Housing Market Failure

The mortgage crisis of 2007 marked catastrophe for millions of homeowners who suffered from foreclosure and short sales. Most of the problems involving the foreclosing of families’ homes could boil down to risky borrowing and lending. Lenders were pushed to ensure families would be eligible for a loan, when in previous years the same families would have been deemed too high-risk to obtain any kind of loan. With the increase in high-risk families obtaining loans, there was a huge increase in home buyers and subsequently a rapid increase in home prices. As a result, prices peaked and then began falling just as fast as they rose. Soon after families began to default on their mortgages forcing them either into foreclosure or short sales. Who was to blame for the risky lending and borrowing that caused the mortgage meltdown? Many might blame the company Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but in reality the entire system of buying and selling and free market failed home owners and the housing economy.

During the early 2000 's, the United States housing market experienced growth at an unprecedented rate, leading to historical highs in home ownership. This surge in home buying was the result of multiple illusory financial circumstances which reduced the apparent risk of both lending and receiving loans. However, in 2007, when the upward trend in home values could no longer continue and began to reverse itself, homeowners found themselves owing more than the value of their properties, a trend which lent itself to increased defaults and foreclosures, further reducing the value of homes in a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. The 2008 crash of the near-$7-billion housing industry dragged down the entire U.S. economy, and by extension, the global economy, with it, therefore having a large part in triggering the global recession of 2008-2012.

When the real estate market hit rock bottom, trust was broken between the lenders and

The bursting of the housing bubble, known more colloquially as the 2008 mortgage crisis, was preceded by a series of ill-fated circumstances that culminated in what has been considered to be the worst financial downfall since the Great Depression. After experiencing a near-unprecedented increase in housing prices from January 2002 until mid-2006, a phenomenon that was steadily fed by unregulated mortgage practices, the market steadily declined and the prior housing boom subsided as well. When housing prices dropped to about 25 percent below the peak level achieved in 2006 toward the close of 2008, liquidity and capital disappeared from the market.

In the lead up to the current recession, when the real estate market began to fall, there were so many investors shorting stocks and securitized mortgage packages that were already falling, that the market simply fell further. There were no buyers at the bottom, and the professional investors made millions off of the losses of others. Beyond this, there was no real federal regulation for securitized mortgages, since there was no real way to gauge the mathematical risk of any given package. This allowed the investors to take advantage of the system and to short loans on real people’s homes. Once these securities were worthless, many of the homebuyer’s defaulted on their mortgages and were left penniless. No matter from which angle this crisis is looked at, the blame rests squarely with the managers who began the entire cycle, the ones who pursued the securitization of mortgages. Their incompetence not only led to the losses of Americans who have never invested in the stock market, but to losses for their shareholders.

The foreclosure crisis that took over the United States a few years ago left many people facing economic hardships. This crisis happened because there was a huge housing bubble that was unsupported by actual home values. The bubble began bursting in spring of 2008 and the crisis culminated in mid-2009. Many lenders went out of business and many home owners began losing their homes. When the government became aware of this problem and began to implement new programs, it was already too late for many homeowners. Those homeowners are not at a point where they might be considering buying a new home. The housing crisis has created new rules, regulations governing the mortgage industry, and has also created a new agency dedicated to consumer protection. This consumer protection agency is called the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. These dramatic changes have helped to create more responsible lending. The improving market conditions such as low housing costs and competitive interest rates are allowing those affected by a foreclosure to become homeowners again. Prospective buyers have a multitude of programs available to them, so even those with less than clean slate have several options.

The housing market had started to decline in 2007, after reaching peak prices in 2006. There was an extremely high amount of subprime mortgages that had been issued in the early 2000’s. Homeowners could no longer afford to live in their homes, payments started going to default, and foreclosures started to rise. According to The Washington Post, there were five contributing factors to the housing market crash: low-doc loans, adjustable- rate mortgages, equity line of credit, more money down than needed, and mortgage insurance.

The real cause of the crisis was not in the housing market but in the misguided monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. While the economy started to downsize in 2008, the Federal Reserve concentrated on solving the housing crisis yet it was just a distraction from the entire thing. By its self, it might have caused a small downfall. As the Federal agency released the financial institutions at a risk from a number of bad mortgages, it disregarded the main cause of a serious crisis (FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK, 2017) A decrease in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which entails the total value of all commodities and services produced in the United States, was not adjusted for inflation. Such a decline began the unplanned crisis in mid-2008, and once it happened, the damage had already

The demand for houses, along with a belief that home values would continually soar, fueled the building boom that would eventually result in our demise. Once the grace period on mortgage loans ended, and house prices began to decline, many people found themselves unable to escape the high monthly payments and began to default. Increasing foreclosures continued to lower the prices of homes, by 2008 it was estimated that 23% of all homes were worth less than their mortgages. 2.9 million vacant homes later, it is safe to say the consequences of short-sighted expenditures were severe. Since then, more than 6 million Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure. Much of the blame for the housing crisis can be traced back to rumor in the stock market. While homes are not typically viewed as investments under speculation, statistics show that this was not the case during the mortgage crisis. 22% of homes purchased in 2006 were for investment purposes.

The relative successes and failures of that Act are becoming more apparent with time, and the shortcomings are subject to intense partisan criticism. As discussed below, Dodd-Frank seeks to address the highly sensitive and controversial notion that Wall Street banks have been designated by the Federal Reserve as too-big-to-fail. In fact, during the most severe moments of the crisis, the voices of free market proponents could be heard advocating that these troubled big banks, suffering massive losses due to their own bad bets, and if weakened to the point of failure, should be allowed to fail. Hindsight shows that allowing just one to fail, Lehman Brothers, had serious and lasting detrimental effect on the US and global financial system and markets. Had Lehman been saved, it would have been the most effective agent to unwind all of the transactions and trades to which it was a party, and likely in a rapid manner. However, being thrust into bankruptcy, and thereafter receivers were appointed to unwind the business, took months upon months and vast resources to settle Lehman accounts. Had Citibank, Bank of America, Bear Stearns, or AIG been allowed to fail, it may have been possible that the US financial system would have melted down completely. So these super banks, and non-banks, cannot be allowed to fail in crisis, due to the system-wide risk. Notwithstanding, such an implicit assurance, that they will always get a bailout, no matter how toxic

The following essay will thoroughly examine the severe economic downturn of 2008, formerly known as the housing bubble collapse. We will mainly focus our discussion on the effects the financial crisis had on Canada and the U.S and examine why both countries were affected differently. Although the collapse of the housing bubble is the most identifiable cause, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint one specific defining moment or event triggering the global financial collapse. There are many factors involved, due to the complex nature of the financial systems across the world, and this paper will delve in the key contributing variables that led to this financial crises.

The Big Short is a movie that discusses the housing market crash in 2008. As you may know, the banks, the mortgage brokers, and the consumers were all affected by this collapse. On each level of the system, there were things that went wrong and that could have been changed that could have prevented the failure of the housing market.

The housing market crash, which broke out in the United States in 2007, was caused by high risk subprime mortgages. The subprime mortgage crisis resulted in a sudden reduction in money and credit availability from banks and other lending institutions, which was referred to as a “credit crunch.” The “credit crunch” and its effect spread across the United States and further on to other countries across the world. The “credit crunch” caused a collapse in the housing markets, stock markets and major financial institutions across the globe.

The new lackadaisical lending requirements and low interest rates drove housing prices higher, which only made the mortgage backed securities and CDOs seem like an even better investment. Now consider the housing market which had become a housing bubble, which had now burst, and now people could not pay for their incredibly expensive houses or keep up with their ballooning mortgage payments. Borrowers started defaulting, which put more houses back on the market for sale. But there were not any buyers. Supply was up, demand was down, and home prices started collapsing. As prices fell, some borrowers suddenly had a mortgage for way more than their home was currently worth and some stopped paying. That led to more defaults, pushing prices down further. As this was happening, the big financial institutions stopped buying sub-prime mortgages and sub-prime lenders were getting stuck with bad loans. By 2007, some big lenders had declared bankruptcy. The problems spread to the big investors, who had poured money into the mortgage backed securities and CDOs. They started losing money on their investments. All these of these financial instruments resulted in an incredibly complicated web of assets, liabilities, and risks. So that when things went bad, they went bad for the entire financial system. Some major financial players declared bankruptcy and others were forced into mergers, or needed

Another New York Times tells that financial institutions that are dependent on mortgages, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have not been able to pay back the money they owe to the federal government.2 They are still asking for more money because of the continuing real estate crisis. Instead of simply giving these mortgage giants money to stay afloat, the federal government would be more effective if it were to support them by putting the money directly towards the root of the problem.