In Westwood’s view, the following ten factors most significantly contributed to the housing bubble and mortgage crisis:
- Residential mortgage and consumer credit more than doubled in the first six years of this decade. From the founding of the nation through 1999, our citizens amassed some $5.1 trillion of home mortgage debt and $1.4 trillion of installment and credit card debt. By the end of 2006, these numbers stood at outstanding amounts of $11.0 trillion and $2.4 trillion, respectively. In total, American individuals became indebted by an additional $6.9 trillion in six short years (the bulk of which was in the three-year period from 2004 through 2006) more than doubling the debt outstanding at the beginning of the decade. Apologists often cite increases in wealth and in home equity value as offsetting this unprecedented and crippling increase in our citizens’ indebtedness. But the truth is we live in a nation with one of the lowest savings rates in the world (it was actually negative in 2005 and was likely negative in the year just ended) and, as detailed below, a significant portion of the perceived growth in home values has been specious at best.
- Cheap mortgage loans offered on lax lending terms were responsible for much of the ballooning of home prices. Let’s say that in 2000, you had $100,000 to put down on the purchase of a home. In the same year, with residential mortgage rates at 6% for adjustable rate mortgages, you were offered a mortgage for 80% of the purchase price of the home you were seeking to buy. The $100,000 you had available meant that you could afford a $500,000 home (80% of $500,000 = $400,000 in mortgage) and, interest only, your monthly payment would have been approximately $2,000 per month. Now, zoom ahead to 2006. With the same $100,000 in your pocket, and an adjustable teaser interest rate of 3%, mortgage companies nationwide were knocking down your door offering you mortgages at 90% of your purchase price (and more – often over 95% in some cases). With your same $100,000 and for the same $2,000 per month interest payment – voila – you could now afford to pay $1,000,000 for the same house for which you would have been able to pay $500,000 six years before. And of course, that is pretty close to what happened during this period – residential home prices increased by over 74% from 2000 through 2006. Does that mean the homes themselves were actually worth more? Of course not.
- The growth in home prices during the first six years of this decade has been unprecedented and should have had our mortgage bankers, investment bankers, regulators and the Fed raising at least an eyebrow or two. As prices more than doubled in some markets and increased over 74% nationwide from 2000 through their peak in 2006, the stewards of our banking sector and their overseers in government apparently neglected to consider why. Pointing to “global reserves of excess savings” and “more efficient capital markets” as the new paradigms rendering previous market fundamentals obsolete, the best and the brightest ignored the fact that debt driven home prices had totally disconnected from median household income which has increased by a mere 15% during the same period, before adjusting for inflation (median income actually decreased after adjusting for inflation). If there had been a global glut of savings, we would have experienced a boom in the production of all capital goods – not just limited to housing – which would be fully sustainable by those real savings (in contrast to what was actually a debt driven spate of asset inflation in housing). More importantly, the purchase price of homes actually rendered it more expensive, even on an after-tax basis, to own rather than rent a residence – in some markets by more than 30%. This phenomenon is not only historically unprecedented, but any student of finance and economics can tell you that it is as unsustainable as any market that is based on pure speculation. And pure speculation is what ultimately developed in residential real estate market – the notion of ever rising value, so similar to the dot com boom.
- Mortgage lenders, seeking to maximize lending, relied on aggressive appraisals to justify outsized loans – and appraisers cooperated by ignoring their own established methodologies. The Chicago-based Appraisal Institute, the gold standard in real estate appraisals with 22,000 members, maintains guidelines known as the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Among other requirements, the USPAP directs, generally, that appraisers consider multiple indicia of the value of any form of property being appraised, with value defined as the most probable price at which a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree to transact a fair sale, assuming (among other things) that “both parties are well informed, or well advised” and “the price [is] unaffected by special or creative financing…..granted by anyone associated with the sale.” In addition to considering recent sales of real estate, generally, Appraisers are regularly required to consider the value of properties based on the income they would produce if rented and based on the cost of replacing any improvements (buildings) to the property. They are then required to reconcile any differences among these three classic valuation methods. As it turns out, however, during the housing bubble, home prices completely disconnected from both rental values and from replacement costs. From 1960 through 1996, the ratio of average home rents to average home prices hovered in a band of 5% to 6% per annum. From 1996 to 2000, it declined to 4.6% and then, in a stunning drop this decade, the ratio fell to 3.5% by the end of 2006. Although common wisdom may have it otherwise, the fact is that construction costs barely moved at all during this decade, on an inflation adjusted basis, while home prices increased by 74%. If construction costs were constant and home prices ballooned, the only explanation – according to established valuation methodologies – could be that land was very suddenly worth dramatically more. But that much more, and that quickly? Appraisers couldn’t possibly reconcile these dramatically divergent indications of fair market value, so what did they do? Well, as it turns out – Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and pretty much all other mortgage originators, guarantors and investors, don’t consider income value as relevant to the appraisal of non-rental, residential real estate. Instead, appraisers merely conclude that recent sales are, for all intents and purposes, the only valid indication of fair market value. In doing so they enabled the entire market to ignore the impact of comparisons to rental properties and “special and creative” financing that – although it didn’t come from sellers – was demonstrably, and has now proven to be, uneconomic.
Posts
