1. Survey: Americans Want Mortgage Subsidies

    Fun new survey data out from Rasmussen, regarding Americans and how they currently feel about government participation in the mortgage market:

    Rasmussen: Mortgage Survey

    See the glaring disconnect in the first two items? If fifty-six percent of Americans think the government should stay “altogether” out of the mortgage market, but seventy-nine percent want the mortgage-interest deduction to continue, then an awful lot of people have an awfully shallow view of what “government participation” means.

    If you don’t think that the mortgage-interest deduction amounts to a subsidy for homeowners, and therefore, is the very essence of “government participation” in the market, then you’re nuts. Take away that deduction, and see what happens to home prices. Mortgage qualification standards are based upon that federal tax deduction being there, effectively “helping” people make their house payments. If the deduction were to go away, qualification standards would necessarily tighten. Joe and Jane Sixpack wouldn’t be able to qualify for as high a mortgage payment as they could previously, as more of their gross income would now be going to taxes. Thus, over time, home prices would decline.

    For this survey to mean much, someone really ought to define “altogether.” Because to me, that’d mean the dissolution of Fannie, Freddie, and the FHA, as well as the removal of the mortgage-interest tax deduction. But that wasn’t what the Rasmussen respondents inferred, or were told. Obviously.

    What an idea, huh? Get rid of Fannie, Freddie, the FHA — who between them control 90 percent of the mortgage market these days — and the sacrosanct mortgage-interest deduction. You want to talk about a full-on house price collapse? That’d do it!




     

     

  2. Home (Free) on the Range

    You want stimulus? Well, how ’bout the chance to go almost 15 months without a house payment?

    Thanks to cottony-soft (and FedGov encouraged) accounting standards, banks are loathe to foreclose on underwater properties. As a bank, realizing five- and six-digit losses is no fun. It tends to leave ouchies on your balance sheet, and more importantly, has a negative effect on management bonuses.

    Cause, meet effect:

    Defaulted borrowers were spending an average of 469 days in their home after ceasing to make payments as of July 31, so the financial attraction of strategic defaults increases.

    Four hundred days with no house payment? A fellow could save up quite a stash in his piggy bank, going that long without sending a check to the mortgage company.

    In any case, that tantalizing little snippet comes from an article at AmericanBanker.com.

    And speaking of homeowner savings, just imagine all the dutiful home care and maintenance being performed by all these “living free for now” borrowers — borrowers who know that one day the bank will be coming to throw their La-Z-Boy on the lawn and Master Lock all the doors. The question isn’t if, but when.

    Oh, I’m sure that leaky roof will get fixed. Any day now.

    Yes, indeed. Delaying foreclosures (most econ-types refer to it as “extend and pretend”) with schemes like relaxed accounting standards and FedGov-initiated can-kickings (HAMP much?) should work out just fine.




     

     

  3. DTIs of HAMP Modification Recipients

    Because I have become very much a financial hardass in my old age, I’ve been against FedGov’s HAMP program from Day One. (To show that I am an Equal Opportunity Hardass, I am virulently against taxpayer funds going to banks or other corporate entities, as well.)

    Still, I keep up with HAMP results (or lack thereof) because train wrecks this large are just hard to ignore. And also because watching FedGov throw piles of good money after bad is better entertainment than most primetime TV (which isn’t saying much).

    So here we go with the July batch of HAMP results:

    Financialstability.gov: HAMP Servicer Report — July 2010

    In particular, I’d like to call reader attention to a chart on page three:

    Aside from the inherent irony in finding numbers like this at a site called “financialstability.gov,” and ignoring the brazen injustice done by allowing any U.S. dot-gov entity to even use said domain, you have to be amazed — really amazed — at the financial condition of HAMPsters at large.

    With Numbers This Bad…

    What we see here is that for folks who’ve had their mortgages modified via HAMP, the median debt-to-income (DTI) ratios are downright scary.

    Think about this: The median back-end DTI for successful HAMP applicants, before their mortgages were modified, was almost 80 percent.

    After mod, the median back-end DTI is still almost 64 percent.

    So, at the median, having 64 percent of their pre-tax income going to debt payments is an improvement.

    And since part of HAMP qualification is supposed to focus on whether or not the borrower actually has a shot at staying in the house, presumably making payments to the bank from now until pigs fly, then you have to wonder just how bad the non-approved applicants’ DTIs are. (Almost half of the people who’ve applied to HAMP have been bounced from the program, for various reasons.)

    If having a 60+ percent back-end DTI after a modification is seen as “affordable,” then I probably don’t want to what “unaffordable” is.

    Yeah. Mortgage modifications or not, these are still defaults looking for a place to happen.

    Get Ya Some

    I’d step up to the trough and request a modification for myself — hey, who doesn’t want a “more affordable” mortgage PLUS the opportunity to stick somebody else with the bill? — but somehow I doubt that my front- and back-end DTIs of roughly ten percent would allow me to qualify for any sweet HAMP action. (Since I have no non-mortgage debt, both of my DTIs are equal.)

    Darn the bad luck, anyway. Savers and responsible folk? Shut out from reaping taxpayer largesse once again.

    Instead, we just get to pay for it.




     

     

  4. Student Loans For the Win

    Mary Pilon at the Wall Street Journal tells us that total outstanding student-loan debt has now overtaken total outstanding credit-card debt:

    WSJ: Student Loan Debt Surpasses Credit Cards

    As of June, there was roughly $830 billion outstanding in student loans, compared to $826 billion in credit-card debt.

    Swell, ain’t it? I tell you, this country can strap on the anchors and leg chains of debt like nobody’s business.




     

     

  5. Worst-Paying College Degrees

    Now here’s an interesting article from Yahoo. Apparently someone has taken the time to compile a list of the worst-paying college degrees out there:

    Yahoo: 20 Worst-Paying Degrees of 2010

    I get a kick out of lists like this — especially ones that reinforce my own views on the relative value (or lack thereof) of higher education. Which is that “higher education,” in and of itself, is very rarely the Ticket to Financial Success which society makes it out to be. (Check out this article in the Harvard Business Review; the difference between “knowledge” and “skills” is immense. The higher-ed conglomerate may disperse knowledge, but usually, what employers want are skills.)

    And oh yeah — if you take on lots of debt to get that higher ed, you can easily end up worse off — far worse off — than if you had no degree at all.

    Because I’m lazy, I won’t reprint the whole list here. However, the top five worst-paying degrees…

    College Degree Starting Pay Mid-Career Pay
    1. Child and Family Studies $29,500 $38,400
    2. Elementary Education $31,600 $44,400
    3. Social Work $31,800 $44,900
    4. Athletic Training $32,800 $45,700
    5. Culinary Arts $35,900 $50,600

    … are pretty much what I’d expect. (Wait — where is Underwater Basket Weaving?)

    I do, though, have to take issue with how the author finishes out her missive:

    If you’d rather end up with one of the best-paying college degrees, you’ll have to major in something that requires a lot of math classes.

    I’m not so sure about that. I mean, politicians seem to do pretty well financially. And it’s obvious that math was never a core requisite at any point in their lives.




     

     

  6. Debt-Free is Nice, But…

    A couple of weeks back, I spent some time thumping on How to Get What You Want in Life With the Money You Already Have, a book written by Carol Keeffe in the early 1990s. While not a literary prize by any stretch, the book deserves some credit: It did get me started in the world of personal-finance reading.

    One of Keeffe’s particularly egregious recommendations — and this is just kerfuffle waiting to happen — is for folks to make minimum payments on all their bills and credit cards until they’ve saved up six months’ worth of salary as an emergency fund. To me, such a plan would almost guarantee failure. How many folks do you know with the financial (and disciplinary) ability to pull that off?

    Not many, is my guess.

    I much prefer Dave Ramsey’s Baby Steps plan, and its suggestion to make “minimum payments only” until one saves $1,000 (or $500, if you’re a low-income household) … and THEN to attack the debts full-force and head-on.

    However, as I was finger-flipping through How to Get What You Want a little more, I managed to find a few paragraphs that stood out — in a good way! Actually, I found this to be quite insightful, and a bit Suze-Orman-esque:

    For most of us there are two things that would make a big difference in the quality of our lives: (1) having the deeply satisfying feeling of knowing we’re directing money toward making our dreams come true, and (2) having the secure feeling of knowing money is available for today’s emergencies as well as tomorrow’s needs.

    Well, I’m not so sure about the “making dreams come true” part, but I’ll vouch for the utter goodness of financial security. Having money available for emergencies changes everything. Life looks far different when you’re ready for the speedbumps and potholes.

    Keeffe continues:

    If you were thinking that eliminating a bill would make a significant difference in the quality of your life, watch out. It’s only a diversionary tactic of the mind. Of course things would be better if the bills were more under control or gone altogether. But eliminating a bill creates only a temporary feeling of relief compared with the deep and lasting feelings of power and security that money in hand creates. The availability of money means choices, and choices mean control. Lack of bills will never compare to the potency of having choices (money).

    You know what? I agree with this. One. Hundred. Percent.

    As a guy who’s made it through Step 3 of Ramsey’s Baby Steps (no debt except for the mortgage; fully-funded emergency fund is in place), I found that for me, while paying off that last debt felt great, hitting my savings mark felt even better.

    As Keeffe notes, “Eliminating a bill creates only a temporary feeling of relief, compared with the deep and lasting feelings of power and security that money in hand creates.” To this I say: AMEN.

    Debt-free is sweet, but there is no substitute for savings.

    But We Gotta Qualify This…

    As much as I love what Keeffe says here, she is still presenting it in the context of “You need to have a bunch of money saved BEFORE you begin seriously paying off your debts.” The logic of this baffles me entirely. While it sounds silly, I want to scream at her, “Hey! The longer your readers stay in debt, the less likely they’re ever going to get out of it!”

    Though of course I have no quantifiable evidence to support this, everything I’ve learned to date, and everything I’ve seen, points toward the assertion that the more you muddle through life, simply “living with” your bills and debts, the less likely you are to ever get out from under them. Let’s face it: Banks and other lending institutions endeavor to make it so.

    At some point the lack of progress, the years of frustration and stress — all of it accumulates into the deadly “This is just how everyone lives!” attitude.

    At which point, you’re sunk.




     

     

  7. Student Loan Default Rates

    Those of you with an interest in default rates — student loan default rates, in particular — will want to set aside a few minutes to read the following:

    Chronicle Of Higher Ed: Student-Loan Default Rates: Understated

    Of course findings such as the following will come as a complete and utter shock to everyone (not!):

    According to unpublished data obtained by The Chronicle, one in every five government loans that entered repayment in 1995 has gone into default. The default rate is higher for loans made to students from two-year colleges, and higher still, reaching 40 percent, for those who attended for-profit institutions.

    One in every five loans that entered repayment in 1995 are in default? Yikes. That is nasty. As in, subprime nasty. This is worth mentioning because, according to the fine folks at S&P in July, 2009 …

    S&P now projects defaults on subprime loans issued in 2005, 2006 and 2007 at 11 percent, 30 percent and 49 percent, respectively.

    So the folks issuing student loans to pretty much anybody with a pulse still have some work to do to reach those vaunted levels we associate with subprime default rates. Keep at it, guys! You’re making progress!

    Back to the Chronicle piece:

    But it’s the high rates of default at for-profit institutions that are likely to get the most attention from members of Congress, who have recently raised concerns about the cost and quality of for-profit higher education. Fifteen years into repayment, two out of every five loans made to students who attended two-year for-profit colleges are in default.

    Boy — this would be really troubling to hear if we didn’t recognize that student loans are undoubtedly “good debt” meant only to help you reach your dreams!




     

     

  8. Still Paying Your Mortgage as Agreed?

    Then you’re the sucker. (Assuming you haven’t already figured that out.)

    SF Chronicle: “Bill Would Shield Homeowners’ Credit Ratings”

    From the article:

    A bill introduced on Thursday by U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, would shield homeowner credit ratings after a loan modification.

    “To play by the rules, modify your loan and then have it as a blemish on your credit report is just flabbergasting; it adds insult to injury,” said Speier. “The credit system should not punish responsible homeowners who modify their mortgage payments to keep their homes.”

    There are lots of things I’d like to say to Speier, but none of them are nice. So, in the interest of keeping this a family show, I will refrain.

    I will just state here that, in my opinion, the only freedom this country strives for any longer is the freedom from responsibility.




     

     

  9. Paying the Minimum … Forever?

    Digging through my piles of personal-finance books this weekend, I came across the very first money book I ever purchased: Carol Keeffe’s How to Get What You Want in Life with the Money You Already Have (1995 edition).

    It really is quite amazing how much different the advice can be from one author to the next. On page 111, Ms. Keefe summarizes why she advocates paying only the minimums on installment bills:

    Why should anyone pay only the minimum payment due on his or her installment bills instead of getting them paid off as fast as possible and eliminating those high finance charges? Two main reasons. One is to diffuse the emotional grip bils have over us by putting them in last place, making them unimportant. The other is to free up money so we can begin to pay ourselves. Paying the minimum on the bills is a tremendous boost in moving us from the credit card trap to the freedom of choice that comes with having money.

    What? Diffuse the emotional grip bills have over us? That sounds precisely like the kind of psychobabble crap you’d get from an author who’s made her paycheck by telling people what they want to hear. (It’s what the guys at Chase and Citibank want their customers to hear, for sure.)

    I didn’t think much, one way or another, of this advice back when I first read it. It didn’t make much of an impact on me, apparently, because not long thereafter I was back at the bookstore, buying copies of other (better) money books. (If memory serves, Mary Hunt’s Debt-Proof Living and Joe Dominguez’ Your Money or Your Life were the next guideposts on my debt-free journey. Both were, and are, fantastic.)

    What Keeffe advocates in her book, to be fair, is that one should pay the minimums on all bills until s/he has six months’ salary tucked away in savings. At that point, s/he won’t need credit cards any longer for month-to-month living and emergencies — making it easier to get rid of the things once and for all.

    FACT: When you take your focus off the bills and pay the minimum, the installment bills do go away.

    FACT: You can do it.

    FACT: Paying the minimum will make you want to quit using the cards and start living in the present.

    FACT: By choosing to pay the minimum on your credit card bills, you are taking action that says, “My goals and I are more important than the bills.” You have taken charge.

    I’m sorry, but Ms. Keeffe is reaching into the realm of the absurd. Readers who take this path are playing right into their creditors’ hands.

    Obviously, we’re all different in how we react to money. Perhaps Ms. Keefe’s advice would work for someone out there. Like all finance authors, she has plenty of satisfied-client stories dabbled throughout the book.

    But there’s a reason why card companies love customers who make minimum payments. And for an author to advocate that people do this for an extended period — how long would it take most folks to save up SIX MONTHS’ SALARY? — strikes me as … pathetic. And ridiculous.

    I suppose I could give this book away, but I won’t. Probably better that I keep it stuffed in a dismal corner of my bookshelves, never to escape and/or pollute the mind of some naive debt-choked consumer who thinks How to Get What You Want in Life actually offers a valid way out.




     

     

  10. One Family’s Housing Woe

    A couple of weeks ago, in Ready to Own a Home?, I talked about some mistakes made by too-anxious homebuyers. Well, what do you know? The LA Times presents a fine example of just what I was talking about:

    LA Times: Undone By Their Dreams

    It’s one family’s tale of housing woe, to be sure.

    In 2006, Dawn and Michael Meenan found what they were looking for in Hesperia, in a community called Mission Crest. But they had declared bankruptcy four years earlier and were uncertain they could buy a house here. Then the phone rang.

    “Your loan has been approved.”

    Ah yes, the joys of housing bubbles … when folks four years removed from a BK can go out and borrow hundreds of thousands for a home in the desert.

    Dawn and Michael Meenan first explored Hesperia on Thanksgiving weekend in 2005. …They followed the signs and billboards to the subdivision, set off from the desert by a cinder-block wall. Six builders were showing model homes. A large red balloon soaring above one tract tugged at its anchor.

    …Amid the imposing two-story designs, they settled on a modest single-story home — yet with 2,400 square feet, it was large enough for their growing family. The sales representatives told them that one would be available on Newport Street by midsummer, and if they put down a $3,000 deposit they could lock in the price at $365,000.

    Lesson One in Homebuyer Edumacation: When people use the word “modest” to describe a $365,000 home, with 2,400 square feet, much buyer heartache lurks down the road.

    They could barely scrape together the deposit, and they didn’t have a down payment for the mortgage. The sales representatives didn’t seem worried. Let’s see what we can do, they said, giving the Meenan children crayons to color with and taking notes on the couple’s credit history.

    Countrywide Financial Corp. turned them down. Freedom Plus Mortgage said yes. After signing the loan documents, the Meenans worried they would be overextended, but they told themselves that this was what first-time homebuyers do, especially when they’re in their 30s and their family is young.

    Now where have I heard that before?

    Given their bankruptcy, the Meenans qualified only for a subprime mortgage. Their first loan was fixed at 7.375% for three years and was then adjustable; their second was fixed at 11.625% for 30 years. The payments came to more than $2,500 a month.

    Both loans were two percentage points above market rates, and in 2036 they would have to make balloon payments totaling nearly $300,000. Then there were the property and the community taxes — nearly $3,000 twice a year.

    You just know this is going to end well, right?

    But they managed. When Dawn’s maternity leave was over, she went back to work as a bookkeeper for an Irwindale-based online company that sells vitamin supplements. Michael worked in the firm’s warehouse. Together they made nearly $95,000 a year.

    Wow. That’s a very, very nice salary — for any family NOT sucked into a piggybacked $365k deathtrap mortgage. For a family who DID take on the loan, though … ’tis a different story.

    And did I mention the home’s location required the Meenans to undertake a 1-hour commute every day?

    If it was a sacrifice, they told themselves, it was worthwhile. They were building equity. They were improving their credit scores. In time, their income would rise, and they could refinance. That was what the sales representatives had told them.

    In March 2007, Michael was laid off and had to take odd jobs. Three months later, Dawn’s employer gave her a chance to start her own bookkeeping business. She could work at home, and as she brought in clients, the family income climbed back to near six figures. She and Michael felt secure enough to landscape the backyard, put in a patio and plant a vegetable garden.

    Whew. For a minute there, I thought this whole setup might not work out as planned!

    The idyll proved brief. As the recession deepened, Dawn lost clients, and their income started to fall. In December 2008, they did not pay their property tax. They didn’t have the money. Besides, they rationalized, homes in the area had dropped almost $200,000 in value, and they’d be getting a reassessment and their taxes should go down.

    Then one day, as Dawn organized the bills, she saw how fast they were falling behind. She was paying the mortgage later each month, and in July the interest rate on the first loan would reset upward. It could cost them anywhere from $100 to $1,000 more each month.

    All completely unexpected, of course.

    Of course.

    They spoke to the bank but were told that they didn’t qualify for a loan modification, and in May they just couldn’t pay the mortgage anymore. Sad and angry, they stopped paying on the first loan — then, two months later, on the second.

    They contacted a real estate agent to list the house. They waited until after Michael’s birthday in August to put up the For Sale sign. They didn’t want to have to explain the situation to their family just yet.

    In October, the house was sold for $125,000. As the family waited in the car, Michael went inside for one last look. The sunlight streaming through the windows looked different without the curtains, but it still brought back a flood of memories. When he saw the stain on the carpet from one of the children’s spilled drinks, he cried.

    There might have been a time when I’d feel sympathy for these folks, but not any longer. I’ve long since tired of it. No matter what anyone tells you, bad choices have bad consequences. (Unless you’re a TBTF bank. If that’s the case, and you made this loan, good on you. Thanks for taking such a prudent risk. As always, we taxpayers got your back.)