The On The Housing Market Essay

On October 3, 2008 President George W. Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, otherwise known as the “bailout.” The Purpose of this act was defined as to, “Provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of trouble assets for the purpose of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes” (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act). In my paper I will explain and show the relationship between the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and subprime lending, the collapse of the housing market, bundled mortgage securities, liquidity, and the Government 's efforts to bailout the nation 's banks.

Affordable housing in the United States describes sheltering units with well-adjusted housing costs for those living on an average, median income. The phrase usually implies to applied rental or purchaser housing within the financial means of lower-income ranges specific to the demographics of any given area. However, affordable housing does not include those living in social housing owned by government and non-profit organizations. More specifically, the targeted range for housing affordability sets below 30 percent of a household's annual income, including all applicable taxes, utility costs and home owners insurance rates. If the mean income per household breaches the 30 percent mark, then the agreed status becomes labeled as

The housing crisis in the late 2000’s was created in part from subprime loans that lenders gave to individuals that did not have to provide proof of income that they could afford the house. This was a disaster likely to repeat itself. If a person is hoping to buy a home, they will buy whatever the lender allows them to purchase even though it could be a financial stretch. Lenders, builders, sellers, appraisers, buyers, owners, and governmental policy makers are all still gambling with the economic future of both their buyers and the American economy as a whole.

The United States’ foreclosure and housing market problems have been well-documented in recent years. This issue has only been heightened by the 2009 economic downturn. Can the sky-rocketing foreclosure market truly be blamed on the recession, however? Can the issue be pinned down on the masses of people who have lost their occupations? Surely many of the cases can be traced back to these harsh conditions, but many more, most likely, can be attributed to something else. Foreclosures are not a new phenomenon and have been a part of American society for years. So, in order to determine a plan for how best to reduce the number of American families losing their homes, it seems best to look backwards rather than simply at the present.

In December 2007, caused by the housing bubble, what is known as the Great Recession began (“The Great Recession”). Prior to this, people kept buying houses with high risk loans, because their mortgage-backed securities were technically making profits when the house values increased; however, when the house values started to decrease, those securities became worthless, thus people were not able to pay for the house—many people had their house confiscated. As a result of this wealth loss, consumer spending decreased sharply and many banks collapsed. The U.S. government tried to combat this issue, but many of the fiscal policies they had created were controversial because of their interference in the economy. One debate sparked on whether

After an urban report in 1997 found that local lenders seemed more than willing to serve creditworthy low to moderate income and minority applicants. Upon that alligation in 1997, Fannie and Freddie modified their systems, which led the way for vaste numbers of sub-prime and nontraditional mortgages. The GSEs argued that if Congress constrained the size of their mortgage portfolios, they could not afford to adequately subsidize affordable housing. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie were required to show that 55 percent of their mortgage purchases were LMI loans and, within that goal, 38 percent of all purchases were to come from underserved areas (usually inner cities) and 25 percent were to be loans to low-income and very-low-income borrowers. Meeting these goals almost certainly required Fannie and Freddie to purchase loans with low down payments and other deficiencies that would mark them as sub-prime or Alt-A. From 2005 to 2007, Fannie and Freddie bought approximately $1 trillion in sub-prime and Alt-A loans. This amounted to about 40 percent of their mortgage purchases during that period. Moreover, Freddie purchased an ever-increasing percentage of Alt-A and sub-prime loans for each year between 2004 and 2007. It is impossible to forecast the total losses the GSEs will realize from a $1.6 trillion portfolio of junk loans, but if default rates on these loans continue at the unprecedented

We need legislative reforms that makes home mortgages to be more simplified and transparent market practices such as underwriting standards, in bonds or other security measures based on these mortgages. There must be oversight in terms of those originating mortgages and selling them, at an astronomical price. Unless legislature implement legal parameters that set the structural ground work for simplification we won’t be able to stave off another mortgage crisis.

This corporation was created not only to enhance the competition in the secondary mortgage market (Acharya, Richardson et al. 2011), but also to securitize mortgages, as Dodd (2007) mentions. The process of pooling mortgages and selling mortgage-backed securities (MBS) was developed, initially, by Ginnie Mae to reduce debt from the federal budget; the concept of securitization is discussed analytically later. The following years, MBS and securitization assisted GSEs to provide long-term funding in the US secondary mortgage market eliminating liquidity risk from originators while bearing both the credit and the interest rate risk (Dodd, 2007, Wall et al., 2005). The securitization could obliterate the interest rate risk from housing enterprises, as

The objective of our study is to provide an overview of financial housing systems in the United States, including those available to low-income households among rural and urban populations. In addition, we aim to provide suggestions for the advancement of housing finance procedures for low-income households satisfactory to the conditions in the United States.

do really influence in housing market developments. One can easily conclude monetary policy was not a

on each other. Any change on one instrument will have an effect on the other. We saw this with

With loose regulations investment banks were buying MBS’s from banks and mortgage brokers, repackaging and reselling them to institutional investors, insurance companies, pension funds, university endowments and hedge funds.4 Without worrying about if or when a borrower would default on a loan, banks and mortgage brokers qualified people for loans who would under normal circumstances would never qualify. After September 11, 2001 Allen Greenspan lowered interest rates, resulting in a frenzy of new home loans between 2001 and 2004. Many mortgages financed with a variable interest rate to people who bought much more home than needed at a time when home values had already increased at an unsustainable rate. Borrowers not acting responsibly, overleveraged themselves with teaser rates and low down payments, achieving the American dream had never been so easy. Banks and mortgage brokers were incented to approve as many mortgages as possible as they were making money on both ends. A buyer paid origination

Interest rates have a major economic impact on the real estate market. Interest rates directly affect property sales. Residential property realizes the greatest affect as interest rates have a considerable influence on a homebuyer’s capability to purchase a new property. The customer is affected when there are significant increases or decreases in interest rates. Declining interest rates lower the costs of obtaining a mortgage; this in turn creates higher demand for homes, and pushes home prices up. Conversely, high interest rates increase the costs to obtain a mortgage; these increases lower the demand for homes, which creates a decline in home prices. (Stammers, 2016)

The current real estate crisis that America finds itself in is one of the greatest challenges America has ever faced. America’s troubles are further compounded by increasing unemployment of American citizens and environmental problems like global warming. Solving any one of these problems would be a Herculean task, yet they must each be addressed in order to protect American families from disaster. However, it is possible to find a solution to the problems of the real estate crisis that can also be used to improve the problems of the unemployment and environmental destruction. The first part of the solution involves the United States government purchasing the homes that have been foreclosed and using them to offer temporary housing to

If current trends continue, approximately 40 percent of these new households will be captured by Collin County, significantly driving the residential market in this region. In fact, 98 percent of all population growth in the PMSA is expected to be captured by the three county areas of Collin, Denton and Dallas.