Attempts at a Sustainable Lifestyle…

On Friday the Federal Housing Administration Commissioner David Stevens admitted that the agency’s reserve funds has sunken below the legally mandated level of 2% of its insured loans.  However, the commissioner also said that the 75 year old agency will not need a taxpayer bailout. Is this remotely believable?   Lets look at some datapoints.

First of all, the FHA doesn’t make loans.  It simply insures lenders against losses on defaults.  This means that if a loan defaults completely, then the FHA is on the hook to make the lender whole.  The money it uses comes from mortgage insurance premiums that borrowers pay.  The current rate is 1.75% of the loan amount upfront, and some additional monthly insurance on 30 year loans.  The monthly mortgage insurance goes away when the borrower gains enough equity.  When you add it all together the premium is less than 3% of the loan.  The  borrowers will need a minimum downpayment of only 3.5%, and they can borrow up to $729k in high cost areas.  The problem with this whole scheme is that the lenders do not care if the FHA loses money because they will be compensated if things go wrong.  Since private insurers, Fannie, and Freddie tightened up their lending guidelines, the new subprime loans are practically all going to the FHA.  This has pushed the  mortgage loan  market share of FHA loans   from 2.7% in 2006 to 23% in the second quarter of 2009.

Basically, the FHA has taken on a vast expansion, and with that expansion it has taken on a lot more risk.  The 90+ late and foreclosure rate of FHA loans is now at 7.8% according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, and this is only expected to rise since those who take out FHA loans generally have very little downpayment, and their average credit scores are lower than the prime borrowers. Unemployment has not stopped rising and the economy isn’t totally recovered.    The FHA currently  insures about 5.2 million according to its website, and 7.8% means  that about 405,000 of these loans are practically lost.  Additionally, there are another 400 to 500k borrowers that have missed at least one payment.  Since the value of the FHA reserve funds are going to fall below 2% of the value of the insured loans, it is hard to imagine how the agency would cover all the losses when they come due unless all the loans that defaulted have balances much much lower than  the average loan.  It is pretty simple math when you think about it.

I really do not see how the FHA could build up its reserve fund in two to three years when the foreclosure rate of the loans it is insuring is not exactly decreasing.  The FHA is insuring many more loans than before, but those new loans are also defaulting and draining the reserve funds.  You have to remember that the insurance premium is very small, so in many instances the FHA is using the premiums from 20 to 30 homes to repay the lender for one default.  That is only sustainable if the default rate is very small, but a 30 day late rate of 17% is not exactly encouraging.

Anyway, the FHA does not expect to increase its insurance premium rates or downpayment limits, but it is requiring audits of the lenders that send loans to the FHA to prevent fraud.  I would have thought that those audits were already happening, but I guess not.  If the FHA really wants to decrease the amount of its defaults it would need to increase its downpayment limits so that people have more equity in their homes, but I don’t really see that happening.  Eventually this agency is going to need a bailout.  They may not call it a bailout, but I think it is pretty much inevitable unless the FHA changes course drastically.

Share This

Related Posts:

If you haven’t heard by now, President Obama heeded the complaints of the United Steelworkers’ union and slapped a punitive 35% tariff on Chinese produced tires.  This has sparked anger in Beijing and China vowed to investigate poultry and automotive parts imports from the United States.  China is also filing a formal complaint with the WTO.  So who does this really benefit?

First of all, I don’t think this  benefits the Obama administration because they really need to sustain a good relationship with Beijing.  Even though the tire industry is a small part of the trade between the two countries, the Chinese government definitely sees this as a grave insult.  The Chinese commerce minister Chen Deming said that this act is “an abuse of special safeguard provisions and sends the wrong signal to the world”.  Frankly I don’t think it is worthwhile to anger China over a tiny percentage of trade between the two countries just to yield to  some political supporters.

Next, this will probably hurt Americans more than the Chinese. The poultry industry is now on edge because they export tons of chicken feet and wings to China at a premium price.  If China imposes a tariff on them they will lose quite a bit of profit.  The USA Poultry & Egg Export Council expressed that they are “upset with the way this has been handled by the administration“.   The New York Times published a particularly amusing article on this matter which said that the Chinese will still continue to buy the large juicy American chicken feet even if there are tariffs, but Chinese people are also very price conscious so any increase in price will bring consumption down.  The poultry industry is right to be concerned, because those chicken feet are fairly worthless here in America.  Suppose that this tariff protects $1 billion in domestic tires, but loses $2 billion in chicken exports, then American workers still lose as a whole.

Another way this hurts Americans is that the tariffs will increase tire prices.  Most of the Chinese tires are cheap low end products.  American manufacturers such as Goodyear and Cooper manufacture their low end products in China and import them to the United States.    The tariffs on Chinese tires will inevitably increase prices for American consumers who buy the lower end tires.   Additionally, if manufacturers had to increase the price of their low end products they would probably increase the price of their premium products to make their products seem more “premium”, and that means more expensive tires for everyone.Americans are also very price conscious right now, and the higher prices might mean lower sales, and ultimately that might hurt the American tire industry and decrease jobs in that sector anyway.  In that case this protectionist measure would have accomplished the exact opposite of its purpose.

So who really benefits from this?  I think the trade lawyers should be happy because Obama pretty much open the doors for more similar complaints from every other industry.  In Bush 43’s administration four similar industry complaints were rejected because Bush wanted to keep trade free.  Now Obama is sending a signal out there that he is willing to approve protectionist measures for small groups that he favors so more groups may be hiring up lawyers to file complaints because now they have a bigger chance of getting their petitions approved.  Although the complaints are not “expensive” according to this article, whoever files them will be getting a fee. So in the end, I think  the lawyers win.

Ultimately, I highly doubt that this tariff on 0.4% of China’s exports to the United States is going to turn into an all out trade war, but it is certainly making Obama less popular to everyone except the specific unions that he is agreeing to.  Decisions like this affect a lot more than just the people making the complaints, and it is probably wiser to reject them all like Bush did.  That way at least it looks like there are no favorites.

Share This

Related Posts:

It has been eight years, but I still remember a lot of details from that tragic day of 9/11/2001. I was barely 18 and just moved into the dorms at UC Berkeley. My roommate was a jovial Arabic girl from San Diego trying to be a doctor and a lawyer. It was just another day of school.

Before class started, my roommate told me that someone bombed the World Trade Center. All I thought was, “well, that seems like a popular target”. There was a girl in our hall that came from New York, and she was watching the small TV in the lounge. I walked past her and she seemed somewhat petrified by the images on the screen. Columns of black smoke replaced the once gleaming towers. It wasn’t a bomb that did this, it was planes. I had to go to class.

In class I saw a friend from high school, and he told me that the towers completely collapsed and there were simultaneous plane attacks in other parts of the country. He laughed and said that at least the terrorists will not try to bomb the World Trade Center anymore. Details were still streaming out, but we weren’t exactly concerned. We were 3000 miles away in California. How could this affect us? All we saw was the constantly pristine blue California sky outside.

When I got back to the dorm for lunch I saw that my mom left me a message on the answer machine. She insisted that I get an answer machine before I moved into the dorms. All she said was, “Xin, AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BYE” My roommate and I cracked up at this message because it was serious and yet at the same time so comical. How could America be under attack? How much damage could this event possibly do? It was incredulous. It was just a couple buildings that got destroyed? Right?

For the most part that day was almost like just any other day for me because New York was a world away. It was the days and years to come that stirred up fear and unrest in everyone. The death toll in the attack and the constant warnings of further attacks made everyone on edge. Even my granddad in China told us not to go outside to public places, because he was afraid for us. The entire world changed for the worse on that day. The safety that we took for granted was no longer a guarantee.

Now eight years later America is still fighting the terrorists and Ground Zero is still vacant. I would say that wounds caused by 9/11 definitely have not totally healed, and for some the scars will be permanent. When I look back on that day I see how naive and immature I was about the whole event, and I wonder if the hijackers who died on that day now see what a mistake they made.

Finally, I hope that those who remember the events of 9/11 teach their kids never to hate something or someone so much that they are willing to destroy themselves and others. The senseless deaths on that day also remind me not to take my life for granted no matter what, because each day is a gift from God.

Share This

Related Posts:

Today the White House released a transcript of President Obama’s prepared speech to schoolkids on September 8th.  This is a speech that caused a lot of uproar amongst many parents because they felt like Obama was becoming a bit too Big Brother.  I think a lot of the controversy could have been avoided if the transcript were released earlier and the somewhat lame lesson plan by the DOE was scrapped.  Anyway, I read the entire speech and here are some of my thoughts.

First, the main theme of the speech  is that staying in school and working hard is the way to success.  I agree with that 100%.  If my parents did not pursue their advanced degrees here in America then I would not be here at all;  if I did not finish college I also would not be where I am; if my hubby did not get his engineering degree he probably would not be making video games now.  I definitely believe that education is the way to upward mobility here in America, and I am actually glad to see a lot of people I know going back to school this year to improve their skills or learn a new trade.  Although I have forgotten a lot of the details of things I learned in the 16 years of schooling I had, I  think I will be using the basic math and language skills for a lifetime.

Obama also gives a fairly good reason for kids to stay in school.  He says that in school you can discover what you are good at by trying out different classes.   I think that is somewhat true, but not always.  I went to  public schools in America for 9 years before going to a public state college for 4 years  so I can say with confidence that NOT all schools give kids the opportunity to discover what they are good at due to resource constraints or institutional requirements.  Public secondary schools in general are extremely structured and you have to take a core set of classes to graduate.  I have known some kids in highschool who were really talented in things that the schools just did not teach at all.  Obama is right in saying that school is where you can discover if you are good at things like writing or math because every school teaches those subjects.  However,  it is not necessarily a good place to discover if you are a good cook or great artist because not all schools have the bandwidth for those “extra” programs.  Kids still have to discover their talents on their own,  so I think college is really where people can freely experiment with a huge variety of subjects.  However, finishing secondary school is usually a prerequisite for college and not everyone could afford to go to college.

Another fairly hefty message in the speech is that failure is acceptable and the way to success always contains some stumbles along the way.  That is obviously pretty cliche, but it is also true.  Obama suggests that students should overcome failure through hardwork, practice, and seeking for help.  All of those are sound advice for kids.  Of course he had to throw in that you should not give up on yourself, because “when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country”.

Obviously this was a positive message meant to inspire kids to work hard in school and become successful.  However, I felt that it did not really clearly define what success is.  There is one short paragraph where Obama said that kids might think that it is easy to become “rich and successful” without any work because TV shows rappers and basketball stars living it up.  Honestly I think it is kind of sad that he disparages entertainers and sports stars because many of these people work pretty hard at their professions, too.  Also there is another section that talks about how kids need to be able to fight the challenges of this nation with the skills they learn in school and also “build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy”.  So is success financial? Is success fame?  Is success being more educated by your parents?    I don’t think that was extremely clear.  To follow the theme of the message, I guess Obama wants kids to figure out what being successful really means.

Anyway, I will stop writing this essay now because it is feeling too much like I am finishing a school assignment.  The bottom line is that I definitely feel like having at least a  college degree gives people an edge in employment and earning potential, but if you are truly good at something that the schools do not teach then you should go for it.  Traditional structured schooling is not right for everyone, and those who are successful share a passionate drive to achieve their dreams, and they all work hard at their goals.   Happy Labor Day everyone!!

Share This

Related Posts:

CNN recently ran a slideshow featuring seven families who utilized the $8,000 first time homebuyer’s tax credit to purchase a home.  I found the slideshow to be pretty interesting because it featured a good diversity of people, but quite a few of the examples were from California.  Here is a breakdown of the slideshow and my comments.

First,  there is a family of four from Adelanto, CA that is buying a home for $72,000.  Obviously for this family the tax credit is  a great deal.  They can only claim $7,200 because that is 10% of the price of the home, but hey, it is free money.  They are still waiting for approval on their purchase, and I hope they get it because it seems like an awesome deal for a 4 bedroom house.  However, the story indicates that they would have bought the house with the credit or not because they needed a new home and the price was right.

Next, there is a single woman from Michigan  who bought a $115,000 home for herself.  From the description she gave it seems that she has a good head on her shoulders and she has been saving for a downpayment.  This person also said that she would have bought the home anyway, and the $8,000 is really a bonus to her.  I think that is great for her, but this means that the stimulus did not really spur an additional sale here.

The next couple is actually from San Mateo County.  They bought a $750,000 home in San Carlos with an FHA loan.  This means that they put down 3.5% and their loan is somewhere around $723,000.  At 5.5% this is a mortgage of around $4100.  Throw in property taxes and that’s another $600 a month.  They will be paying pretty much all interest to begin with and  it definitely does not cost $5000 a month to rent a three bedroom in San Carlos.   This story makes me worry a bit because this couple is planning a wedding and they said that the $8000 tax credit is saving them.  If you do the math, $8000 is  1.06% of their purchase price.  Honestly $8000 would not even cover their closing costs on this purchase so it would seem that perhaps they are buying too much.  The story did indicate that they felt rushed into the decision because of the tax credit, and I don’t know if that is a good thing.

The next couple is from Baltimore and they purchased a $119,000 home that they fixed up with the tax credit and other grants for historic homes.  Again, I think in this case the $8000 is significant enough that it makes a lot of sense.

Another local couple from San Francisco is up next.  They got a $550,000, 2200 square foot home in San Francisco.  This is actually a pretty good deal if it is in a good area of San Francisco.  They used the $8,000 to partially pay for a $12,000 roof.  They indicated that they waited to buy their home because they heard that a refundable credit was coming out, but once again, $8000 is just a drop in the bucket for their purchase.  It’s great that they were pay for 2/3rd of their roof, though.

The next couple took advantage of the fact that the $8,000 could be used as a downpayment .    Essentially they got a 0% down loan from the government.  The home is $257,000 and they could not save up $9,000. It also seems that they got an adjustable loan?  In this case their only equity is the $8,000 tax credit,  so it was definitely crucial in their purchase decision.

The next guy also used the tax credit as a downpayment, but he bought a triplex and is renting out two units to pay for most of his mortgage.  So basically he became a little landlord on the dime of the US government.  That is a awesome deal for him and I hope he does well.

In conclusion, I would say that most of these folks would not have purchased a home this year if the tax credit weren’t there.  The two groups that used the tax credit as a downpayment could not have afforded what they bought.   In the two Bay Area  cases where the purchase prices were $550,000 and $750,000 the $8000 really was just a drop in the bucket so I feel like they shouldn’t have based their purchase decision solely on the credit.  Anyway,  it is nice to see that some people are able to take advantage of this in a smart manner even though I find it ironic that the government is giving out 0% down loans on one hand and wagging a finger at the “greedy bankers” with the other hand.  Honestly  I cannot wait for this credit to expire so that the housing market returns to normal.

Share This

Related Posts: