Nov142012
Pent-up demand from boomerang buyers may not materialize
A big part of the bullish sentiment toward real estate is the believe that former owners who lost their houses in foreclosure will return in droves to mop up the supply of shadow inventory and push prices higher. But what if they don’t come back? What if they were so burned by the experience that they choose a lifetime of renting instead? A recent study from the federal reserve suggests this may be the case. Almost 75% of those who lost their homes to foreclosure may never return, and if they don’t the so-called recovery may be much weaker than the bulls expect.
Credit Access Following a Mortgage Default
By William Hedberg and John Krainer — October 29, 2012
Borrowers who default on mortgages return to the mortgage market at extremely slow rates. Only about 10% of borrowers with a prior serious delinquency regain access to the mortgage market within 10 years of their default. Borrowers who terminate mortgages for reasons other than default return to the market about two-and-a-half times faster than those who default. Renewed access to credit takes even longer for subprime borrowers with a serious delinquency on their record.
Several million people were evicted from their former residences after a foreclosure. The assumption is that most of these former owners would return to home ownership after their credit recovered. If only 10% come back, it will take much longer to absorb the shadow inventory, and appreciation will be tepid at best.
If former owners return and purchase as owner occupants, they will bid prices back up to their historic relationship between the cost of ownership and rent because they are not buying to obtain a return on their investment. If these owners do not return, most of these houses will remain in the hands of investors who require a steep discount as compared to owner occupants because they want an immediate financial return. The difference in price is usually about 30%. This price difference will translate to lower appreciation rates across the country as the substitution effect drags down the best performing markets as the laggards languish.
Historically, the U.S. mortgage default rate has varied in the range of 0–2% over the economic cycle. However, default rates broke dramatically from this historical pattern in 2006. At the peak of the housing downturn, the aggregate default rate climbed to about 10% of mortgages. In certain geographical markets and for certain types of mortgages, such as loans to subprime borrowers, the rate exceeded 25%.
What happened to borrowers who defaulted? On the plus side, defaulting borrowers potentially got some financial breathing room. Housing expenditures are typically about 30–35% of total household income. For many overstretched borrowers, defaulting on a mortgage and becoming a renter reduced housing expenditures considerably, although the quality of their living quarters was lower.
The reduced housing cost is the primary motivator for strategic default. Some don’t even consider this strategic default, merely distressed default. Whatever you want to call it, people stopped paying their mortgages, and even when they went back to renting, their monthly expenses were greatly reduced. This was a predictable result of people paying more than rental parity prices for anticipated appreciation that never materialized.
Furthermore, the extended period between mortgage default and foreclosure allowed many borrowers to remain in their homes for a while rent-free. …
Nice of the authors to acknowledge the squatter’s stimulus.
Of course, foreclosure is far from a positive for most borrowers. One need only look at the estimated home equity of U.S. households to realize that borrowers perceive default to be very costly. The share of homeowners with mortgage balances exceeding the value of their houses is estimated to be about 20%. Many of these underwater borrowers appear to have a financial incentive to default. The fact that most do not default suggests borrowers see other costs to walking away from their mortgages.
One of the main costs is that access to credit is restricted for borrowers who have defaulted. … For mortgage borrowers, Brevoort and Cooper (2011) find that those who went through a foreclosure in the recent housing crisis experienced sharp drops in their credit scores, which appear to be long lasting. Moreover, these borrowers are more likely to default on other types of debt.
The main reason more underwater borrowers do not default is due to their credit addiction. Many have speculated it’s due to their moral convictions about meeting their financial obligations, but that isn’t the case. Most are simply not ready to go back to a pay-as-you-go lifestyle, so they continue paying bloated mortgages even when it’s not in their best financial interest to do so.
The Equifax data confirm that a prior mortgage default has a large effect on future access to mortgage credit. Figure 1 shows the rate at which borrowers with different credit histories return to the mortgage market following a termination or exit. …
The blue line in Figure 1 plots the rate for returning to the mortgage market for borrowers with no prior defaults or foreclosures. We do not know why these borrowers terminated their mortgages. They could have moved, or adjusted their housing expenditures by trading up or downsizing. Or they could have paid down their mortgages and now own their houses outright. We might expect that most borrowers who have paid off their mortgages will never return to the market. Indeed, 12 years after a termination, just above 35% of borrowers with no prior defaults have taken out new mortgages. This number may seem low. But, as the red line in Figure 1 shows, it is much higher than the average rate at which borrowers with prior defaults return to the mortgage market over the same time horizon.
It recently grabbed headlines that 35% of borrowers who terminate their mortgages never return to the market, but it’s actually much worse than that. Only about 10% of those who terminated their mortgages through default — which means both short sales and foreclosures — return to the market within 12 years.
Figure 2 shows the rates at which borrowers who defaulted on mortgages in 2001, 2003, or 2008 returned to the market. The figure plots the cumulative percentage of defaulters who have a new mortgage within a given number of quarters after their last default.
The rate of return to the mortgage market was much better for people who defaulted early in the housing bubble because from 2004 through 2007, lending standards were essentially eliminated, so any of those cohorts who wanted to buy were allowed to do so. With the return of sane lending standards in 2008, only a very small percentage of delinquent borrowers were given access to mortgages.
Even though a short amount of time has passed since the 2008 cohort defaulted, their return to the housing market appears to be significantly slower than for cohorts that defaulted in the two earlier years. …
However, the 2008 cohort’s slow return to the mortgage market could also reflect tight credit supply. The mortgage finance system was severely disrupted during the financial crisis of 2007–08. The 2009 and 2010 mortgage default cohorts look very similar to the 2008 group, although they are not shown in Figure 2. By contrast, the credit environment for the 2001 and 2003 cohorts was very different in the years after their defaults. Loan terms were generally easy and subprime mortgage lending boomed.
Economic growth was solid and interest rates low in the decade following the 2001 recession. But Figure 2 shows that, even in these good times, it took a long time for defaulted borrowers to return to the housing market. About two-thirds of the borrowers in the 2001 cohort had still not come back within 10 years.
This crushes the hypothesis that boomerang buyers will fuel the next housing boom.
Figure 3 shows the rates of return to the mortgage market according to the borrower’s initial credit score. Borrowers who defaulted in any year within the sample are included and are divided into two groups: those with credit scores above 650, labeled prime, and those with scores of 650 and below, labeled subprime. The credit scores used are borrowers’ first scores after taking out mortgages on which they eventually defaulted.
Since it’s very difficult for someone with a credit score of less than 650 to obtain a loan, the above result is not surprising. Further, since most short sales and foreclosures drop a borrowers credit score between 120 and 160 points, most people who stopped making mortgage payments and ended up leaving their properties have credit scores under 650. This is the primary reason demand for mortgages among owner occupants remains flatlined at 1990s levels.
Interestingly, the experiences of the subprime and prime groups in the two years following foreclosure are similar. This is probably because the borrowers we label as prime are no longer in that category after foreclosure. Indeed, Brevoort and Cooper (2010) show that, regardless of pre-foreclosure credit score, the typical borrower who goes through foreclosure ends up with a credit score below 600….
It’s a common myth that short sales don’t harm credit scores as much as foreclosures. Both outcomes have a very bad impact on FICO scores.
What explains the timing of the return to the mortgage market?The rate at which borrowers get new mortgages after defaulting on a mortgage is low. Only 30% of borrowers who defaulted in 2001 had taken out another mortgage within 10 years. What explains the pace of return to the mortgage market? Overall economic conditions appear to play an important role in allowing borrowers who have defaulted to return to the market. When we control for factors such as local unemployment rates and past house price appreciation, we find that these variables influence the rate at which defaulters come back to the mortgage market. Overwhelmingly though, the best predictor of when a defaulting borrower returns to the market is the change in the borrower’s credit score. Our research finds that, after five years, borrowers who return to the mortgage market after a default have experienced a more-than-100 point increase in their score.
The only way the borrower pool is going to increase is if lenders reduce FICO score requirements, or borrowers must work diligently to raise their FICO scores. Since it isn’t likely FICO score requirements will drop, and since it takes a long time for most people to raise their FICO scores, demand for housing will remain weak for a very long time.
Conclusion
Evidence suggests that the process of regaining creditworthiness is lengthy. Borrowers who terminated their mortgages for reasons other than default returned to the market about two-and-a-half times faster than those who defaulted. This has important implications for the housing recovery. The improvement in the housing market is often assumed to reflect significant pent-up demand. But an estimated 4 million foreclosures have taken place since 2007. The consumers who went through those foreclosures will return to homeownership only gradually, suggesting that mortgage supply will also be a factor in the housing recovery.
The pent-up demand of boomerang buyers is a myth, and anyone counting on those buyers to return in large numbers is deluding themselves.
Banks have committed themselves to loan modifications and short sales. At least for the foreseeable future, the foreclosure inventory is going to dry up.
Dramatic Increase in California Foreclosure Cancellations
October 2012 California foreclosure Cancellations were up 62.1 percent from the prior month, and 36.7 percent compared to last year. While this is not the first time Cancellations have spiked, this is the largest one-month increase since we started tracking foreclosures in September 2006. It seems likely that the increase is being driven by the Homeowner Bill of Rights legislation that goes into effect on January 1, 2013 and its provision to restrict the dual-tracking of foreclosures. Dual-tracking is the term applied to loans which are being considered for either a short sale or loan modification while simultaneously proceeding through the foreclosure process. Prior to January 1, lenders will have to cancel any foreclosure on a loan for which a short sale or loan modification is being considered, and it appears that process has likely already begun.
October 2012 California Notice of Defaults was down 8.0 percent from the prior month, and down 48.9 percent compared to last year. October 2012 California Foreclosure Sales were up 9.3 percent from the prior month, but down 38.9 percent from the prior year..
“The California Homeowner Bill of Rights that takes effect in January 2013 is beginning to impact foreclosure trends,” said Sean O’Toole, Founder and CEO of Foreclosure Radar. “This is another example of where changes in foreclosure trends are driven by government intervention, and not necessarily economic recovery. While the impacts are still unclear, the elimination of dual tracking may avoid some unnecessary foreclosures, but will lengthen the foreclosure process and delay ultimate recovery. Expect further impacts to foreclosure trends in the months ahead.”
The foreclosure cancellations are not due to borrowers becoming current on their loans
California’s delinquency rate 5.56%, four times normal
The national mortgage delinquency rate fell further in Q3 2012 to 5.41 percent, TransUnion reported Tuesday.
The rate is a decrease from 5.49 percent in Q2 2012 and a near 8 percent drop from 5.88 percent in Q3 2011, according to the credit bureau. The delinquency rate includes borrowers who are past due by 60 or more days.
When examining improvements among metropolitan areas, however, TransUnion found a smaller share of metros experienced a drop in their rates compared to previous quarters. In Q3 of this year, 49 percent of metro areas improved their delinquency rate compared to 76 percent in Q2 and 73 percent in Q1 of this year.
Out of the 50 states, 22 saw their delinquency rates improve quarter-over-quarter, while 42 states showed improvements from last year.
While the national delinquency rate has been making progress, Tim Martin, group VP of U.S. housing in TransUnion’s financial services business unit, said, “we still have a long way to go to reach more ‘normal’ conditions of a delinquency rate in the 1-2% range for the U.S. average.”
Two hard-hit states, Arizona and California, improved the most since Q3 2011. Arizona’s delinquency rate has fallen 25 percent since last year and is now at 5.62 percent, while California’s rate has decreased almost 24 percent to 5.56 percent.
The District of Columbia registered the largest yearly increase, with the rate increasing 11 percent to 6.10 percent.
Florida led with the highest delinquency rate, which was 13.09 percent. Nevada’s rate of 10.93 percent put it at second, and New Jersey’s 8.33 percent placed it at third.
The states with the lowest rates were North Dakota (1.44 percent), South Dakota (2.21 percent), and Nebraska (2.25 percent).
In Q3 2012, the average amount of mortgage debt for individual borrowers decreased slightly to $186,445, a quarterly and yearly decrease of 1 and 2 percent, respectively.
TransUnion expects the delinquency rate to fall further in Q4 to a range of 5.25 percent to 5.35 percent.
“It’s generally tough to expect improvement in delinquency rates in the fourth quarter of the year given the extra demands on household income that many experience during the holiday season,” said Martin. “However, we saw some improvement in the housing market in the third quarter with regard to house prices, home sales and increased refinance activity, and we believe we will start to see these numbers reflected in improved mortgage delinquency next quarter.”
AIG and mortgages? What could go wrong?
AIG CEO Reveals Plans to Expand Mortgage Business
American International Group (AIG) is making plans to move away from its savings and loan business and toward mortgage investment, CEO Bob Benmosche revealed in an interview with Reuters.
Benmosche said the company is waiting to sell its savings and loan business as soon as it earns the designation of “systematically important financial institution” (SIFI). That way, AIG won’t lose regulatory oversight at any point in the process-an important factor in maintaining credibility after the government bailed AIG out in 2008, the CEO remarked.
While the SIFI designation has not been made yet, AIG expects to receive it, Benmosche said.
Referring to the savings and loan business, Benmosche told Reuters “[i]t’s a business that doesn’t make sense to be in.” He would not disclose how much the company expects to receive from a sale, but he said the business has less than $1 billion in assets.
Instead of working in savings and loans, AIG is more seriously exploring the mortgage market. The company’s mortgage insurance subsidiary, United Guaranty Corporation (UGC), has seen steady growth after adopting a risk-based pricing strategy. However, Benmosche said AIG is interested in moving beyond mortgage insurance.
“We are also now looking at ways we could become direct investors in mortgages,” he told Reuters. “We are going to do more of our own direct lending, both commercially and residentially.”
With interest rates hovering around all-time lows, “it makes a big deal” for investors to get extra yield by buying mortgages directly, Benmosche said. He revealed AIG is in talks with banks about buying their non-agency mortgage debt.
Perhaps this will bring more boomerang buyers back to the market. The FHA is letting the Ponzis back in.
FHA gives those who defaulted on homes another chance
After two foreclosures and two bankruptcies, Hermes Maldonado is as surprised as anyone that he’s getting a third shot at homeownership.
The 61-year-old machine operator at a plastics factory bought a $170,000 house in Moreno Valley this summer that boasts laminate-wood floors and squeaky clean appliances. He got the four-bedroom, two-story house despite a pockmarked credit history.
The last time he owned a home, Maldonado refinanced four times and took on a second mortgage. He put a Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz C300W in the driveway and racked up about $45,000 in credit card bills and other debts. His debt-fueled lifestyle ended only when he was forced into bankruptcy.
His reentry into homeownership three years later came courtesy of the Federal Housing Administration. The agency has become a major source of cash for so-called rebound buyers — a burgeoning crop of homeowners with past defaults who otherwise would be shut out of the market.
“After everything that happened, thank God I was able to buy another house,” Maldonado said in Spanish. “Now, it’s good because the interest rates are low and there are lots of homes.”
This needs to be filed in, “What can go wrong?”.
Here comes higher insurance premiums for FHA loans. So he faced no penalties but now on his third time he will make sure he pays.
I am going to write a post on this article, probably for tomorrow. I am thrilled with how brutally honest the reporter was with the facts in this case.
This FHA article and now the proposed “Qualified Mortgage” Safe Harbor amendment sends even more signals that pump machine is on full blast. Now Yellen in the Fed is discussing keeping ZIRP until 2016.
That is shocking – the details of what he did with the last house cashing-out equity to live the good life. The media never reports this part of the story. Lazarus from the LA Times in infamous for telling the borrowers’ sob stories about losing their homes to the evil banks, without ever going into HOW they ended-up in the position to lose their homes.
Larry
Thanks for posting this.
If our instant gratification society ever needs a poster boy, this article is Exhibit “A” .
It would be most interesting to see how our “rebound buyer” is coping a few years from now. Will he have a new Mercedes in the driveway? Will he be teetering (again) with bankruptcy? Will his credit cards (again) be maxed out?
I will give you 99.99% odds.
No need to worry, us taxpayers will cover the tab.
I just wrote the post for tomorrow, and it felt like old times. I haven’t found an article that made me angry like that one in a while. Tomorrow should be fun.
Excellent post; ”deluding themselves” indeed.
Reminder: Expectations aren’t met,
investorsspeculators jump ship.The REO-to-rental investors are counting on boomerang buyers to liquidate their holdings five years from now. If those buyers don’t materialize, they may end up holding these properties much longer than they expected or dumping for less than they hoped.
Being a maverick, I bought way more condo than I could afford in 1989, and eventually let it be foreclosed in 1999, by which time I’d started borrowing from my 401K to pay the mortgage. Back then, it was not quite as acceptable, and I had to pay taxes on the amount forgiven. (And the Defense Investigative Service came and interviewed me, walking me page by page through my credit report, trying to figure out if I should lose my security clearance). The whole episode was an incredibly harsh lesson, and I came away from it asking myself, “What is wrong with ME that led to this awful situation?” Then I fundamentally (albeit slowly) changed my relationship with money, and twelve years later, I’m in a much better financial position.
What worries me is that, with multiple, justifiable reasons they can point to, the current crop of defaulters might be too ready to blame outside forces and not be forced to confront the issues that they actually have the power to change in themselves: what was MY role in this? What do I need to do to prevent it from happening again?
Thank you for sharing your story. Many of us learned hard lessons and endured the consequences. I sold a house for less than the balance of my loan in 2000, but I paid the difference in cash. Back then, nobody knew what a short sale was.
I think your point is very true. It speaks to the basic problem with moral hazard endemic to this situation. With encouragement of many on the political left, the Ponzis have come to believe they were victims of someone else’s decisions. The Ponzis believe they have no responsibility for what occurred; therefore, they have no reason to change their behavior. They’ve learned nothing, and as a result, they will repeat their behavior as we reflate the housing bubble.
Oh come on Mike, the ponzi is always, always set up by the banks. They want another bubble but are being severely limited by Dodd-Frank.
They may also be hindered by people who remember, however, they are already targeting the millenials as being a “DIFFERENT BREED”, capable of taking that easy money risk.
People would not repeat their behavior if we stopped the lenders. I realize that is a novel idea for you, but it is the right thing to do. They are the cause of the housing bubble.
I don’t disagree with you. I hope Dodd-Frank really does prevent the lenders from providing the air to inflate the next housing bubble. The Ponzis can demand this money all they want, if the banks don’t provide it, no bubble will inflate. The banks are clearly supposed to be the adults in the transaction who bear most of the responsibility. However, just like a parent is responsible for their children, the children (borrowers) bear some responsibility for their actions as well.
Paging all OC ‘ballers’ ……. get ready to pony-up:
IRS to “Back-Value” AMT to 2012?
-Childcare costs would no longer be deductible. (Don’t have that child)
-Charitable contributions would not be deductible. (Don’t give money to your Church or any other worthwhile charity)
-Real estate taxes would no longer be deductible. (Don’t buy a house, it will be much cheaper to rent than buy on an after-tax basis.)
-State income taxes paid would no longer be deductible. (Move out of California, New York and Illinois as fast as you can.)
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-11-14/irs-%E2%80%9Cback-value%E2%80%9D-heinous-amt-2012
—————————————————————————————————
What it all boils down to is…. OC’s 750k–2m price-tiers are about to get whacked. Again.
Cut from the link
“… (The mortgage tax deduction is carved out however)…”
I interpret this statement that the MID will be left untouched?
If true, I am very surprised. I would of bet the MID would be the first to go.
Any ideas why?
Disclosure:
I personally would like the MID deduction eliminated, if only to help push nominal home prices down a few notches.
This is an extremely complicated topic. While the AMT may reach down and grab more tax from higher-earning households, the AMT is also the reason Obama’s pledge/desire to raise the top two brackets a few points might not be too harsh.
e.g. If you’re a higher-earning couple ($150k+) living in a high tax state, you’re likely paying additional AMT each year. If your taxable income exceeds $250k (Obama’s “rich” level “not paying their fair share”), you’re likely paying thousands in AMT each year. So, if the top two brackets return to their Clinton-era levels and you owe thousands more under the standard Tax Code, that doesn’t change anything. You just owe more under the standard, and you’ll owe less, or none, under the AMT. The damage is the same.
Interesting way of raising taxes. Obama could cave in on the high tax bracket issue and it won’t matter. If the AMT is the governing tax provision, changes in the standard tax code won’t matter.
No pent up demand meets no supply.
Dramatic Increase in California Foreclosure Cancellations
October 2012 California foreclosure Cancellations were up 62.1 percent from the prior month, and 36.7 percent compared to last year. While this is not the first time Cancellations have spiked, this is the largest one-month increase since we started tracking foreclosures in September 2006. It seems likely that the increase is being driven by the Homeowner Bill of Rights legislation that goes into effect on January 1, 2013 and its provision to restrict the dual-tracking of foreclosures. Dual-tracking is the term applied to loans which are being considered for either a short sale or loan modification while simultaneously proceeding through the foreclosure process. Prior to January 1, lenders will have to cancel any foreclosure on a loan for which a short sale or loan modification is being considered, and it appears that process has likely already begun.
October 2012 California Notice of Defaults was down 8.0 percent from the prior month, and down 48.9 percent compared to last year. October 2012 California Foreclosure Sales were up 9.3 percent from the prior month, but down 38.9 percent from the prior year.
“The California Homeowner Bill of Rights that takes effect in January 2013 is beginning to impact foreclosure trends,” said Sean O’Toole, Founder and CEO of Foreclosure Radar. “This is another example of where changes in foreclosure trends are driven by government intervention, and not necessarily economic recovery. While the impacts are still unclear, the elimination of dual tracking may avoid some unnecessary foreclosures, but will lengthen the foreclosure process and delay ultimate recovery. Expect further impacts to foreclosure trends in the months ahead.”
I am planning an update post on this topic as well. You summed it up will in your first sentence, no pent up demand meets no supply.
It appears the dramatic shortage of MLS supply will be with us for a while.
I just barely noticed I did a double post.
Per Dataquick, OC sales are up 40% over last year. In fact, excluding new home construction, OC is back in line with the 20+ year monthly average number of sales. (One of el O’s absolute favorite metrics).
It seems incredible that anybody can say there’s no pent-up demand when sales spike 40%.
Per Redfin, OC Sales are up less than 10% over last year. That’s quite a discrepancy. Redfin is measuring closed deals. I don’t know what DataQuick is looking at. Are they comparing October to October perhaps?
Yes, over October 2011. The fact that sales are up vs. September is a pretty rare occurrence as well.
The low interest rates are making prices very attractive. If something doesn’t give on the supply side, sales won’t keep rising. The builders must be loving this. The Irvine Company sales must be up 100% or more over last year.
[…] irresponsible with mortgage debt as evidenced by my daily debtor debacles. I wrote yesterday that Pent-up demand from boomerang buyers may not materialize, but isn’t stopping the FHA from trying. I have no problem with peak buyers whose only […]
[…] here to see the original: Pent-up demand from boomerang buyers may … – OC Housing News Filed Under app, CIA, foreclosure, foreclosure process, investors, loan modification, OCC, […]
[…] irresponsible with mortgage debt as evidenced by my daily debtor debacles. I wrote yesterday that Pent-up demand from boomerang buyers may not materialize, but isn’t stopping the FHA from trying. I have no problem with peak buyers whose only […]