $8,000 back from Uncle Sam with no effort and used it to pay for their new living room furniture.

The second thing I would require is education. Home buyer education can help them actually understand the documents they are signing, avoid being taken advantage of by sellers, ensure they have a budget (in theory, they still have to choose to follow it), and help them understand what to do if they fall behind on payments (or even think they will). If they don't want to get education....they can find their own $8,000.

In the meantime we won't see this make much of an impact. Some might buy homes who wouldn't have. Some of them might spend the $8,000 they get from Uncle Sam, and thereby stimulate the economy that much more. Maybe a third verse is in order....Third verse, where is the harm, give it one more shot, third times a charm.