12% of all mortgages and 48% of sub-prime mortgages in default

I'm still waiting for a perp walk of those people who were responsible for the sub-prime debacle, because they had to have known how these loans would end -- badly. According to an AP story, 48% of adjustable-rate, sub-prime mortgages and 12% of all mortgages are in technical default. But now the pain has spread to people who can't pay because their lost their jobs as well as those who bought more home than they could afford:

A stunning 48 percent of the nation's homeowners who have a subprime, adjustable-rate mortgage are behind on their payments or in foreclosure, and that's not the worst of it, new data Thursday showed.

The reckless lending practices in states like Florida, California and Nevada that were the epicenter of the housing crisis are no longer driving up the nation's delinquency rate. Instead, the foreclosure crisis now is being fueled by a spike in defaults in states like Louisiana, New York, Georgia and Texas, where the economies are rapidly deteriorating and thousands are losing their jobs...

A record 5.4 million American homeowners with a mortgage of any kind, or nearly 12 percent, were at least one month late or in foreclosure at the end of last year, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported. That's up from 10 percent at the end of the third quarter, and up from 8 percent at the end of 2007...

The news comes a day after the Obama administration kicked off a new program that’s designed to help up to 9 million borrowers stay in their homes through refinanced mortgages or loans that are modified to lower monthly payments.

Borrowers, however, are being advised to be patient in their efforts to get help because mortgage companies are likely to be flooded with calls...

Meanwhile, debt-strapped homeowners unable to afford their mortgages could get their monthly payments lowered in bankruptcy court under a controversial element of President Barack Obama’s housing rescue plan.

The legislation is part of a broader housing package scheduled for a House vote Thursday. It’s the toughest piece of Obama’s efforts to prevent foreclosures — a stick to go with the many carrots he is offering the mortgage industry to help borrowers afford their home loans.

Blame the Community Reinvestment Act?

There's been a lot of noise lately on the culpability of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which reportedly encouraged (some say forced) lenders to make subprime loans to those who couldn't afford it in the name of increasing homeownership.

So what is the CRA? First, from a Wikipedia entry:

The CRA was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community.^[1] Only one banker, Ron Grzywinski from ShoreBank in Chicago, testified in favor of the act.^[2] The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions after the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 repealed restrictions on interstate banking.^[3] However, until 1995 the Act was laxly enforced and banks only were required to advertise in local minority newspapers or sit on the boards of local community groups.^[4] The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC"), Office of Thrift Supervision ("OTS"), and the Federal Reserve System.^{[citation needed]} It also charged the Federal Reserve System to implement the CRA through ensuring banks and savings and loans met their CRA obligations.

So what's the controversy? Again, from Wikipedia:

Some economists and financial experts have wondered if the CRA was - or at least had become - irrelevant, because it was not needed to force banks to make profitable loans to a variety of lenders.^[11][12] Economist Howard Husock writes that a CRA-connected community group The Woodstock Institute found in a survey in the Chicago-area that even banks not subject to CRA tended to loan in a variety of neighborhoods. He also criticized as an "amateur delivery system" community groups' involvement in marketing loans.^[4] Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has stated that an underlying assumption of the CRA – that more lending is always better for local communities – is questionable.^[3]

Economist Stan Liebowitz notes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003.^[13] On the other hand, Professor of Law Michael S. Barr stated in congressional testimony that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky.^[14]

Congressman Ron Paul has partially attributed the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis to legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act.^[15] A Wall Street Journal editorial argued that the law compelled banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often could not repay them and that this contributed in part to the subprime crisis.

So what's the story? Are these charges true? An blog post in BusinessWeek says no:

Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie...

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).

Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market. Oops.

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt. (Barry Ritholtz had an excellent and more comprehensive survey of how Washington contributed to the crisis in this week’s Barron’s.)

There’s plenty more good reading on the CRA and the subprime crisis out in the blogosphere. Ellen Seidman, who headed the Office of Thrift Supervision in the late 90s, has written several fact-filled posts about the CRA controversey, including one just last week. University of Oregon professor and economist Mark Thoma has also defended the CRA on his blog. I also learned something from a post back in April by Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress...

Business Week on "the housing abyss"

Arguing that the measures taken so far to prevent an overly large erosion in housing values have fallen flat, Business Week asks what can be done to avoid falling to the bottom of the 'housing abyss:'

The housing crisis is entering a new and frightening stage. On June 24, Standard & Poor's announced that the S&P/Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index had fallen more than 15% in April from a year earlier. Adjusted for inflation, the decline is the biggest since 1940-42, according to data collected by Yale University economist Robert Shiller.

The risk for the financial system and the economy is that the price drop, already horrifying, will start feeding on itself. When home values fall low enough, hard-pressed homeowners become less able or less willing to keep paying their mortgages. That forces lenders to repossess homes and then dump them back on the market at fire-sale prices, which depresses prices further and leads to even more foreclosures...

Efforts by the private sector and government to stop the slide before it gets out of control haven't done the job. Poorly designed mortgage securities rife with conflicts of interest, as well as legal disputes over priority between creditors, are forcing many homes into foreclosure needlessly, accelerating the market decline.

Sure, Congress is expected soon to pass a huge legislative package aimed at preventing needless foreclosures and stimulating first-time home purchases. But many analysts and advocates are already warning that more dramatic measures will ultimately be required. "The depth of pain is not being registered in D.C.," says Mike Shea, executive director of nonprofit advocacy group ACORN Housing in Chicago...

...the housing optimists have systematically misjudged the market. Some became convinced that the huge runup was justified by fundamentals such as population growth, rising incomes, and land scarcity. And because sharp national housing price declines are so rare in U.S. history, analysts assumed that prices would, at worst, flatten out for a few years...

What they forgot was that markets can overshoot on the downside just as easily as on the upside, with both financial and psychological forces feeding the decline...

...the fall in house prices is so precipitous that it is changing homeowner psychology, eroding the long-held taboo against walking away from a home. In hard-hit markets such as Las Vegas and Phoenix, many homeowners are beginning to conclude that their home purchase comes with a "put option"—the right to hand the keys back to the lender if things don't work out. Indeed, risky payment-option ARMs that allow unpaid interest to be added to the principal, 70% of which were issued in California and Florida, are going bad even before they reset upward, as homeowners see trouble ahead and bail. "Commercial real estate borrowers have always looked at things this way. Consumers simply caught on to the game," says Tom Lindmark, a managing director of Phoenix-based Metropolitan Real Estate...

Mass foreclosures accelerate a neighborhood's decline, triggering a spiral of abandonment and decay. A survey of agents this year for Inside Mortgage Finance by Geosegment Systems and Campbell Communications found that about half of foreclosed properties have significant damage, which reduces a property's value by about 25% (e.g., $100,000 on a $400,000 house). Ruined floors and carpets, holes in walls, and missing appliances lead the list...

Who can fix this mess? Certainly not lenders. They're part of the problem. To repair their damaged balance sheets, they're aggressively reducing lending. And they haven't geared up for the wave of defaults...

What more might government do? The Federal Reserve has already intervened heavily, of course. In addition to slashing short-term interest rates, it has extended more than $150 billion in secured loans to banks. Anything more from the Fed would leave it open to charges that it was subsidizing the banks and raising the risk of inflation...

If the housing market continues to weaken, action in Washington could heat up next January, when a new President and Congress take office. The next President, whether Democrat or Republican, will have more flexibility to be bold because he will be starting with a clean slate, although Barack Obama has taken a far more interventionist stance than has John McCain...

But expect strong pushback on that last idea from fiscal conservatives. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page observed on June 21 that the FHA lost $4.6 billion last year, making it a less-than-obvious candidate to guarantee billions in troubled loans.