MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Time to Shut Down the Federal Housing Administration

The Senate Banking committee is holding a hearing this morning to discuss the future of the Federal Housing Administration, after a November report revealed the government agency is in the red at least -$13.4 billion. Only Shaun Donovan, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (the department that oversees FHA) will be testifying today, but that shouldn't stop Senators on both sides of the isle from having plenty of time to Socratically expose FHA for the insolvent organization that it is.

FHA is like an insurance agency, for a fee it guarantees banks and mortgage investors that if ahomeowner misses his or her mortgage payments it will cover the bank's losses. It does not lend money directly to borrowers, but tries to help expand the amount of lending the private sector will do by back stopping their loans.

Secretary Donovan will say that all is well with FHA and no bailout will be needed. He is going to promise to raise the fee FHA charges lenders to guarantee they get paid if borrowers stop paying their loans. (Senators: "Why didn't FHA do that in 2008?") He is going to promise to raise premiums on existing borrowers. (Senators: "Why should borrowers currently making their payments chip in more to bailout an agency losing money because other homeowners are not making their payments?") He is going to promise to expand FHA's business and generate new money that way. (Senators: "Isn't that exactly what FHA has done since 2008, growing to 30 percent of the mortgage finance market, and yet they are still in the red?")

This morning I have an article in RealClearMarkets pointing out that no matter what FHA does it is going to be in the negative for a long time. At this point federal housing subsidy programs are like a half sunk Titanic, and no amount of bailing water is going to save the ship. We should just begin the process of shutting FHA down now:

the [FHA] 2012 actuarial report found that the housing agency's value has fallen $23 billion in the past 12 months primarily because of losses on mortgages it guaranteed from 2007 to 2010. And it is looking at a possible negative $93.7 billion valuation in the next five to seven years with those losses piling up.

About 25 percent of mortgages FHA guaranteed in 2007 and 2008 are seriously delinquent (90 days of missed mortgage payments or more), and more than 12 percent of 2009 mortgages are just a step away from foreclosure. (In normal times those numbers would be 5 percent or less.) FHA's own actuarial review estimates nearly $40 billion will flow out the door to cover losses related to these delinquencies.

What's more, notes Wharton School real estate professor Joseph Gyourko, FHA is currently leveraged 41-to-1 -- which is higher than either Lehman Brothers (31-to-1) or Bear Stearns (38-to-1) when they collapsed.

In case the Senators are a bit distracted by the fiscal cliff or a long Christmas shopping list, here are some more hard questions they can ask:

  • Is not true that we (Congress) have mandated that FHA reserve capital relative to at least 2 percent of the value of its portfolio? And doesn't FHA's recent actuarial report show its capital reserve is now negative 1.33 percent? Why should we not shut FHA down?
  • Didn't we learn in the crisis that bad lending standards were spread throughout the housing industry? And haven't many private firms have gone back to relatively more responsible lending practices (albiet plenty are still suspect)? And isn't FHA in contrast still guaranteeing loans with just 3.5 percent down payments, sometimes for borrowers with low credit scores and high amounts of pre-existing debt? So why should we trust FHA's promises to change now?
  • Why should current borrowers pay a cent more for their mortgages, when FHA is essentially an insurance agency for mortgage lenders and investors, who took the small but real risk that FHA might not be able to come good on its guarantee promises, and should be the ones one the hook for any losses FHA suffers? And while we are discussing fault, why should the taxpayers bailout FHA either? 
  • Isn't it true that in 2009 FHA promised that it would be worth a positive value in 2012? And isn't true that November's FHA actuarial report shows FHA is worth a large negative sum in 2012? And isn't it true that FHA now claims it will be back to a positive value in 2017? Wouldn't we be total suckers for believing you?

More from Reason on the failure of FHA here and here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • R C Dean||

    It just astonishes me that we have vast bureaucracies, incentives, and expenditures to create, not savings, not capital formation, but debt and (therefor) capital destruction.

    Gosh, what could possibly be wrong with our economy? We have systematically destroyed capital formation, read the better part of an entire generation out of the entrepeneurship business (because you can't open a business when you have major non-dischargable student loans), imposed vast regulatory deadweight costs and barriers to entry, and we wonder why the economy sucks, has for years, and shows no signs of getting better?

  • The Other Kevin||

    I honestly think it as simple as you stated. Also, for decades we have had rock-bottom interest rates and have encouraged people to borrow instead of save. Then when there is an economic downturn, nobody has any savings to ride out the rough times. So a short-term downturn turns into a long-term one.

    But of course, the REAL problem is that a few millionaires don't pay their fair share, right?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    So the would-be entrepreneurs are shackled by their poor choice of degree and/or student loan balances? I wonder how entrepreneury someone who couldn't make a good cost-benefit analysis of the cost of a degree really is.

    I'm sure there are people who wised up later who are hampered by their earlier loan choices but, as a general proposition, "I'd start a successful business if only I could get rid of these loans in bankruptcy" doesn't seem likely to apply to broad swaths of student loan holders.

  • R C Dean||

    I wonder how entrepreneury someone who couldn't make a good cost-benefit analysis of the cost of a degree really is.

    Believe it or not, learning how to do good cost-benefit analysis is not something most 18 year olds can do, nor are they likely to learn it in college.

    That's a skill you learn in the real world. For graduates with signicant debt, of course, its too late.

    "I'd start a successful business if only I could get rid of these loans in bankruptcy" doesn't seem likely to apply to broad swaths of student loan holders.

    Perhaps, but "I'd start a business if I wasn't chained to this student debt, which prevents me from either (a) getting a loan to start my business or (b) take the risk of starting a business, because its not dischargable if I fail" strikes me as plausible, and real damper on new business formation by a lot of college graduates.

  • johnl||

    Seriously. The less responsible of us allow our children to be indoctrinated for 12 years by people who spent too much time in school and want everyone else too as well. Then we expect them to make a responsible decision about doing what they have been told their whole lives is the right thing to do, going to college? Hell no. Mammas, don't let your babies go to college.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    At this point federal housing subsidy programs are like a half sunk Titanic, and no amount of bailing water is going to save the ship. We should just begin the process of shutting FHA down now[.]

    That's only because you're a racist. Thinking that loans should only be given to those who are likely to pay back said loans, and that those are are responsible enough to pay for their loans shouldn't also bear the responsibility, via government force, of paying off the loans of those who don't pay for their own loans is clearly from the mind of a racist who revels in the thought of minorities being homeless.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Why should we not shut FHA down?

    This would constitute an admission of failure, and precipitate a crisis of confidence in the omnipotence of government.

    That would be crazy.

  • ||

    FHA. the only ones too stupid to get out of the subprime game. while regulators have been dreaming up new ways of regulating out of business the non existent since 2008 private subprime business, FHA has been growing their subprime portfolio.

  • Spartacus||

    He is going to promise to expand FHA's business and generate new money that way.

    See? They're going to make it up through volume.

  • waaminn||

    Yep, they are about as useless as the TSA and Homeland Jokeurity lol

    www.IP-Hidden.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online