Tag Archives: Midwest

State of the Nation’s Housing 2017

Posted on by

photo by woodleywonderworks

Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies has released its excellent State of the Nation’s Housing for 2017, with many important insights. The executive summary reads, in part,

A decade after the onset of the Great Recession, the national housing market is finally returning to normal. With incomes rising and household growth strengthening, the housing sector is poised to become an important engine of economic growth. But not all households and not all markets are thriving, and affordability pressures remain near record levels. Addressing the scale and complexity of need requires a renewed national commitment to expand the range of housing options available for an increasingly diverse society.

National Home Prices Regain Previous Peak

US house prices rose 5.6 percent in 2016, finally surpassing the high reached nearly a decade earlier. Achieving this milestone reduced the number of homeowners underwater on their mortgages to 3.2 million by year’s end, a remarkable drop from the 12.1 million peak in 2011. In inflation-adjusted terms, however, national home prices remained nearly 15 percent below their previous high. As a result, the typical homeowner has yet to fully regain the housing wealth lost during the downturn.

*     *     *

Pickup In Household Growth

The sluggish rebound in construction also reflects the striking slowdown in household growth after the housing bust. Depending on the government survey, household formations averaged just 540,000 to 720,000 annually in 2007–2012 before reviving to 960,000 to 1.2 million in 2013–2015.

Much of the falloff in household growth can be explained by low household formation rates among the millennial generation (born between 1985 and 2004). Indeed, the share of adults aged 18–34 still living with parents or grandparents was at an all-time high of 35.6 percent in 2015. But through the simple fact of aging, the oldest members of this generation have now reached their early 30s, when most adults live independently. As a result, members of the millennial generation formed 7.6 million new households between 2010 and 2015.

*     *     *

Homeownership Declines Moderating, While Rental Demand Still Strong

After 12 years of decline, there are signs that the national homeownership rate may be nearing bottom. As of the first quarter of 2017, the homeownership rate stood at 63.6 percent—little changed from the first quarter two years earlier. In addition, the number of homeowner households grew by 280,000 in 2016, the strongest showing since 2006. Early indications in 2017 suggest that the upturn is continuing. Still, growth in renters continued to outpace that in owners, with their numbers up by 600,000 last year.

*     *     *

Affordability Pressures Remain Widespread

Based on the 30-percent-of-income affordability standard, the number of cost-burdened households fell from 39.8 million in 2014 to 38.9 million in 2015. As a result, the share of households with cost burdens fell 1.0 percentage point, to 32.9 percent. This was the fifth straight year of declines, led by a considerable drop in the owner share from 30.4 percent in 2010 to 23.9 percent in 2015. The renter share, however, only edged down from 50.2 percent to 48.3 percent over this period.

With such large shares of households exceeding the traditional affordability standard, policymakers have increasingly focused their attention on the severely burdened (paying more than 50 percent of their incomes for housing). Although the total number of households with severe burdens also fell somewhat from 19.3 million in 2014 to 18.8 million in 2015, the improvement was again on the owner side. Indeed, 11.1 million renter households were severely cost burdened in 2015, a 3.7 million increase from 2001. By comparison, 7.6 million owners were severely burdened in 2015, up 1.1 million from 2001.

*     *     *

Segregation By Income on The Rise

A growing body of social science research has documented the long-term damage to the health and well-being of individuals living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Recent increases in segregation by income in the United States are therefore highly troubling. Between 2000 and 2015, the share of the poor population living in high-poverty neighborhoods rose from 43 percent to 54 percent. Meanwhile, the number of high-poverty neighborhoods rose from 13,400 to more than 21,300. Although most high-poverty neighborhoods are still concentrated in high-density urban cores, their recent growth has been fastest in low-density areas at the metropolitan fringe and in rural communities.

At the same time, the growing demand for urban living has led to an influx of high-income households into city neighborhoods. While this revival of urban areas creates the opportunity for more economically and racially diverse communities, it also drives up housing costs for low-income and minority residents. (1-6, references omitted)

One comment, a repetition from my past discussions of Joint Center reports. The State of the Nation’s Housing acknowledges sources of funding for the report but does not directly identify the members of its Policy Advisory Board, which provides “principal funding” for it, along with the Ford Foundation. (front matter) The Board includes companies such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Zillow which are directly discussed in the report. In the spirit of transparency, the Joint Center should identify all of its funders in the State of the Nation’s Housing report itself. Other academic centers and think tanks would undoubtedly do this. The Joint Center for Housing Studies should follow suit.

 

Retired With A Mortgage

Posted on by

photo by Katina Rogers

U.S. News & World Report quoted me in Rethinking a Mortgage While Retired. It opens,

It’s one of the cardinal rules of retirement planning: pay off the mortgage before quitting work. Giving up your income while still supporting a big debt can mean chewing away at your retirement savings way too fast, and can leave you in a tight spot if something goes wrong.

But paying off a mortgage years early is easier said than done, and the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College says way too many pre-retirees are too far behind schedule, largely because of borrowing before the housing bust and financial crisis.

On the other hand, some experts say carrying low-interest debt into retirement is not always such a bad thing, especially if it means leaving money in investments that perform well.

“In 2013, almost 40 percent of all households ages 55 and over had not paid off their mortgages, up from 32 percent in 2001,” the Center reports, citing a study using data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances in 2013. “These borrowers were also carrying a lot more housing debt by 2013.”

“I’ve been advising clients for over 20 years and on just an anecdotal level, I can tell you that more clients are retiring with mortgage balances than in years past,” says Margaret R. McDowell, founder of Arbor Wealth Management in Miramar Beach, Florida.

A.W. Pickel III, president of the Midwest division of AmCap Mortgage in Overland Park, Kansas, says many baby boomers traded up as their families grew, then took second mortgages to help fund college costs.

In the years before 2008, homeowners were encouraged to take out big loans when home values appeared to be soaring, the center says. They bought expensive homes or tapped home value through cash-out refinancing or home equity loans, it says.

When home prices collapsed, millions were left “underwater” – owing more than their homes were worth – and were unable to get out from under because they could not sell for enough to pay off their loan. McDowell believes many homeowners also concluded their home was not the rock-solid asset they’d thought, so they felt it unwise to pour more money into it by paying down the mortgage early.

So many just hung in there. By taking on too much debt, and monthly payments so large they could not afford extra payments to bring it down, they left themselves with too much debt too late in the game.

The center says “that 51.6 percent of working-age households were at risk of having a lower standard of living in retirement,” largely because of mortgage debt.

“In recent years, U.S. house prices have started to really improve, to the benefit of homeowners and retirees,” the center says. “But it’s difficult to predict whether the other factor that has reduced retirement preparedness – more older households with big housing debts – was a boom-time phenomenon or represents the new normal.”

But is the situation really as dire as it seems? David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York City, thinks it may not be.

“According to the National Association of Realtors, the median sales price of an existing home increased from $197,100 in 2013 to $232,200 in October of 2016,” he says. “That is a roughly 15 percent price increase and about $40,000 of additional equity for the owner of the median home.”

Many homeowners who were underwater may not be any longer.

Also, he adds, it’s not necessary to be absolutely debt free at retirement so long as income is large enough to cover expenses and leave a cushion.

“Often, paying off a mortgage gets a retiree where he or she needs to be in terms of that balance, but it is not always necessary,” he says.

The key, he says, is to not be underwater. Once the remaining debt is smaller than the home value, the homeowner is better able to sell. One option is downsizing, selling the current home, then using cash from the sale or a new, smaller mortgage to buy a cheaper home. A less expensive home will also likely have lower property taxes and maintenance costs.

Craziest Real Estate Windfalls

Posted on by

"Le Voyage dans la lune" by Georges Méliès - Roger-Viollet

Realtor.com quoted me in A Brief History of Crazy Real Estate Windfalls. It opens,

Real estate is one of those things where it’s hard to differentiate between a once-in-a-lifetime deal or an epic bomb without the benefit of hindsight. Want proof? Let’s take an invigorating jog down memory lane and view a few of the land swaps that are considered the most lopsided in history—windfalls for one side, colossal blunders on the other. Let’s crack open the history books!

Proof that Portugal needs better maps

The historical highlights: In the 15th century for the Treaty of Tordesillas, global superpowers Portugal and Spain sat down with a map of the world (as they knew it in the 1400s) and drew a line down the middle. Portugal got everything on the left, Spain on the right. Even Steven, right? Not quite. Once they decided to actually look at their new “empire,” Portugal found it basically had nothing (well, besides Brazil), while Spain had pretty much the entire world (you know, Europe, Asia, Russia…).

It taught Portugal a harsh lesson: Approaching land deals the way the kids in “Family Circus” deal with sharing toys is not a viable global expansion strategy.

Real estate update: Granted, Portugal botched this deal at the table, but it’s not quite as bad as it sounds. According to David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and research director for the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship, the treaty was “heavily modified afterward” to give Portugal more land to the west, including control over most of the Indian Ocean.

Still, in the end, no one won: Both empires eventually shrank back to the size you see today. If Spain won anything, it’s the language war: Most of Central America speaks Spanish, while only Brazil parlays in Portuguese.

America goes through a major growth spurt

The historical highlights: In 1803, America made its historic Louisiana purchase, buying 828,000 square miles of land from France for $15 million—roughly the catering budget of an “Avengers” flick today. That territory gave the fledgling nation a hell of a growth spurt, adding land that would become 15 Midwestern states from Arkansas to, of course, Louisiana.

Real estate update: It was a lot of land, and it cost a lot at the time. But it was totally worth it. “You got New Orleans, so right there it was a good deal,” says Reiss. “If you look at the home sales in New Orleans today, $15 million is the price of just the top four most expensive houses combined.”

The Alaskan ‘oil rush’

The historical highlights: In 1856, Russia negotiated with U.S. Secretary of State William Seward to sell Alaska for about 2 cents per acre, or $7.2 million. The purchase was derided, and the American people quickly dubbed Alaska “Seward’s Folly.”

Real estate update: Most people think that the measly $7 mill we spent on Alaska is pocket change compared to the gushing vats of cash funneling into the U.S. through the Alaska oil pipeline, right? Not exactly.

“We think of Alaska and its pipeline, and we think it’s a great deal,” says Reiss. “But economists have deduced that the pipeline earns the government less than it costs to govern Alaska, so it’s a net loss. Calling it ‘Seward’s Folly’ makes sense.”

$24 for … Manhattan?

The historical highlights: It’s one of the oldest stories in our history—Savvy Dutch settlers, preying on the naiveté of the Canarsie Indians, bought all of what would become Manhattan for $24, less than the price of a sweater from a Times Square Forever 21.

Real estate update: True, New York City is estimated to be worth $802.4 billion today, and Manhattan is its busiest hub. However, before you express outrage about those poor Indians, consider this: It was the Dutch who got conned. You see, the Canarsie Indians who brokered the deal didn’t live in Manhattan. Sure, they’d hop over there to party with the Manhattoes tribe, but it wasn’t their home and they certainly had no right to sell.

“The common story is that the Europeans swindled the natives,” says Reiss. “But it does look like the other way around.” (The Manhattoes, however, are another story.)

*     *     *

Man sells the moon

The historical highlights: In 1967, the United Nation Outer Space Treaty stated in regard to our moon: “No nation by appropriation shall have sovereignty or control over any of the satellite bodies.” In 1980, a Nevada resident named Dennis Hope came to the conclusion that the treaty forbade nations from owning the moon but not individuals. So he wrote a letter to the U.N. saying he was taking ownership and that it should contact him if it had any issue with that. The U.N. did not respond, and he’s been selling moon acreage ever since. Hope claims to have sold over 600 million acres, with the largest going for over $13 million.

Real estate update: If he really has those checks in hand, then Hope is a genius and this is indeed a very lopsided deal—he’s selling uninhabited land that will be completely inaccessible in the lifetimes of the buyers. Not that we should necessarily applaud him for it.

At worst, “I’d classify him as a huckster,” says Reiss. “And it appears his interpretation of the law is incorrect. The fact that the government hasn’t responded to his letter doesn’t give him rights to the land.” So, even if he does have all that money, it could get him in a whole lot of trouble.

The State of the Foreclosure Crisis

Posted on by

Rob Pitingolo of the Urban Institute issued State of the Foreclosure Crisis: Past the Peak but Not Recovered. It opens,

Much attention has been given to statistics that show new foreclosure activity nationally has slowed over the past few years. When it comes to metropolitan area markets, however, some have gotten worse, while others have stagnated. It is not simple enough to declare an end to the foreclosure and delinquency crisis when there are as many as a quarter (25%) of metro areas that have not yet begun their recovery. (1)

It continues,

the rate of 90 day or more delinquency steadily fell in 2010 and 2011, ending at 3.1% in September 2013. In contrast, the foreclosure inventory only turned the corner in mid -2012, and is still higher than the March 2009 level at 4.5%, around seven times the pre-crisis level. Historically, a foreclosure inventory under 1% is what we would expect in “normal” market conditions.” (1, footnote omitted)

It concludes, “attention must be paid to individual metropolitan housing markets. Some are in much better shape than others; and some have made great strides since the peak of serious delinquency in December 2009. However, it may be premature to declare the problem is “ending” until all metro area markets show signs of recovery.” (2) The report identifies the starkest differences in metro areas:

Three geographic regions were hard hit at the beginning of the foreclosure crisis: California metros, Florida metros, and “Rust Belt” metros (those in Midwest states like Ohio, Michigan and Indiana). All three of those regions have seen solid improvements since December 2009.

On the other hand, the Northeast has generally performed poorly in the past several years. Serious delinquency rates in major metropolitan markets like New York City, Philadelphia and Baltimore have all worsened since December 2009. Other metro areas in New York like Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse have similarly struggled, as have metro areas surrounding New York like New Jersey and Connecticut. (5)

The report concludes with a call for a nuanced response to the current state of the foreclosure crisis:  “communities need strong examples to build upon, rigorous data and analysis, and a commitment to evidence-based policymaking that strives toward the best fit between policy solutions and policy problems.” (6) This seems like the right call and the appropriate response to headlines that report the national trend without mentioning the variations among metro areas.