Riding the waves till they break

As mentioned in my last post the Washington Post presented an excellent article highlighting some of the difficulties faced by families in the current market.

The article shares the story of Robin Bohnen, who purchased a 1.16 million dollar home in Riverside County, CA. The home came with a $6,400 monthly payment (thats right, she was paying $76,800 annually!), and Robin's income came primarily from her furniture store which rode the boom selling to new homeowners. With climbing equity in her home and great sales what could go wrong?

Now her sales have dried up and her family can no longer afford to make payments on the home. She can't sell it either though, since falling prices mean the mortgage loan is higher than the value of the home. When the wave broke on the housing market Robin and her family found themselves first swamped, and now thoroughly under water.

The article noted that one family in five is now upside down on their loan. Considering that our home ownership rate is in the high 60's percentage wise, that is a great many families who may have to find other accommodations.

It is important to point out that she was not a subprime borrower, but she certainly should never have obtained the loan she did. Robin and her husband opted for an interest only loan for the first five years and used a Stated Income (meaning they did not have to prove what they actually made) loan (known as as Alt A mortgage). While they had a hefty down payment (more than 200K, money pulled from their first home that never sold and is now also in foreclosure) with the loss of Robins furniture income and fewer sales commissions from her husbands job the payment became unaffordable. Now that the property has lost value as well, they cant sell it without taking 200K in losses.

In the meantime they have maxed out their credit cards trying to make ends meet and in Robin's county unemployment has soared to 10%, hampering her ability to obtain employment that will save her home.

The article pointed out that beginning in last October more prime loans were in default then subprime.

This doesn't mean that the prime loans were good, many families acquired regular loans that were unsustainable, but many of the loans we will see in default over the next year and a half will be Alt A, Interest only, and prime ARMs. The Washington Post was quick to point out that many of the loans issued were only appropriate for high asset high credit borrowers and were instead issued to mediocre credit asset poor borrowers in an effort to keep sales high. Robin and her husband acquired an

The article gave a couple more great examples of other families who got in over their heads and indicated that some opt for keeping their car over their home, thinking they can take a ding on their credit and buy again a few years later.

What do we do about it? Is if fair to force mortgage companies to refinance existing loans for the current value of the home (forcing them to take a huge loss)? Forget about fair, do we really think the banks can afford to do that?

Is it the governments responsibility to tell families what they can and cannot afford?

Take a look at the last couple of paragraphs in the article that share an exchange of views between Robin and Shane (her husband). What kind of impact are we seeing on the family? Should the government be looking into an increase in funding to family counseling agencies/providers or do you think these problems will go away when the hard times are over?

How do we help those who may have lost their home, maxed all of their lines of credit, lost their job (or have truncated employment), and now can't even afford a deposit on an apartment?

Home sweet home

It used to be that the American Dream meant being able to come to America, from anywhere, and through hard work achieve your dream, what ever that may be. You could work as whatever, believe whatever, and achieve whatever. Somehow, part of that dream has been redefined to include the house and picket fence.

What does it mean for homeowners now? How have families used their homes (besides for shelter) during the time that lead up to the current crisis? Demos has provided some insight on what is happening with homeowners and why we should be concerned in:

A House of Cards: Refinancing the American Dream. Borrowing to Make Ends Meet

I want to look at a couple of the highlights and share why I think there may be some concerns.

From 1973 to 2004 homeowner equity fell from 68.3% to 55%. The number of people in homes was up, but they owned less as a whole. The real scary thing is the market had not bottomed out yet. Where is our equity at now?

Where did the equity go when times were good? From 2001 to 2005 alone households cashed out $715 billion dollars in home equity. 51% of who pulled money used some/all of it to pay for other debts, and 25% used it to pay for consumer purchases.

So what? People pulled money out of their homes to pay off credit card debt or buy a car. Thats a good thing, right? They pay less in interest on a home equity loan than they would with a credit card or car loan, so what is the big deal?

Well, its not just falling equity.....from 1998 to 2004 the average credit card debt held by households increased from $2,768 to $5,129. Our savings rate decreased, to near nothing, and is at the lowest it has been since the great depression.

Surely these numbers reflect young people who bought into home when they couldn't really afford it and had to put money on a credit card to make ends meet. But the older generation, those getting ready to retire or already retired, they are not in the same boat. Right? Well, on average people over 65 only have $4,906 in credit card debt, a bit below our overall average noted above. The real concern? While the overall average increased roughly 85%, the average for elderly increased 194% over the same time frame.

Dropping property values may be a boon to elderly trying to pay rising taxes, but it certainly does them no favors if they were hoping to use a reverse mortgage to make ends meet. Higher health care costs, more debt (as evidenced by rising credit balances), and likely depleted retirement funds from the tanking market may be placing our elderly at greater risks to make ends meet.

The elderly to be are at risk as well. Baby boomers lead the pack in refinancing their homes and undercutting their equity. As they near retirement not only will they face high health care costs and depleted retirement accounts, they will probably still have a house payment. If they truly retire, and their income goes down accordingly, how exactly do they plan to make ends meet?

While the government discusses bailing companies out and dithers over what to do with homes in foreclosure there is little discussion over the only slightly more distant future. Give the economy a couple of years to recover (and time for Alt A, interest only, and ARM loans to default) and they seem to think we will see the silver lining on the clouds. Maybe. If we don't prepare households to utilize their homes wisely and manage their debt payments we may find storm still going strong.

Demos isn't quiet about what they think should be done. I am not saying I completely agree with all of their suggestions, but here is the gist:

Enact a Borrower’s Security Act: limiting interest rates and fees on credit cards. (Still very relevant, could have a big impact on struggling families)

Maintain Existing Bankruptcy Laws: They were up for review. The new legislation is a bit tighter, and better (in my opinion). Demos would have liked to have seen it remain the same.

Address Real Estate Practices: Fight appraisal fraud (Better late than never, though two years ago would have been a good start)

It will be interesting to see what the new administration does. Hopefully Obama will at least consider some of these issues. Whether we help families now, or let them default/declare bankruptcy later, one thing is for sure: taxpayers will continue to foot the bill. Stronger polices for families in financial distress may be the order of the day.