Showing posts with label Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA). Show all posts

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Obama Mortgage Refinance Plan [White House market intervention-distortion #1,621]

‘President Barack Obama announced a package of proposals designed to jolt the housing market, his latest effort to reignite the economy after four years of foreclosures and falling home prices.

“This housing crisis struck right at the heart of what it means to be middle class in America: our homes,” Obama said in a speech in the Washington suburb of Falls Church, Virginia. “We need to do everything in our power to repair the damage and make responsible families whole.”

The president said his plan would make it easier for homeowners to refinance their mortgages into current low interest rates, which are now below 4 percent. Borrowers, even those who owe more than their homes are worth, would be able to refinance into loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.

To pay for the program, Obama will ask Congress for a tax on financial companies with more than $50 billion in assets. Congress has refused to act on similar requests twice in the last two years.

“No more red tape, no more runaround from the banks,” Obama said. “A small fee on the largest financial institutions will make sure that it doesn’t add to the deficit.” ’ (1)



Upon further review, the implicit underlying argument of the semi-bailout described above is that the market failed. However, if markets fail, then governments fail too.

Taking the if markets fail, then governments fail too argument to the externality phase, then both markets and government generate externalities. However, the negative externalities [neighborhood effects] associated with markets are often vilified (without regard to positive externalities) ending in a tax and/or regulation. How about government externalities?

Government, more succinctly politicos through the mechanism of government, and public policy, more succinctly politico policy, are always politically framed as only exhibiting positive externalities. Yet once notional politico policy becomes effective, several years hence, cascading unintended consequences occur which are in effect the externalities of politico policy aka government failure e.g. Medicaid, Medicare, social security, the multitude of other Great Society programs, public education K-12 etc., etc.

One needs to examine government failure and associated externalities and the response. Rather than scrapping policy that fails, more policy is instituted to supposedly correct the root policy failure which merely continues to fail.

“Government is the only enterprise on earth that when it fails, it merely does the same thing over again, just bigger.” -Don Luskin, TrendMacro

“I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.” - Milton Friedman


John B. Taylor, Stanford University economist, wrote a book entitled Getting Off Track, how government actions and interventions caused, prolonged, and worsened the financial crisis. Within this very short book [82 pages] Taylor makes a very convincing argument that government actions, became government failure and set the stage for financial shenanigans [externalities]. No government intervention, then no government failure, and hence no stage set for shenanigans. (2)

The negative externalities being mortgage loan brokers and other mortgage loan access points that engaged in shenanigans as the stage had been set by government through constant and prolonged interventions into the mortgage loan market. Consequentially, mortgages ended up resulting in ownership of homes, at the margin, by buyers who did not qualify. However, the negative externalities could have never occurred had not the environment been created for such negative externalities by government [politicos through the mechanism of government].

In a nutshell, beginning with the market intervention of the community reinvestment act, the promotion of ownership above historical standards by manipulation of GSE’s [Fannie, Freddie, etc.], government directed lowered loan standards, coupled with the Federal Reserve (government) creating a cheap money bubble 2002-2004 created the stage for shenanigans. That the cascading market interventions cause cascading market distortions.

Coming half full circle, we have politicos through the mechanism of government creating market intervention-distortion, creating government failure, causing negative externalities. No doubt mortgage lenders where involved as they took advantage of the environment created for shenanigans. However, rather than reversing course and ending market intervention-distortion policy, the politico, on queue, advocates more market intervention-distortion - or - “Government is the only enterprise on earth that when it fails, it merely does the same thing over again, just bigger.” -Don Luskin, TrendMacro

Now coming three fourth circle, one must examine the proposition that Markets never clear perfectly. Why? Serially uncorrelated errors. Hence no perfection can occur. The market clearing proposition is that quantity demanded will be in equilibrium with quantity supplied with price as the equaling agent. (3)

Closing the loop, paradoxically, intervention-distortion merely creates an environment that magnifies serially uncorrelated errors. That "imperfection" is the argument for intervention-distortion.... when in fact perfection becomes additional imperfection. (4)

In summary, a market never perfectly clears, but it clears in the most part as price changes to bring quantity demanded into equilibrium with quantity supplied. Hence constant distortions impede equilibrium therefore the market distorts and quantity demanded or quantity supplied, given no perfection, can not come into a dynamic equilibrium. In the case of the current housing market, constant and continuous market intervention distortion will leave the market out of equilibrium and delay market clearing, albeit imperfect.

Notes:

(1) Obama Plans Assistance for Rentals, Mortgage Refinancing, Bloomberg/Newsweek, 02/01/2012

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-01/obama-plans-assistance-for-rentals-mortgage-refinancing.html

(2) Getting Off Track, how government actions and interventions caused, prolonged, and worsened the financial crisis, John B. Taylor, 2009.

(3) After Keynesian Macroeconomics, Robert E. Lucas and Thomas J. Sargent.

http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf19/conf19d.pdf

(4) Ibid

Sunday, January 15, 2012

A Charming Tale of Political Nitwitery and Your Tax Dollar: Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP).


There are two distinct camps of thought regarding the US housing bubble: (a) the government induced bubble caused by decades of housing market intervention augmented by a cheap money bubble created by the Federal Reserve 2002-2004,  (b) greedy bankers. Regardless of which school of thought one subscribes to the US housing bubble resulted in a mortgage foreclosures crisis, resulting in an economic down turn, resulting in millions of lost jobs and consequentially millions of discouraged workers, with a lingering result of lost wealth in housing values.

Setting aside for a moment which school of thought one might subscribe to, congress set out to mitigate the effects of the now burst bubble and associated cascading consequences by introducing legislation known as the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA). Within this particular legislation was a sub component known as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP).

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program was recently studied by The Federal Reserve of Richmond to find what stabilizing effects the program managed to produce. The title of the study is: Neighborhood Stabilization – Putting Policy into Practice. The results? One might want to pay particular attention to the following which is part of the study’s conclusion:

“….framing neighborhood stabilization as an emergency relief program posed special challenges for recipients. Despite its tight deadlines, NSP1 was also characterized by complex rules and policies, and for indirect recipients, an additional layer of bureaucracy that stymied quick progress. In addition, the pressure to obligate funds quickly seems to have forced recipients to choose the most efficient strategies from the five eligible uses and to change plans midprogram. As one local government official remarked during our visit, “We have been so focused on following the NSP1 grant rules and getting the program up and running that your visit was the first time we have thought about the broader context of stabilization”. (1)


In the report are cited five case studies, two in Ohio, one each in South Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania. From the report and the report’s conclusion one can easily see that the participants of the five case studies suffered from the standard deficiencies associated with federal bureaucratic top-down central planning and extremely complicated and time delaying regulations.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), the aim thereof, was to quickly stabilize a housing market suffering from unprecedented foreclosure rates. That is to say, the program is politically depicted as causing only positive externalities with no negative externalities associated. That politicos through the mechanism of government are quick to point to supposed market based negative externalities but government based programs are politically framed as only causing positive externalities. Stated alternatively:

“The point, rather, is to provide background for asking why the free-rider, collective-action, externality problems that are regularly identified as sufficient reason for restricting the role and scope of markets are so seldom identified as reasons for restricting the role and scope of government”.  -   Dr. Donald Boudreaux, department of economics George Mason University (2)

What was not part of the Federal Reserve of Richmond’s report is a report entitled Chronology: Neighborhood Stabilization Program, The Modesto Bee, 01/03/2012. One should take a moment and go to the link below and read the report. It’s a charming tale of general conflicts of interest, city councilmen and conflict-of-interest-rules, non-profits with individuals compensated in excess of $400,000, family members of the participants living in taxpayer renovated structures, exorbitant spending and extravagant purchases, shoddy workmanship, "egregious deficiencies", city bureaucrat resignations, the FBI, and HUD's Office of Inspector General. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll kiss your tax dollars goodbye.



Chronology: Neighborhood Stabilization Program, The Modesto Bee, 01/03/2012.


Notes:

(1) Community Scope, vol2, Issue 2, 2011, Neighborhood Stabilization - Putting Policy into Practice