View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Mortgaging Household and Global
Financial Stability: To What End?
Debt-Financed Homeownership: Its Evolution, Impact and Future
October 12, 2018
William R. Emmons and Lowell R. Ricketts
These views are ours alone and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or the Federal Reserve System.

Mortgaging Household and Global
Financial Stability: To What End?


Why do policies support highly leveraged homeownership?



Household-level impacts: Ex ante vulnerable groups poorly
served (young; no college; African American and Hispanic).



Macro-financial impacts: Bursting of leveraged housing
bubbles creates long, deep, damaging recessions/crises.



Leveraged homeownership makes sense for some people;
but for many others, we need a different policy mix.
1

U
n
d
e
r

Negative Equity => 9-10 Million Involuntary
Exits from Homeownership

W
a
t
e
r
2

U
n
d
e
r

Socastee SC

Lumberton NC

Homeownership Includes Idiosyncratic
Catastrophic Risk (e.g., Hurricane Florence)
Pawleys Island SC

Bucksport SC

Photos by Victor J. Blue for the New York Times

W
a
t
e
r
3

Is Housing a Good Investment?


Yes, according to Jorda, Knoll, Kuvshinov, Schularick and
Taylor (2017*).
− In a long international sample, average housing returns were
as good or better than equity returns with lower risk.



Not necessarily, say Piazzesi and Schneider (2016**),
because idiosyncratic housing risk is very high.
− Idiosyncratic housing risk is 4X housing-index risk
− Housing Sharpe ratios are exaggerated in the literature

* Jorda, Oscar; Knoll, Katharina; Kuvshinov, Dmitry; Schularick, Moritz; and Taylor, Alan M. “The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870-2015,” NBER
working paper, Dec. 2017.
** Piazzesi, Monika; and Scheider, Martin. “Housing and the Macroeconomy,” Handbook of Macroeconomic 2 (2016), pp. 1547-1640.
4

How Does Homeowner Policy Incorporate Risk?


Do homeownership policies take risk into account at all?
− “The prices of individual houses are highly volatile. Moreover,
a large component of this volatility is idiosyncratic.” (Piazzesi
and Schneider, 2016*, p. 1603)
− “A related question is whether the government should promote
homeownership in the first place, given that it involves a large
undiversified investment and potential welfare costs in
default.” (Piazzesi and Schneider, 2016, p. 1628)

* Piazzesi, Monika; and Scheider, Martin. “Housing and the Macroeconomy,” Handbook of Macroeconomic 2 (2016), pp. 1547-1640.

5

U
n
d
e
r

Lumberton NC

Leveraged Housing Bubbles Hurt Growth
(Jorda, Schularick and Taylor, “Leveraged Bubbles,” 2015)
Five-year 29 percentage-point
cumulative loss of per-capita real
GDP (17 countries, 1870-2013)
Bucksport SC

W
a
t
e
r
6

Policies Encourage Leveraged Homeownership


Why homeownership?
− Wealth accumulation; strong communities; economic growth
− Evidence is mixed; don’t forget role of strong vested interests



Why debt?
− Adverse selection, moral hazard (this actually makes sense)



Why high LTVs?
− Marginal buyers are poor
− Tax incentives encourage infra-marginal leveraging
7

Hispanic & Black Families Haven’t Accumulated
Real Value of Mean Homeowners' Equity (HOE) and All Other
Wealth by Race and Ethnicity (Index values = 100 in base year)
300

Hispanic other wealth (1)
Black other wealth (3)

250
200

Hispanic HOE (6)
Black HOE (8)

150
100
50

1989

Source: Federal Reserve
Survey of Consumer
Finances

1992

1995

1998

White HOE
Black HOE
Hispanic HOE
Other-race HOE

2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

White other wealth
Black other wealth
Hispanic other wealth
Other-race other wealth

8

Starting Date Doesn’t Matter Much
Real Value of Mean Homeowners' Equity (HOE) and All Other
Wealth by Race and Ethnicity (Index values = 100 in base year)
350
300

Hispanic other wealth (3)
Black other wealth (5)
Hispanic HOE (6)
Black HOE (8)

250

200
150
100
50

1992

Source: Federal Reserve
Survey of Consumer
Finances

1995

1998

White HOE
Black HOE
Hispanic HOE
Other-race HOE

2001

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

White other wealth
Black other wealth
Hispanic other wealth
Other-race other wealth

9

Starting Date Doesn’t Matter Much
Real Value of Mean Homeowners' Equity (HOE) and All Other
Wealth by Race and Ethnicity (Index values = 100 in base year)
350
300

Black other wealth (3)
Hispanic other wealth (6)
Hispanic HOE (7)
Black HOE (8)

250

200
150
100
50

1995

Source: Federal Reserve
Survey of Consumer
Finances

1998

2001

White HOE
Black HOE
Hispanic HOE
Other-race HOE

2004

2007

2010

2013

2016

White other wealth
Black other wealth
Hispanic other wealth
Other-race other wealth

10

Starting Date Doesn’t Matter Much
Real Value of Mean Homeowners' Equity (HOE) and All Other
Wealth by Race and Ethnicity (Index values = 100 in base year)
250
200

Black HOE (5)
Hispanic other wealth (6)
Black other wealth (7)
Hispanic HOE (8)

150
100
50
1998

Source: Federal Reserve
Survey of Consumer
Finances

2001

2004

White HOE
Black HOE
Hispanic HOE
Other-race HOE

2007

2010

2013

2016

White other wealth
Black other wealth
Hispanic other wealth
Other-race other wealth

11

Starting in 2001 Makes It Look Better
Real Value of Mean Homeowners' Equity (HOE) and All Other
Wealth by Race and Ethnicity (Index values = 100 in base year)
300

250
200

Hispanic HOE (1)
Black HOE (2)
Hispanic other wealth (4)
Black other wealth (8)

150
100
50

2001

Source: Federal Reserve
Survey of Consumer
Finances

2004
White HOE
Black HOE
Hispanic HOE
Other-race HOE

2007

2010

2013

2016

White other wealth
Black other wealth
Hispanic other wealth
Other-race other wealth

12

But That Didn’t Last
Real Value of Mean Homeowners' Equity (HOE) and All Other
Wealth by Race and Ethnicity (Index values = 100 in base year)
200

150

Hispanic other wealth (3)
Black other wealth (4)
Hispanic HOE (7)
Black HOE (8)

100

50

2004

Source: Federal Reserve
Survey of Consumer
Finances

2007
White HOE
Black HOE
Hispanic HOE
Other-race HOE

2010

2013

2016

White other wealth
Black other wealth
Hispanic other wealth
Other-race other wealth

13

∆HOE (2007-16): Hispanic -38%, Black -20%
Real Value of Mean Homeowners' Equity (HOE) and All Other
Wealth by Race and Ethnicity (Index values = 100 in base year)
150

Hispanic other wealth (3)
Black other wealth (5)

100

Black HOE (7)
Hispanic HOE (8)
50

2007

Source: Federal Reserve
Survey of Consumer
Finances

2010
White HOE
Black HOE
Hispanic HOE
Other-race HOE

2013

2016

White other wealth
Black other wealth
Hispanic other wealth
Other-race other wealth

14

Weak Wealth-Building from Homeownership
∆HOE (1989-2016): Hispanic 57%, Black 34%
∆Other NW (1989-2016): Hispanic 107%, Black 91%
∆HOE (1989-2016): White 56%, Other 109%
∆Other NW (1989-2016): White 132%, Other 144%

∆HOE (2007-16): Hispanic -38%, Black -20%
∆Other NW (2007-16): Hispanic 10%, Black -2%
∆HOE (2007-16): White -12%, Other 3%
∆Other NW (2007-16): White 27%, Other 10%
15

Housing Crash Hit Vulnerable Families Hardest


Young
− For example: Family heads born in the 1970s
− Ages 28-37 in 2007 (median 33); 34-43 in 2013 (median 39)



No college
− Vast majority of families have less than a 4-year degree



Non-white
− Hispanic
− African American
16

Young Families’ HO Rate: Born in the 1970s
Homeownership Rate (%): 1970-79 Birth-Year Cohort vs. Predicted

80
70

2007

60

2016

2004

50

2001

40
30
20
Source:
Federal
Reserve
Survey of
Consumer
Finances

SCF Predicted: All families

10

Actual: All 1970s families

0

24

26

28

30

32
34
36
38
Age of family head

40

42

44
17

Non-College Families’ HO Rate: Born in 1970s
Homeownership Rate (%): 1970-79 Birth-Year Cohort vs. Predicted

80
70
60

2007

50

2016

2004
2001

40
30
20
Source:
Federal
Reserve
Survey of
Consumer
Finances

SCF Predicted: All families

10

Non-college graduate 1970s families

0

24

26

28

30

32
34
36
38
Age of family head

40

42

44
18

Black, Hispanic Families’ HO Rate: Born in 1970s
Homeownership Rate (%): 1970-79 Birth-Year Cohort vs. Predicted

80
70
60

2007

50

2016

2001

40

2004

30
20
Source:
Federal
Reserve
Survey of
Consumer
Finances

SCF Predicted: All families
Black 1970s families
Hispanic 1970s families

10
0

24

26

28

30

32
34
36
38
Age of family head

40

42

44
19

Young Families’ Median NW: Born in the 1970s
Median Family Net Worth (Thousands of 2016 $): Actual 1970s Cohort vs. Predicted from
Entire SCF Sample
120
SCF Predicted: All families

100

Actual: All 1970s families

2016

80
60

2007
2004

40
Source:
Federal
Reserve
Survey of
Consumer
Finances

2001

20
24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44
20

Non-College Families’ Median NW: Born in 1970s
Median Family Net Worth (Thousands of 2016 $): Actual 1970s Cohort vs. Predicted from
Entire SCF Sample
120
SCF Predicted: All families

100

Actual: 1970s non-college graduates

80
60

2007

40
Source:
Federal
Reserve
Survey of
Consumer
Finances

2016

2004
2001

20
24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44
21

Black, Hispanic Families’ Median NW: Born in ‘70s
Median Family Net Worth (Thousands of 2016 $): Actual 1970s Cohort vs. Predicted from
Entire SCF Sample
120
SCF Predicted: All families

100

Black 1970s families

Hispanic 1970s families

80
60
40
Source:
Federal
Reserve
Survey of
Consumer
Finances

2007

2001

20

2016

2004

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44
22

Young Families’ HD/Y Ratios: Born in the 1970s
Housing Debt/Usual Income (Percent): Actual 1970s Families vs. Predicted from Entire SCF
Sample
200
SCF Predicted: All families
Hispanic 1970s families
Black 1970s families
Non-college graduates
2007
All 1970s Families
150

2004

2016

2001

100

50
Source:
Federal
Reserve
Survey of
Consumer
Finances

0
24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44
23

Young Families’ 60+DQ Ratios: Born in the 1970s
Share of Families with a Serious Delinquency (60+ Days Past Due; Percent): Actual 1970s
Birth Cohort vs. Ratio Predicted from Entire Sample
25
SCF Predicted: All families
All 1970s families
1970s non-college graduates

20

Hispanic 1970s families

Black 1970s families

2004
15

2001

2007

2016

10
Source:
Federal
Reserve
Survey of
Consumer
Finances

5
0
24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44
24

The “Big-Picture” View of Housing Bubbles
“Demand for a new investment bubble began months ago, when the
subprime mortgage bubble burst and left the business world without a
suitable source of pretend income….

25

The “Big-Picture” View of Housing Bubbles
“Demand for a new investment bubble began months ago, when the
subprime mortgage bubble burst and left the business world without a
suitable source of pretend income….
“’Every American family deserves a false sense of security,’ said Chris
Reppto, a risk analyst for Citigroup in New York. ‘Once we have a
bubble to provide a fragile foundation, we can begin building pyramid
scheme on top of pyramid scheme, and before we know it, the financial
situation will return to normal.’“
The Onion, “Recession-Plagued Nation
Demands New Bubble to Invest In,” July
14, 2008.
26

Leveraged Housing Bubbles Very Damaging


Jorda, Schularick and Taylor (2015*) evidence
− Annual data on equity and housing markets, bank credit
growth; 17 countries, 1870-2013
− Asset bubbles + credit => Worse recessions, financial crises?



Conclusions
− Bursting stock-market bubbles make recessions worse
− Bursting credit-fueled housing bubbles create financial crises

− Policymakers ignore them at the economy’s peril
* Jorda, Oscar; Schularick, Moritz; and Taylor, Alan M. “Leveraged Bubbles,” Journal of Monetary Economics 76 (2015), pp. S1-S20.

27

Low Interest Rates vs. Financial Liberalization


Sommer, Sullivan and Verbrugge (2013*)
− Changes in “fundamentals” (interest rates, collateral
requirements (max LTV), income growth) can account for 50
percent of the price-rent ratio increase, 1995-2006.
− Lower real interest rates => House-price boom

− Higher LTV ratios => Homeownership boom


Large remaining role for “overly optimistic expectations”
about house-price growth—i.e., a bubble.

* Sommer, Kamila; Sullivan, Paul; and Verbrugge, Randal. “The Equilibrium Effects of Fundamentals on House Prices and Rents,” Journal of
Monetary Economics 60 (2013), pp. 854-70

28

The Onion Made A Good Point…


Favilukis, Ludvigson and Van Nieuwerburgh (2017*)
− Conclusions from GE model: Financial liberalization was more
important than lower real interest rates (from global capital
inflows) for house prices and homeownership increases.
− A housing bubble (perceived as permanent) fulfilled a need for
greater risk-sharing—many wealth- and liquidity-constrained
families used housing debt to smooth lifetime incomes.



Underlying problems: 1) Marginal homebuyers are poor, 2)
Before 2007, we didn’t understand mortgage/housing risks.

* Favilukis, Jack; Ludvigson, Syndey C.; and Van Nieuwerburgh, Stijn. “The Macroeconomic Effects of Housing Wealth, Housing Finance,
and Limited Risk Sharing in General Equilibrium,” Journal of Political Economy 125 (2017), No. 1, pp. 140-223.

29

The Future of Leveraged Homeownership


The future of homeownership—never hit 69% again?
− Rebalance policies to support all tenure choices.



Role of mortgage debt—worst financing except all others.
− Why not eliminate tax preferences for debt?



An old idea—Henry George’s land-value tax (1879).
− Housing bubbles actually are land bubbles.
− If we’re doomed to recurrent housing bubbles, why not raise
tax revenue from them with an LVT? Might also damp them.
30