Recs

66

Hey, Obama: Renters Have Feelings, Too!

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

A new stimulus program really got me riled up. Not because it's unlikely to work and will cost billions -- although both are true -- but because it's desperately clinging to the same bubble mentality that's cost this economy so dearly: the idea that homeownership is a universal birthright.

I'm talking about the Obama administration's recent plan to grant $3 billion to unemployed homeowners in 17 states and the District of Columbia, partly through $50,000 interest-free, non-recourse loans that can be used to cover mortgage payments, insurance, and taxes.

In essence, this is a generous extension of unemployment benefits. In itself, that's fine. But the plan targets unemployed homeowners, while explicitly and outrageously leaving out the 33% of the country that chooses to rent.

The message from Washington could not be any clearer: If you have a mortgage on the roof over your head, your well-being is backed by the nation's full faith and credit. If you have a lease on the roof over your head, well, best of luck to you.

Renters have feelings, too!
This reminds me of a Wall Street Journal article responding to Rep. Barney Frank's analogy that homeowners facing foreclosure before the passage of a bailout bill were akin to soldiers being killed before hearing news of a cease-fire. "Readers who don't equate moving into a rental with death in combat should direct their comments to Mr. Frank's office," the Journal said.

Without a doubt, losing your home in foreclosure is emotionally devastating. But doesn't the same hold true for renters who face eviction? So much has been reported about the foreclosure crisis that few noticed the nationwide eviction rate soared 127% in 2009. Don't these struggling renters deserve equal treatment among their homeowning neighbors?

We have to acknowledge that the government has already extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and spent untold billions on foreclosure mitigation programs, three years after the financial crisis struck. If someone can't keep up with their monthly mortgage, that's tragic. But maybe it's time to accept that many of these homeowners never should have gotten into such arrangements in the first place.

Ironically, legions of unemployed homeowners may be jobless in part because they're homeowners. The inability to sell your house, usually because it's underwater, chokes off mobility, which is an absolute necessity when looking for a new job. This is especially true in a recession, when job opportunities are fragmented region by region. If your home prevents you from moving to where the jobs are, you'd be better off without it.

This partly explains why a wide body of research shows that high homeownership rates are counterproductive to economic growth. As University of Toronto professor Richard Florida finds: "The most innovative, most productive, and most highly skilled regions have rates of homeownership of 55-to-60 percent, while those where homeownership exceeds 75 or 80 percent are economically distressed."

The stigma against renting is incredibly overrated. Yet programs like the Obama administration's fight tooth and nail to uphold the idea that homeownership is a treasure that should never be forfeited. It's so backward it hurts.

Defending sanity
At least two readers have emailed me, asking why I support some bailout programs while vehemently opposing others. This column seems like a good time to clear that up.

Recessions are a healthy part of capitalistic economies. Panic-induced, pants-wetting meltdowns are not. What we faced during the fall of 2008 was entirely the latter. Letting AIG (NYSE: AIG  ) , American Express (NYSE: AXP  ) , Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS  ) , Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS  ) , and General Electric (NYSE: GE  ) all collapse within hours of each other is not the healthy "creative destruction" economist Joseph Schumpeter envisioned. It would have been a needlessly chaotic crash stemming from the capital market's lack of rationality, inflicting more pain on bystanders than the banks themselves. It was sheer panic.

That's why I think TARP and other emergency programs installed by the Federal Reserve were entirely justified. Painful and unfair? Absolutely -- but still justified.

What we're dealing with today is completely different. Programs like this new plan for unemployed homeowners aren't arresting irrational meltdowns. They're fencing off the natural and healthy corrections that recessions force. There's nothing panic-induced or hasty about foreclosures today. A recent Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) conference call revealed that the bank's average foreclosure takes 13 to 14 months to complete. That's a pretty calm and orderly affair, and the market's natural way of reminding us that not everyone can or should own a home.

Still, an unfortunate group of policymakers seem bent on defending the dogmatic benefits of homeownership, despite the past three years' overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I don't see how that's anything but counterproductive, both in the short and the long run.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

Best Odds in the Universe!
If you're interested in a 98.79% chance at beating the market... and a 70.84% chance at DOUBLING the market's return – Motley Fool Supernova could be just what you're looking for. And get this: We arrived at these odds from 10,000 random back-tested portfolios composed of Motley Fool Co-founder David Gardner's personal stock picks.

It's why David recently handpicked a small team of world-class portfolio managers. You see, he thinks these odds can get even better! And he'd like to prove it to you...

Simply enter your email address. And the answer to the question everybody is asking will be delivered to your inbox!

Fool contributor Morgan Housel doesn't own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article. American Express is a Motley Fool Inside Value recommendation. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 12:17 PM, millsbob wrote:

    well said, Morgan. some of us choose to rent, and the economic arguments for that have recently begun to be recognized in the press.

    there are also social arguments for it, much as conventional American thought goes against that; certainly much of Scandinavia, where i just visited, does fine, arguably better, without significant homeownership.

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 12:37 PM, artheen wrote:

    Any "substantial - ToBeDefined by a Vote in the House" Govt. interference (within the US or without..for eg. Iraq war) using tax payers monies must pass a Nation-Wide "referendum" vote, even a slender margin in favour should count.

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 3:02 PM, TMFKris wrote:

    I think there's a belief that owners have deeper, longer-term ties to the community and thus will help create a stronger community, which would benefit us all. Whereas the stigma is renters don't have a real link to where they live and will throw beer cans on the lawn and shout at elderly passers-by just for kicks. It's socio-economic prejudice based partly on patterns of the past, when people strived to get married, buy a house, and live there the rest of their lives. That's the stereotype politicians have chosen to pander to this time.

    I like renting, however, I know that the big hit will come if I want to move into some sort of assisted-living or nursing home facility and don't have the home to sell to obtain the buy-in fee.

    Kris -- TMF copyeditor

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 3:40 PM, negrodamus wrote:

    Amen. Sadly Morgan, we all know that nothing buys votes better than throwing cheap housing at the voters (and it's applicable to every part of the political spectrum). And hence things will never change...

    Those renting should get their money ready for end of this year / start of 2011, and buy during the winter gloom. Then brace for inflation later in 2011 and 2012 as the gov't opens up the taps to soothe the voters going into election year (as every gov't before them has done).

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 5:23 PM, mamallamainvest wrote:

    Having faced that I needed to sell after 12 months of under or unemployment, then dealing with the "how low can you go" realestate market, I really felt done with homeownership. Yet now my rent is as much as a house payment, I still cannot find work that will pay even close to my last position (but at least I am working)...I don't see where any of this helps at all at this point.

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 6:33 PM, energysystems wrote:

    The FHA is pushing through an idea that'll open up loans to those with credit scores as low as 500. That's the definition of INSANITY.

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 6:39 PM, rett448 wrote:

    Goldmans Sachs, American Express, Morgan Stanley & General Electric were never on the verge of collapse. While they may have sustained large losses, all were able to continue paying a divdend over the last 3 years. This would be one of the first things cut if collapse was immenient. Even with losses in the financial division General Electric was still able to post a profit of 20 billion during 2008 and 17 billion during 2009, hardly a company on the verge of collapse

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 7:14 PM, FutureMonkey wrote:

    Housing, be it rented or owned, tends to be our single largest fixed expense and therefore our biggest source of anxiety when things are swirling the drain. During the run up to the irrationally exhuberant real estate prices many renters jumped into home ownership to catch the rising tide before being "priced out." There certainly was a national push on all fronts to promote home ownership as a community pride exercise or as an investment that would result in financial security - HA!, Home ownership was a fulfilment of "ideal success" by American standards. Banks loved it, advertisers loved it, construction loved it, Home Depot loved it, real estate agents loved it, state/local governments really loved it. Pretty much everybody was on board and making money until the music stopped.

    I draw a clear distinction between families that purchased homes for primary residence and speculators that purchased real estate as an investment. Flippers that got caught when the music stopped deserve no sympathy or rescue; there are risks to investing. Don't see me crying over losses in my equity portfolio.

    I'm with Morgan on this one up to a point. Renting in this market is it's own reward, renters are not punished by mortgage, even if their puritan sense of fairness is insulted. I lose very little sleep over other people getting benefits I'm not and am more likely to cheer the good fortune of others than dispise them for it.

    I am with almost none of the comments: I certainly don't see this as pandering for votes, socialism, rewarding immoral behavior or any of that nonsense. I see this as an effort to stabilize the market in order to stem contagion to other areas of the economy. Although I am coming around to Morgan's point of view that we should have just let the market float until it found it's level without government intervention. Sure the pain would be phenomenal (akin to the Zombie Apocolypse), but at least it would be driven by free market forces rather than artificial props and manipulation that are likely to result in prolonged pain. Probably would get there faster.

    If you are lucky enough to not be damaged severely, not be facing financial ruin, no be struggling with unemployment, divorce, or medical problems, then be happy for what you have. Remember Aesops fable about the Ant and the Grasshoper. Yes the Ant was wise and worked hard and planned ahead. Yes the Grasshoper was foolish, played, and didn't plan for winter, but in the end the Ant still cared enough for the Grasshoper to lend a helping hand.

    Renting is its own reward right now. If you were an owner smart enough to see this collapse coming and jumped out into a rental at the right time, salut. If you've always been a renter then consider your self lucky. People in primary residences with reasonable mortgage terms that can afford to stay are unlucky but not in dire straits. Sure their net worth is down and their borrowing power is down; these folks (the majority of home owners) will really only have significant problems if they are forced to sell due to loss of job, loss of health, or divorce (top 3 reasons for bankruptcy regardless of owner/renter status). Those are the people I'd like to help.

    People that were gobbling up real estate to flip for profit and got caught holding the property when the music stopped. Too bad, so sad, there is risk associated with investing. Don't see me crying for a bail out when my Irish Bank stock bottomed out 95%. .

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 7:20 PM, FutureMonkey wrote:

    Sorry, rambled, misspelled, and sloppy cut and paste (but thats what I get for typing fast).

    Ant/Grasshopper. Don't blame people for their bad fortune, Don't hate them for their good fortune. And, let the free market determine housing value. Peace.

    FM

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 9:24 PM, xetn wrote:

    First, there is NO right to housing of any kind. All of the facilities being pushed at homeowners are nothing but attempts to sway voters in November. The same can be said for the $600 billion border security bill. The Obama administration will throw money at anything if it will help secure wins in November.

    Aside from the above, it is immoral and unethical to steal from the productive and give to non-productive.

  • Report this Comment On August 13, 2010, at 9:56 PM, ChrisBern wrote:

    Great, great article!! The bias towards homeownership in this country is insane.

  • Report this Comment On August 14, 2010, at 7:53 AM, TopAustrianFool wrote:

    " the idea that homeownership is a universal birthright."

    It is in socialist/fascist contries.

  • Report this Comment On August 14, 2010, at 8:19 AM, TicoHombre wrote:

    Why do any of us feel were entitled to anything anyway? I'm so tired of hearing everyone whine that they deserve help in one form or another. Whine that they don't get it. Whine, whine, whine....

    I hate to beat a dead horse, but why don't we educate our youngsters on fiscal responsibility and money management. The risks and the benefits. What is credit, the dangers, the rewards of utilizing it properly. How to read legal documents: Credit Card agreements, mortgage contracts, etc. What is a budget, and how does it benefit us, etc? If schooling (kindergarten thru High School) is supposed to prepare us for life outside the home, then why doesn't the curriculum include this form of education? I could rant on this all day. I know it's not a new argument. But I can't help but think the housing bubble could have been largely avoided and many personal woes as well if society had been better educated.

    Now, as to the greed factor displayed by the educated and uneducated alike, that's a different story. You can't legislate the heart.

    I just believe the educational system has failed most in these most basic matters of living. Society has not adequately prepared us for society. People are being trained to hold out their hand and recieve their fish rather than trained how to fish and fend for themselves. Sorry to use a well-worn cliche.

    Rant over.

  • Report this Comment On August 14, 2010, at 8:26 AM, rd80 wrote:

    Good article Morgan.

    IMHO, the housing bubble isn't done deflating and programs like this proposal just keep the bubble from deflating to realistic levels.

    One of the unintended consequences of policies that artificially prop up prices is that people who want to and otherwise could buy homes can't afford them.

    Homes are still too expensive. Policy makers need to grasp that simple concept and let prices fall to levels that allow a sustainable real estate market.

  • Report this Comment On August 14, 2010, at 12:21 PM, tkandcrew wrote:

    An earlier comment stated the educational system is letting us down by not prepairing students for the economic realities of life. I would take it a step further, I think the educational system in this country wants a socialist society and intentionally omits economics in the curiculum. An ignorant populous is much more easily controlled. With knowlege, people tend to rely on facts to make decisions, ignorant people base decisions on emotions. Politicians are masters at pulling at heart strings to get their way. Most legislation is based on buying votes, not for the good of our country or society at large but, to allow the politician to keep their post..

  • Report this Comment On August 14, 2010, at 12:36 PM, MisterRogers wrote:

    When I bought my first home, I decided to pay cash outright. For years, I worked hard, lived way below my means, and put most of my paychecks into savings. The only thing I could afford was a dumpy little box in the ghetto, but I felt proud being able to buy it outright.

    I quickly realized what a mistake I had made. The gov't says they want to encourage homeownership, but what they really want to encourage is indebtedness. Because I had no mortgage, I got no income tax deduction. The rest of my neighborhood was bought up by landlords and speculators who got tax deductions and then rented to drug dealers and other lowlife scum.

    When the recession hit, I was under-employed. I struggled to pay my bills. I never wanted a bailout from the gov't, though. I just hoped in vain that they would revoke my neighbor's Section 8 check if I called the police enough times.

    I realized that to buy a decent home in a respectful neighborhood, I would have to buy something I could not afford. The reason is that the gov't, in its zeal to promote homeownership, has inflated the cost of housing beyond reach for even the hardest working, most frugal citizens. They want all of us to be deep in debt, to be tied down to our homes, and to be dependent on gov't incentives and bailouts. That's their idea of a controllable populace.

    Today, I am a renter. I have flexibility and peace of mind that I never had as a homeowner. I would love to own a home again someday, but not until ownership is free from gov't manipulation.

  • Report this Comment On August 14, 2010, at 6:24 PM, BMFPitt wrote:

    Mortgage subsidies have already destroyed the economy. Continuing to push for more is treason.

  • Report this Comment On August 15, 2010, at 6:31 AM, go4buffs wrote:

    As an American expat living in Germany for over 7 years, I never realized the deeply ingrained American culture and drive to own a house until I moved here. I bought, renovated, and later sold (not flipped) two housed in the US before moving here.

    It is true, that homeownership in Europe (and especially in Germany) is not nearly as high as in the US. There are a few reasons: single family houses are EXTREMELY expensive, condos aren't much cheaper, Germans are less mobile, and finally, there is no stigma to renting.

    While the topic is a complex one, there is one additional main underlying issue to US home ownership vs. the German (and European one), and this centers upon the availabilty of credit: in the US, you could get a loan for no money down and a heartbeat. In Germany, you rent (and save) until you have AT LEAST 40% to back your mortgage.

    It makes it much harder to own, but it limits the bubble. Since there is no stigma to renting, this is not a 'cultural' need.

    Due to the insane (when compared to the US) lack of consumer credit availability (e.g. credit cards, while they exist, have an AMEX policy - you have to pay the balance at the end of the month), Germans have to live within their means. The system virtually does not allow one to get into debt (it can happen, but is rare as compared to the US examples).

    Somehow, Germany has found a way to have a very strong economy without incentivizing their people to live above their means to continue to buy stuff that they don't need and cannot afford.

  • Report this Comment On August 15, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Pr0metheus wrote:

    Renters aren't likely to have a bone thrown to them anytime soon. Aside from the stereotype "renters are renters for a reason" renters just aren't seen as an important part of the economy.

    The two biggest pillars of our economy are consumer spending and housing, so that's what policy makers are focusing on "fixing".

    This newest policy from Obama isn't part of a socialist agenda. Renting just isn't on the radar; plain and simple.

    -Bob

  • Report this Comment On August 15, 2010, at 10:20 AM, lctycoon wrote:

    Crap like this is the reason why my wife still has her foreign citizenship and why we've been in discussion with a certain foreign government (no, I won't say which one).

    In the area where I live, and indeed in most areas of the country, buying a house is not a good decision either now or when the bubble was in full swing - renting the same property is significantly cheaper and owner occupied homes are never a good investment.

    If the government wants to prop up home values, how about this? Anyone who is 30 days or more late on their mortgage is immediately removed from their house. None of this 12-15 month crap. That house is then immediately bulldozed and the lot is planted with grass and trees. That will make the environmentalists happy and won't hurt the neighbors' property values due to the pretty scenery. Plus, it should help prop up values since the supply of housing will be reduced.

  • Report this Comment On August 15, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Pr0metheus wrote:

    "That will make the environmentalists happy and won't hurt the neighbors' property values due to the pretty scenery"

    Only extreme environmentalists would favor more trees at the expense of someone getting kicked out their home. And it would actually lower the neighbor's property value, because the basic equation for property value is thus: trees are pretty, homes are prettier, and expensive homes are prettier than cheaper homes.

    I speak from experience on this. 10 years ago there were a bunch of trees behind my house (which we affectionately called "the woods"). Those trees have since been replaced with condos, and my property value went up the day the condos did.

    -Bob

  • Report this Comment On August 17, 2010, at 1:14 PM, eekthecat wrote:

    "If the government wants to prop up home values, how about this? Anyone who is 30 days or more late on their mortgage is immediately removed from their house. None of this 12-15 month crap. That house is then immediately bulldozed and the lot is planted with grass and trees. That will make the environmentalists happy and won't hurt the neighbors' property values due to the pretty scenery. Plus, it should help prop up values since the supply of housing will be reduced."

    I like this idea a lot.

    And I don't believe this: "the basic equation for property value is thus: trees are pretty, homes are prettier, and expensive homes are prettier than cheaper homes."

    Because, in my town, the rich side of town has far more trees than the poor side. And the rich towns in my county (Bergen County, NJ) also have many more trees than the non-rich towns. The poorer towns have very few trees. You can pretty much figure out the relative wealth of a local population just by how many trees there are in the area.

  • Report this Comment On August 17, 2010, at 3:28 PM, talotu wrote:

    As someone who has lived a fair amount of time abroad I agree with several of the points being made in the comments:

    1. Americans are ignorant, especially politically. You have a better chance of an intelligent discussion on American politics with a random Australian, than a random American.

    2. Our educational system is failing dramatically in training people to succeed. Most wall street employees are more like faith healers than anything else, getting people to fork over money in exchange for nothing of value. It only works because our schools fail to explain the mathematical impossibility of something for nothing.

    As to the ant/grasshopper analogy, you need to consider what happens when people are not punished for "bad fortune". CEO pay is a perfect example, if you get 10% of profits, but aren't on the hook for any losses, you end up with CEO's delaying losses as long as possible to collect bonuses, with the occasional disaster that results in a low bonus year. (Sound familiar?).

    It's not "good fortune" that I have become rich by renting, unless you consider it "good fortune" to be able to choose math over home buying propaganda. The only thing I feel fortunate about is having family ties in Canada and Australia, and being able to buy my way into other countries.

    The more I get punished for other people's "misfortune", the more I consider taking my money to a country that values producing things, and spending on what you need, not what your neighbor has.

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2010, at 6:02 AM, BearishKW wrote:

    These policies to save underwater mortgages are breeding irresponsibility and artificially inflating the housing market.

    The mortgage agreements that everyone has to sign are riddled with info. stating the value of the mortgage could change. No guns were being held to the buyers heads. If the only way to afford the home meant that the value had to increase by 8% per year, you shouldn't have been in the market.

    You should have been saving for a down payment with 1 year in reserve like most responsible homeowners have. Those folks are the ones who deserve some support. Some forensic accounting, domestic stress tests if you will, should be conducted by the banks to figure out who the responsible buyers were.

    As for those who have tried to game the system and failed, letting taxpayers foot the bill...On the highway that is America's economy, you're the driver going 45 in the fast lane. You need to check the rear-view mirror and realize you that you have caused some major wrecks.

    Oh, and when you go to abandon your home, stop leaving your pets behind to starve and overheat.

    Signed,

    Mr. Brutal Truth

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2010, at 4:28 PM, theHedgehog wrote:

    At the root of all these policies to save homes it the need to forestall deflation. If you think it's unfair to prop up the home-buyer, then wait until the value of everything declines. Sounds like a good plan, until you realize that your job will be long lost before any benefit of lower prices could possibly be realized.

    The policies that caused the housing bubble were wrong-headed. But, you can't go back. Deflating home prices through the abandonment of marginal home-owners will be disastrous for all.

  • Report this Comment On August 19, 2010, at 12:09 AM, starbucks4ever wrote:

    It's very commendable that Morgan Housel has given SOME thought to the plight of renters, but it is unfortunate that he could not follow his line of thought to the logical end, choosing instead to defend a preposterous notion that "not everyone can or should own a home".

  • Report this Comment On August 20, 2010, at 12:24 PM, jrj90620 wrote:

    Forget homeowners.What about stockowners.Why are people who bought homes during a mania,usually larger than needed, figuring they had a sure way to make large profits, somehow saints but people who invest in companies are capitalist pigs?It seems to me that what America needs is more expansion of business to provide jobs,not more houses.Houses aren't productive investments.

  • Report this Comment On August 20, 2010, at 6:35 PM, SundayRider wrote:

    It's not only renters getting shafted, having their tax money paid to someone else for a purely political reason. Fully 1/2 of all homeowners own their house outright, with no mortgage at all. (So with renters that 66%). Add to that the responsible home buyers who bought houses they could afford, and this is probably up to 90%. So why can't 90% of us vote these people out? Because they make it sound like they're so GOOD for doing this, and we believe them!

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1269365, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 2/11/2012 2:04:32 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 3 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,801.23 -89.23 -0.69%
S&P 500 1,342.64 -9.31 -0.69%
NASD 2,903.88 -23.35 -0.80%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

2/10/2012 4:00 PM
GE $18.88 Down -0.26 -1.33%
General Electric C… CAPS Rating: ****
GS $114.12 Down -1.76 -1.52%
Goldman Sachs Grou… CAPS Rating: ***
MS $19.66 Down -0.68 -3.34%
Morgan Stanley CAPS Rating: ***
AIG $26.66 Down -0.69 -2.52%
American Internati… CAPS Rating: **
AXP $51.81 Down -0.50 -0.96%
American Express C… CAPS Rating: ****
BAC $8.07 Down -0.11 -1.34%
Bank of America Co… CAPS Rating: ***

Advertisement