Is the Mortgage Crisis Being Solved?

After the American Century

According to the Financial Times, in the United States more than one out of every nine homeowners (11.9%) is in trouble with mortgage payments. This is the personal side of the larger banking crisis. If these millions of homeowners go down, the rest of the economy goes with them.

For those who are confused about the Obama plan to refinance American banks, there is an excellent short article in the New York Times by a Nobel Prize winning economist to explain things. In it, Joseph Stiegltiz argues that what the Obama team is doing is (Step one) to separate profitable assets from unprofitable ones and then (Step two) agreeing to protect investors from losses on those that are unprofitable. This might sound good, but in practice it will mean that US taxpayers will definitely lose while the bankers who over-leveraged their investments will be protected. For more details, see his article.

Stieglitz argues that nationalization of the banks would be cheaper and preferable. I think he is right. The Obama solution seems to be a case where American laissez-faire ideology has gotten in the way of common sense. In order to protect the "free market" this rescue plan makes sure that there is no free market, for if there were one, then many banks would collapse or be taken over by the FDIC, which insures the ordinary citizens' deposits.

I am missing something? What is so wrong with letting the free market decide which banks live or die, with the government taking over those that die, running them for a little while, and then selling them as soon as possible? This is what the government has been doing for years, after all.

For millions of Americans the problem is quite personal. In February, there were 290,631 legal foreclosures, an increase over January. Assuming an average family size of a bit less than 4, that means one million people lost their homes. About 300,000 of these people are in California. The hardest hit state appears to be Nevada, where one out of every seven houses has been foreclosed in just one month!

Yet often the problem is worse, because sometimes the bank refuses to foreclose on people who cannot afford to pay. In other words, they are abandoning foreclosures. Such banks have begun foreclosure proceedings, meaning that people are told to move out, only for the bank to discover that the legal costs are so great that the value of the building does not warrant the effort. So, the owners, having been evicted, suddenly find that they still own the empty property even though they cannot afford it. Often this news comes in the form of a letter demanding real estate taxes. It gets worse. Empty, low value (often inner-city) properties are often vandalized, and become uninhabitable. This drives down the value of adjacent properties and hurts the already weak market.

Banks that initiate foreclosure and then do not follow through leave property in limbo and people on the street. Do such banks deserve to live? Are they not community destroyers who act irresponsibly?

In other words, the situation is even worse than the statistics suggest. In the end, who cares about the banks? The homeowners should be the government's absolute top priority.

Are There Any Good Investments Left?

After the American Century

In 2008 no matter where you lived, chances are you lost money. Houses lost value, stock markets fell most places by a third or more, and if you were unlucky enough to hold many British pounds or Swedish kroner then you lost an extra 20% compared to everyone else.

Perhaps the natural thing to do in 2009 is to put any of the money that is left in a savings bank and wait for the economy to stabilize. But most assets are not liquid. For example, few are eager to covert their homes into cash, as they are worth less now than a year ago, and they have to live somewhere. Likewise, people who have money tied up in pensions typically have to keep putting money in and they cannot take it out until they retire. In other words, most feel they have few options, other than holding on to their shrinking pension and their deflating house and hope for better economic weather. Many people I know are playing the lottery, just a couple of tickets, here and there. hoping to hit it big. They lose maybe $20 or $30 a month that way.

But the options are not all bad. For years I had trouble getting skilled workers to the house to put new tiles in the bathroom or make repairs, because there was so much other work to be had. When the economy cools off, these guys may actually show up, as they have promised to do several times over the last two years. This is a good investment, because I get to enjoy it, and the house keeps its value.

By a similar logic, people should buy art in troubled times. In part this is to help artists, but also I realized some years ago that by the time you purchase a good reproduction of a famous work of art and have it suitably framed, the cost is almost always more than $100. Yet after a year or two, I find myself tired of most such prints, and so replace it and find myself out another $100. Eventually, you have a closet full of nicely framed, somewhat faded copies of famous paintings. Worthless clutter that may easily have cost $500.

Instead, spend a bit more for a lithograph or painting that is authentic. I bought a lithograph on an impulse last week, for less than $200 (framed, too). It's better than lottery tickets, that usually lose all their allure in a couple of days. OK, the litthograph is not that large, but I once met the artist, so it feels a bit personal, and he has regular exhibitions. It is interesting to look at, and I am not likely to get tired of it, at least not soon. Also, there is a chance that it will still be worth something years from now. I am not saying go and buy art as an investment, because that is hardly a sure thing. But buy art rather than posters, and you get to enjoy it., and you will have more closet space. After a couple years, an art dealer may trade you for somethingh you are tired of, for something else.

There is a small hidden agenda in these two suggestions. If we all used a bit of money on home repairs and on art, it would help the local economy,. Why give the money to some charlatans who claim they know which stocks are going to rise in Asia or Eastern Europe or New York? Maybe you can frame stock certificates and put them on the wall, but will you really enjoy that?

For us small fry without fortunes, there are still good investments, things right in front of us, things we can enjoy for years. And I don't mean lottery tickets.