There was an article last week in the New York Times about economists calling for the government to simply allow house prices fall and reach their bottom, an idea which is gathering more and more support. I think this is a bad idea because the real costs falling home prices are obvious, likely, and severe, while the benefits are vague and speculative.
For starters, as the following chart from Calculated Risk shows, in Q1 2010 there were millions of homeowners who are in a negative equity position. If prices fall another 5%, each of these bars will shift to the left one position. If prices drop 10%, they will shift two.
Lets make the conservative assumption that there are as many people right now in the 0% to +5%, +5% to + 10%, and +10% to +15% bins as there are in the -5% to 0% bin. This means we’ll get another 1.8 million borrowers underwater for each 5% fall in prices. If they fall 15%, that means 5.4 million more.
As you can see though, the numbers of homeowners in each category get larger as they approach zero, going from 1.1, to 1.3, to 1.5, to 1.8 million in the last 4 bins. So it’s likely we’ll actually get upwards of 6 million more homeowners underwater.
In addition, a fall of 15% would push around 1.9 million more homeowners into 50% or more of negative equity, driving this number up to around 6 million. These large increases in total negative equity will drive a wave of foreclosures. The best evidence indicates that foreclosures, in turn, will decrease nearby home values by 1% to 2%, which could exacerbate the foreclosure blights many neighborhoods are already facing.
Why are these foreclosures a problem? Most economically literate readers will be familiar with Bernanke’s famous paper on non-monetary causes of the Great Depression, where he makes the case that an increase in the cost of credit intermediation worsened the Great Depression. In contrast to the argument for how bad things can get when banks fail, few seem to focus on aspect of Bernanke’s paper that focused on defaults and bankruptcies as a mechanism for deepening the depression. In fact Bernanke even discusses the drying up of credit for homeowners as one of the important channels through which the credit system was failing:
Home mortgage lending was another important area of credit activity. In this sphere, private lenders were even more cautious after 1933 than in business lending. They had a reason for conservativism; while business failures fell quite a bit during the recovery, real estate defaults and foreclosures continued high through 1935….
To the extent that the home mortgage market did function in the years immediately following 1933, it was largely due to the direct involvement of the federal government.
Removing the existing government supports for the housing market now will allow this important channel of credit to dry up. As Bernanke recognized, this could worsen and lengthen our recession.
Another problem is that when a buyer defaults they lose a real asset: their credit. As near as I can tell from Googling around, credit scoring agencies have not adjusted their models to decrease the damage that a foreclosures does to your credit score. This seems puzzling to me as economists seem to agree that the huge fall in house prices was largely unpredictable when many of these mortgages were made. Defaulting on a mortgage in 2010, one would think, is not nearly as much of an indicator of lacking creditworthiness as defaulting on a mortgage in, say, 2005.
In any case, when defaults happen a real asset which gives borrowers access to credit goes away and the cumulative creditworthiness of U.S. households falls. In a recession, when borrowing and investing are important means of driving economic activity, this is not a good thing.
I believe the reason that falling home prices are getting support is what Karl calls The Pain Bias. Somehow, falling prices feel like tough love, and it feels like borrowers will be more confident. And it may be the case that another 15% fall in prices will convince people that prices are at a bottom. But along the way to that bottom real economic damage will be done. If that damage is great enough, and hurts economic growth, those rock bottom prices may fall even further.


11 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ September 8th, 2010 at 9:59 am
geaugailluminati
so what do you suggest, a higher minimum wage or socialized housing? about 76% of the job growth this year has been in jobs that paid below $15 an hour… & with the median home price still north of $190,000, there wont be many of these newly re-employed being able to afford homes at those prices…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/us/01jobs.html?pagewanted=2
Wednesday ~ September 8th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Wonks Anonymous
Arnold Kling & Bryan Caplan have argued that we need to stop supporting housing prices as just an extension of their general position that the market should let prices fall where they may. Nothing about “pain” figures into their argument, in fact they claim their opponents ignore the difficulty of the buyer’s side. Of course, neither buys into Bernanke’s credit-mechanism argument either.
geagailluminati, why would Adam support a higher minimum wage when so many people can’t get hired at the going rate?
I propose that Adam and others like him who think credit is irrationally being denied to people start up a business that more freely lends to those hit by the unexpected housing crash.
Wednesday ~ September 8th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Wonks Anonymous
Mario Rizzo says “Prices must be free to tell the truth“.
Wednesday ~ September 8th, 2010 at 11:09 am
crack
I think housing prices need to drop and Cramdowns need to start. The only way to get the market back in order is for both sides to give up the fake value they have. Cramdowns + rent backs, keep people in their homes where they are get the prices back in order.
Wednesday ~ September 8th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Rebecca Burlingame
It may help to think why housing prices rose so much in the first place. Unlike many areas of the marketplace, housing, especially through government assisted loans and the real estate market, is in a position to respond to the least changes either in income or other additional monies which come into the marketplace. That creates problems. For one, it becomes difficult for people to allocate larger portions of their money to anything other than housing, including the businesses that individuals would try to provide for one another. On the same note, the hyper-responsitivity of housing to money in general prevents government stimulus from effecting other areas of the marketplace that need assistace.
Wednesday ~ September 8th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
blokeinfrance
I love you economists! If markets are good, false markets must be even better! I’ll try and remember this lesson.
Wednesday ~ September 8th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
The big housing question - Economics -
[...] trying to increase prices (though I think that maintaining the liquidity of the mortgage market is critical). It does mean that absent a real mechanism for dealing with homeowners in negative equity [...]
Wednesday ~ September 8th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
James T in MA
Is a home valued significantly less than the resident owes on the mortgage really such a great “asset” giving the resident access to credit? It seems as though you could get the credit agencies to revise how they regard a default, strategic or otherwise, then let prices find their true level and go quite a long ways toward resolving your objections.
Should we all spend hundreds of billions more so that credit agencies don’t adjust their formulas? They seem to be the party with whom you really have a beef.
And, I’m not defending them. I’ve got an axe to grind against them and banks who blindly follow their results. Years ago I bought a car with a salvage title and the people from whom I bought it suggested I go to a particular credit union. Fine. I didn’t care. I got the loan through them and the car was a wonderful buy and served terrifically for me. I paid the loan off early, 4 or 5 months early and never missed a payment. When that car finally died in 2006, I went back to the credit union and asked how much of a car loan they would write for me. They told me they wouldn’t write anywhere near what I thought they would. It seems that, in one instance, I sent a mortgage payment in late. I rather think it was a matter of sending it in on the 30th and it not being credited to my account till into the next month. But, one payment 4 years before that and a sterling record with them. They wouldn’t do anything. The standard “formula”, the woman on the phone told me, wouldn’t allow them to offer me a loan for much of anything. She apologized and admitted that it didn’t make much sense to her either but she coudn’t deviate from these rules.
Given how widespread defaults may become, one can’t help but think that the credit agencies will have to modify their stances somewhat.
Thursday ~ September 9th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Matthew Yglesias » Endgame
[...] — In defense of propping up housing prices. [...]
Thursday ~ September 9th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Brad999
All true, but propping up prices is ultimately just a big wealth transfer from renters and those not yet in the housing market to those who already “own” a house. And the fact remains, even after the housing crash, and even were prices to decline further, that homeowners as a class have far greater wealth than renters as a class. The price supports are not without their own pain – it is just hidden and foisted on those with less of a voice.
Thursday ~ April 7th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Money
It is a readable and informative article. It has been very helpful in understanding of different things. I’m sure most people will agree with me.