The reverse mortgage as an asset management tool

Abstract

Reverse mortgages are usually seen as a vehicle for increasing the income of poor, elderly households. This perspective, coupled with the relatively slow growth of reverse mortgage programs, has led some observers to question the growth potential of the reverse mortgage market. This article presents a more expansive view of reverse mortgages as a financial tool for tapping housing equity for various purposes and at various stages in the life cycle.

Three market segments for reverse mortgages are discussed: elderly persons living alone, other elderly households, and non‐elderly households. Potential uses include turning housing equity into personal human capital investment accounts, enabling children to provide care for their disabled parents, funding elderly households’ long‐term care insurance, and sustaining consumption. Recent progress in product development and availability and political pressures to find private financing for health and long‐term care suggest that the reverse mortgage market has considerable growth potential.     

The changing demography of multifamily rental housing

Abstract

The residents of multifamily rental housing are different from both homeowners and single‐family home renters, and these differences have implications for the housing market and for public policy. This article describes apartment residents today, discusses recent changes in their number and characteristics, projects their future growth and composition, and highlights business and policy implications of future changes.

For purposes of business and public policy, a segmentation of apartment residents into three submarkets is useful: the “affordable” market serving low‐ and moderate‐income households, some of which receive government housing assistance; the “lifestyle apartment market” serving higher‐income adult households; and the substantial “middle market.” The number of apartment renters is likely to grow moderately over time. The combination of multifamily structure type and rental tenure form offers unique opportunities not only for provision of affordable housing but also for revitalization of downtown areas and balanced “smart” growth in suburban areas.     

Comment on Jack Goodman's “houses,apartments, and the incidence of property taxes”

Abstract

Goodman finds from his analysis of the 2001 Residential Finance Survey that multifamily housing bears a higher effective property tax rate (EPTR) than single‐family owner‐occupied housing and argues that much of the differential is associated with the lower average property value of apartments. We offer comments on how this important research can be enhanced and analyze the EPTR by using a different database, the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) of the decennial census.

Like Goodman, we find from the PUMS that the EPTR of multifamily housing is high relative to that of single‐family detached housing and that lower‐value multifamily housing has a higher EPTR relative to that of higher‐value multifamily units. We offer preliminary findings from the PUMS on the implications of the EPTR for development patterns (it may discourage smart growth), equity (the poor and minorities bear a higher tax burden), and housing (high EPTRs challenge affordability).     

Some possible directions for research on multifamily housing

Abstract

The combination of a growing demand for information and a literature that has not emphasized multifamily housing has produced an information gap in multifamily housing research. This article seeks to shed light on the areas in which the information gap is widest and to put forth a research agenda for the study of multifamily housing. The article starts from a definition of multifamily housing that includes all rental housing in structures with five or more units, and it goes on to develop a more precise definition. Next the various components of the market for multifamily housing are discussed. These include the demand and supply of multifamily housing and its sources of financing. The discussion examines each of these components with an eye toward identifying questions and issues in need of further study. Data needed for further research are the subject of the sixth section. The final section highlights questions of particular interest to public policy makers.

Because of the lack of information about multifamily properties, the list of possible research questions is long. A better understanding is needed of how multifamily housing markets operate—for example, what factors influence the supply of multifamily housing and how it is financed. There is also a need to examine specific public policy issues, including the impact of tax policy on residential rents, ways of detecting financial distress in federally insured multifamily properties, and the performance of nonprofit organizations in delivering and maintaining affordable multifamily housing. Recently released data from the 1991 Survey of Residential Finance, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's planned 1995 Landlord Survey, and the newly founded Multifamily Housing Institute could play key roles in studying these questions.     

Alternative measures for the financial condition of the multifamily housing stock

Abstract

Indicators of the financial condition of the multifamily housing stock can potentially inform several policy issues, such as the loss of affordable rental units, multifamily developers’ access to capital, and the emerging secondary mortgage market for multifamily properties. Several rules of thumb exist for assessing financial condition. This article uses the Residential Finance Survey to investigate whether it matters, from a practical standpoint, which one is employed. Specifically, we ascertain how five measures—loan‐to‐value, debt coverage, rent‐to‐value, net operating income—to‐value, and vacancy loss ratios—relate to each other and rank properties.

We found that Pearsonian correlations among the measures varied dramatically. Factor analysis produced two factors, one corresponding to a rent‐flow measure and the other to a debt‐burden measure. Spearman rank‐order correlations revealed that with one exception, measures yielded noticeably dissimilar financial condition rankings. We conclude that single‐dimensional measures of financial condition should not be used in isolation.     

From confrontation to collaboration? Banks,community groups,and the implementation of community reinvestment agreements

Abstract

Banks and other depository institutions have signed more than 300 community reinvestment agreements valued at $350 billion in the two decades since the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This article examines the effectiveness of negotiating CRA agreements in Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and New Jersey. After describing the agreements and the procedures by which they are enforced, the article looks at their impact and discusses several factors that could limit implementation of CRA agreements in the future.

The findings suggest that CRA agreements are more effective in some areas than others. They seem most consistently successful in meeting their goals for mortgages, investments in low‐income housing tax credits, grant giving to community‐based organizations, and in opening (and keeping open) inner‐city bank branches. The future of CRA agreements is clouded by several factors, most notably the restructuring and consolidation of the financial service sector.     

FHA: Recent History and Future Prospects

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) deserves considerable credit for helping support the housing market during the recent financial crisis by increasing its own market share. However, as the recovery continues, the FHA can gradually return to its “traditional” role as an insurer of low-down-payment home mortgages for low-to-moderate-income and first-time homebuyers. A major concern going forward is susceptibility to increased adverse selection if it continues in nontraditional markets. Indeed, the modest market share of the FHA going into the housing collapse was important both in limiting its losses and in allowing it to maintain the market when other traditional secondary market makers failed.     

Comment on Jean L. Cummings and Denise DiPasquale's “The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit: An Analysis of the First Ten Years”

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (housing credit) that Cummings and Di‐Pasquale portray is effective, efficient, and healthy. However, rapid changes in the industry have turned some of their data stale, and the absence of suitable context and information invalidate some key analyses and findings. Moreover, the researchers sometimes seem to see the glass as 10 percent empty instead of 90 percent full. A practitioners’ perspective is more positive.

The housing credit generates an array of public benefits while harnessing private investors’ business discipline. Genuinely low‐income tenants occupy the housing. The housing revitalizes low‐income communities. Properties are in good financial and physical condition. The housing credit is also cost effective. The economic fundamentals of producing low‐income rental housing, not the housing credit, necessitate substantial subsidies. A remarkably high proportion of the federal tax‐credit subsidy goes into the housing, and investor returns are modest. Nonprofit‐sponsored production appears to cost more because nonprofits are prominent in high‐cost locations and for other similar reasons, not because nonprofit developers are inefficient.     

Public housing and the American dream: Residents’ views on buying into “the projects”

Abstract

This article examines residents’ attitudes toward homeownership in five large inner‐city public housing projects composed of multifamily apartment buildings. Based on 267 interviews with public housing residents in Boston, it contrasts their broad support for homeownership as a concept with their wholly mixed reaction to the idea of owning a public housing apartment. Interest in homeownership in public housing is shown to be independent of residents’ current employment status and closely tied to residents’ social investment in specific housing developments and to their perceptions about the quality of that development's management, maintenance, and security.

The findings cast renewed doubt on policies that would make public housing sales a centerpiece of national policy, but they provide qualified support for more modest efforts to increase homeownership in public housing developments and in low‐income neighborhoods around them.     

Discrimination in urban credit markets: What we don't know and why we don't know it

Abstract

Research on discrimination in housing credit has focused primarily on the outcomes of a complex process in which many parties play a role. The lender— or prospective lender—is only one party in the process that results in decisions by individuals and households to buy homes and finance their purchases. To focus solely on lenders would make it difficult to measure the nature and extent of discrimination and its effects on housing outcomes.

After discussing limitations of housing credit discrimination research, the author suggests two relatively underexplored areas: studying housing search behavior and auditing lenders to assess their treatment of prospective borrowers before the stage at which written loan applications are submitted. Both suggested avenues of research might better address three public policy questions for which our knowledge is incomplete: Is there discrimination? Where does it occur in the home‐buying process? What are the effects of discrimination on household behavior?     

The contributions of historic preservation to housing and economic development

Abstract

Historic preservation contributes greatly to housing and economic development. Historic preservation has produced almost 250,000 housing units through use of the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit. Additionally, heritage tourism is a multibillion‐dollar industry, and preservation projects help further community revitalization.

Historic preservation also has a downside. Preservation's growing popularity may dilute its imperative and market prowess, and some argue it is used to thwart new development. Preservation requirements may impede affordable housing production and displace area residents. These undesirable consequences are not givens, however. Preservationists are working to become more flexible, and we suggest ways to practice historic preservation while mitigating some of its negative consequences—for example, tax credit changes, more flexible building codes, and a “tiered” system of designating historic properties at varying levels of significance.     

Comment on Robert E. Lang,Katrin B. Anacker,and Steven Hornburg's “the new politics of affordable housing”

Abstract

In his thoughtful analysis, Joseph realistically points to what a mixed‐income housing development can and cannot offer its low‐income residents. Observed benefits include greater informal social controls over the development, likely proximal modeling opportunities for youth, and participation in a political‐economic subgroup that can demand more responsive public services. Yet without offering more comprehensive, structured supports to its residents, no form of housing alone can be an antidote to poverty.

However, if we expand Joseph's analysis to include the impact of large‐scale developments on distressed urban neighborhoods, we can see mixed‐income housing catalyzing other benefits for low‐income residents. These benefits include a reduced housing cost burden; more structured supportive services; dramatically improved surroundings; high‐quality housing and community design; faster‐paced complementary investments in public systems and amenities; and strategically restored market functioning that offers more choices, lower prices, new jobs, and additional tax revenues to support service delivery.     

Shared‐equity mortgages,housing affordability,and homeownership

Abstract

Although the homeownership rate rose from 65 percent in 1995 to 69 percent in 2005, this rise appears difficult to sustain. We argue that the development of new shared‐equity mortgages (SEMs) that blur the lines between debt and equity would propel further advances in homeownership. The rationale for these mortgages is that the broad financial markets would value shares in individual housing returns more highly than hard‐pressed prospective homeowners do.

We describe a new class of SEMs and provide survey evidence that most households would prefer them to interest‐only and other currently popular mortgages. Financial simulations confirm the value of the securitized SEMs to investors. We present computations suggesting that an increase in the overall U.S. homeownership rate of between 1% and 1.5% would likely result from the development of SEM markets.     

Covering the private parts: the (re-)nationalisation of housing finance

Abstract

Is state power or control over financial markets really withering? Most narratives/analyses of financialisation see a growing penetration of private capital into everyday life that runs parallel to the increasing power of private financial capital over state policy. Yet housing finance – mortgages – sits at the centre of banking, and banking sits at the centre of the financial system. Large-scale mortgage markets only function where the state wraps around the banking system to remove maturity risks and to limit excessive credit creation. Partial deregulation in the 1990s and 2000s created a crisis that states resolved by re-nationalising much of mortgage finance. This renewed and overwhelming state presence suggests that financialisation is a state-driven story, and that private financial power, stability and instruments require state support above and beyond contract enforcement and prudential regulation.     

No renters in my suburban backyard: Land use regulation and rental housing

Academics and policymakers have argued that the ability of low‐ and moderate‐income families to move into desirable suburban areas is constrained by the high cost of housing. Local zoning and other forms of land use regulation are believed to contribute to increased housing prices by reducing supply and increasing the size of new housing. Suburban restrictions on rental housing are particularly likely to reduce mobility for low‐income families. In this paper, I employ an instrumental variables approach to examine the effects of zoning on the quantity and price of rental housing in Massachusetts, using historical municipal characteristics to instrument for current regulations. Results suggest that communities with more restrictive zoning issue significantly fewer building permits for multifamily housing but provide only weak evidence of the effects of regulations on rents. The lack of effects on rents may reflect the low level of multifamily development, while analysis is complicated by development of subsidized housing under the state's affordable housing law. © 2009 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Can State Review of Local Planning Increase Housing Production?

Abstract

To increase housing production and make the distribution of affordable housing more equitable, several states subject local land use planning to review by state agencies or courts. Focusing an empirical analysis on California, this article considers the potential efficacy of these reviews in contributing to the overall supply of housing. Past studies of other intergovernmental mandates suggest that their institutional design helps determine their success.

A comparison of four states indicates that approaches differ considerably in how they determine local housing needs, evaluate local efforts prospectively or retrospectively, and penalize noncompliance. California's housing element law, which mandates prospective local planning for quantifiable housing goals, gives state staff the power to review local plans for compliance with statutory requirements. However, multivariate analysis indicates that the compliance status of California municipalities in 1994 did not predict the number of single‐family or multifamily housing permits issued from 1994 to 2000.     

Outlook: The subprime lending crisis: Focus on the problem: Subprime borrowers in trouble

Abstract

Public policy should be directed at serving the large number of borrowers who have recently taken out subprime loans and who are at serious risk of losing their homes when their mortgages reset. Practicing forbearance and providing counseling for defaulting homeowners, as well as allowing them to refinance into a Federal Housing Administration loan, can be particularly helpful. Broad changes in housing programs and in the structure of the mortgage market should be considered on their merits as good or bad public policy for the long term, not simply as solutions to the subprime problem.     

The excessive costs of creative finance: Growing inefficiencies in the production of low‐income housing

Abstract

The paper examines creative finance as a means of low‐income housing production and preservation. The low‐income tax credit has evolved as the main federal housing production program in recent years. But this evolution can only be understood as a last resort. The inefficiencies of this approach outweigh any advantages. High transaction costs, inappropriate targeting of benefits, and insufficient monitoring are among the problems. Recent changes in the tax credit may actually cost the government more. Furthermore, current policy in fact creates the same time bombs now exploding in the prepayment projects. Current proposals for housing reform and revitalization have positive features, but are either underfunded or still rely on creative finance. What is needed is a direct one‐ or two‐step low‐income production program.     

New York city and subsidized housing: Impacts and lessons of the city's $5 billion capital budget housing plan

Abstract

New York City has devoted far more resources to the development and rehabilitation of affordable housing than any other U.S. city, investing more than $4 billion from 1986 to 1997. This article surveys the impact, status, and implications of New York's housing programs. It looks at correlations between publicly funded housing starts and changes in the housing stock, welfare rolls, and crime and at the economic impact of the city's housing investments within low‐income neighborhoods.

New York's housing programs have transformed neighborhoods, replacing large swaths of abandoned shells and vacant land with new housing and preserving thousands of buildings at risk of abandonment. While these housing investments correlate most strongly with reductions in vacant units and vacant lots, they also show significant correlations with reductions in welfare rolls and violent crime, but uneven economic impacts as well. New York's housing programs are important nationally less for the specifics of particular programs than for the institutional collaborations on which they are founded.     

Real Denial Rates: A New Tool to Look at Who Is Receiving Mortgage Credit

ABSTRACT

The observed mortgage denial rate (ODR), calculated from Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, is often used to measure mortgage credit availability, but it does not account for shifts in applicants’ credit profiles. In this article, we develop an additional tool, which we call the real denial rate (RDR), as a way to account for credit differences and hence more consistently measure denial rates and mortgage credit accessibility. We match HMDA data with CoreLogic proprietary data to obtain both borrower demographic information (e.g., income and race and ethnicity) and mortgage credit characteristics (e.g., loan-to-value ratios, debt-to-income ratios, and credit scores). We account for shifts in applicants’ credit profiles by considering only the denial rate of low-credit-profile applicants. Our RDR results show that conventional mortgages have higher denial rates than government mortgages do, racial and ethnic differences are smaller than the ODR indicates but are not eliminated, and small-dollar mortgages have higher RDRs, particularly in the government loan channel.