This economy sucks. I pay my taxes. I pay my mortgage. I'm not in a bad position financially because I made smart decisions and didn't overleverage myself or maintain a lifestyle that I couldn't afford. My property value is depressed just like yours. Where's my bailout?
On to my actual post for those who are actually going to read this...
It's a tough economy. We all know it. I consider myself to be part of what seems to be the minority in that during 2009, I remained gainfully employed. Not only that, but I remained gainfully employed at a company that I like, that is well run, with a group of people that I absolutely love working with. Without those people, my job wouldn't be worth it and I could walk tomorrow.
My wife has a good job. She likes her team too.
We have a 3-month old. He's the best thing that has ever happened to us. Do I worry about putting him through school? Sure. What parent doesn't? But we've started saving for that. My folks always said "The best thing you can do for your children is to educate them." So it doesn't bother me that maybe we went out to dinner at Chili's instead of Ruth's Chris. It doesn't bother me that I'm going to have to wait on buying that new bike. That'll make it all easier in the future when I have to write the tuition check.
We are (fortunately) fine. We're not hurting. We have not had to dip in to our retirement savings or our other investments for living expenses, mortgage payments, or funding a lifestyle we cannot afford. Sometimes we run it a little tight - but we've been able to put away money every month nonetheless.
So where is my bailout?
Every day, I see lawyer ads on TV promising to settle your tax debt for pennies on the dollar. These attorneys are advertising cases where they settled $100,000 tax bills for $2,000. And the government wonders where the holes are in its revenue plan. Maybe this isn't the norm, but think about it... a $98,000 discount (regardless of whether the tax bill is $100,000 or $1,000,000). Multiply that by 10. By 100. By 1,000. By 10,000. That can add up to nearly a billion dollars. Yes, that's billion with a "B." Maybe my parents brought me up wrong. Maybe I should be punished for being honest. I pay my property taxes on time. I file my tax returns (Federal and State) in a timely matter. I pay the amounts that the simple calculation shows that I owe, and rejoice when it says I'm getting a refund (... and if it's a big refund, I get upset that I gave our incompetent government an interest free loan by overpaying).
So where is my bailout?
Let me see if I have a high-level of understanding about the "BIG 3" auto manufacturers:
(1) $3,000 from each car sold goes to the pension of retired UAW members. Wow. That puts any GM, Ford or Chrysler car at a $3,000 price disadvantage right off the bat.
(2) Chrysler should have failed. Three strikes and you're out. The government bailed Chrysler out in the 1970's. Strike 1. Daimler acquired Chrysler in the 1990's, and couldn't make it work - Strike 2. A Chinese private equity firm bought the Company in the early 2000's, and couldn't make it work. Strike 3. Done. And then the government bails them out.
(3) GM - we are in the middle of a gas crisis, and you're expanding your Hummer offerings? Really? Unemployment levels are as high as they were in the 1930's and you're pushing $80k Cadillac Escalades and more options on the Corvette? Seriously? It took a Chapter 11 and Government ownership stake to make you dump the non-profitable brands (Saturn, Pontiac)? A first year undergrad business student with three weeks of macroeconomics classes could have told you what you were doing wrong.
(4) Kudos to you, Ford. You made it work. I like you. I respect you. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it hurts you because you are actually going to pay back your debts, etc. But good job in making those changes. You are not a government-run company. I was really leaning toward buying that new Edge, but the third row seat and the fact that it was going to be my wife's car is what ultimately sold us on the Highlander. That said, I guess the bailout was the proverbial tipping point that convinced me that I really am more of a Mustang guy than a Camaro guy. So when it comes time to buy the toy car, we'll talk. And I really like my sister's Fusion and my brother in law's Mazdaspeed 6. So when the time comes to replace the Accord, it's nice to know that there are options outside of Honda, Acura, BMW, and Mercedes. Oh yeah, and I'm kicking myself every day for not buying 1000 shares of Ford stock when it was sub $3.
The real estate market is the one that really kills me right now. Before I launch in to this rant, let me say a couple of things:
(1) I feel genuinely bad for people who lost their homes due to foreclosure because they could no longer afford their mortgage. I really do. This is a terrible thing, and it is unfortunate for someone to lose their home.
(2) My realtor is a saint. I have worked with her now for 7 years, through two home purchases, and she will be the first person I call when I buy my next home. Never once did she advocate paying more than we could afford (even offering $2,000 from her own commission to bump up our offer to ensure that we got the house!), or taking out a loan for more than we were comfortable. And she has been incredibly successful. Shame on the realtors and mortgage brokers who pushed buyers to go beyond their means.
(3) To those buyers that were duped or pushed by an unscrupulous realtor or mortgage broker, I feel bad for you to some extent. You are losing your house for which you overpaid, and for which your unrealized gain (appreciation in value - which was probably the big selling point to you) has disappeared, and frankly you now owe more than the house is worth. But at the same time, I must ask... what were you thinking? You have a pre-tax income of $60,000. What mathematical formula were you using that told you that you could afford a $1,000,000 mortgage? Gross Monthly Income: $5,000. Monthly Interest on $1,000,000 at 5% = $4,166.67. Property tax accrual (assuming 1.0% per year) = $833.33 per month. Disposable income = $0. And this assumes that you are not taking any tax withholdings from your paycheck. So we should be talking about a shortfall here. Did you fail math in third grade, or were you just beaten with the stupid stick?
This is where I am upset. Let me set the background here, however, so that you, my four loyal readers don't think that I am delusional.
(1) I sold my first home and bought my current home at the height of the market. I made a KILLING on the sale, and used that profit to (a) put 20% down on my current home and (b) pay for about 80% of the improvements that we made during the first year and a half that we lived there.
(1a) I knew we were buying and selling at the height (or damn near the height) of the market, and knew that I would not be doing a 2-year flip to take the profits and run. I knew that I would be in my house for at least 5-7 years (and realistically 7-10 years).
(2) I have a 30-year fixed rate mortgage, which I can afford to pay. My payment is constant every month, enabling me to budget my cash accordingly. Assuming I continue to make those payments, the house will 100% be mine.
(2a) Our income has increased substantially since we entered into that mortgage, and it is that much easier to make the aforementioned payment now than it was four years ago.
(2b) Interest rates are supposedly down on 30-year "jumbo" (i.e. anything over ~$350k, or basically anything in California) loans, and so I am evaluating refinancing for a lower interest rate. Will that be possible, given the depressed Loan-to-Value? I don't know. But I don't stress about it, because I can afford what I currently pay.
(3) Like every other home in California, my property value has suffered. Would my lenders be okay if I sold the house tomorrow? Probably. Would I do this, even if the opportunity for a great purchase in a different area came up? Probably not. Why? I can't afford to walk away from $180 grand (between down payments and improvements).
(3a) I will probably eventually rent the place out, at least for a while, for an amount sufficient to service the mortgage, or close to it. Not the ideal situation, but to be under 40 and own two houses in the Bay Area isn't too bad of an aspiration to have.
Seven years ago, when my wife (then fiancee) and I were considering our first real estate purchase, we went out to see a few properties. We met a realtor that seemed nice, and agreed to go see some properties with her the following weekend. We made it absolutely clear through a few phone calls that we were looking for two bedroom condominiums, with an absolute high end cap on the budget of $325,000. She said it would be no problem, and that she would also bring along her husband, a mortgage broker, so we could discuss financing options. Fantastic! This is really going to happen! A summary of the three or so hours that we spent looking at properties:
- We saw one property within our price range. We were not taken to any of the properties that we had mentioned we saw online and were interested in seeing. Every other property was in the $600,000+ range.
- The one property within our price range was in somewhat of a state of disrepair. Well, not disrepair, but dated. Like vomit green appliances and formica counter tops, shag carpeting, and fire-hazard electric wall-heaters dated. We knew that some fix-up (paint and the like) would be necessary - but a complete renovation was out of the question. (Don't get me wrong, we weren't expecting granite; but what we ultimately purchased was MUCH better than what we saw.)
- The mortgage broker husband made a valiant effort to convince us that a $600,000 mortgage on a combined pre-tax income of $85,000 was not difficult, and was by no means a stretch, and that we wouldn't have to make any sacrifices or curb our lifestyle in any way to afford the payments.
Allow me to summarize that conversation. Keep in mind the following things:
- I hold an undergraduate degree in finance. I am not Warren Buffett, but I know how to balance my checkbook, and that you need to take in more than you send out.
- I am (and was also at that time) a banker. In 2003, I was working with problem loans - i.e. to troubled companies, and a few individuals. It was (and still is) my nature to look at the "worst case" scenario.
- I understand the concept of Loan-to-Value, and the reason that lenders don't necessarily want to make 100% LTV loans. They want to ensure that their borrowers have some proverbial "skin in the game."
- I understand that in an environment of rising interest rates (or where rates could rise), a variable rate loan is unfavorable to a borrower.
- I also understood that we were probably hitting a real estate bubble, and that I would need to play my cards right and get out of the "starter home" and in to that next "transitional" home at the best time.
For the record, I don't know if these people are still working, or if they're in jail.
BF: "Our combined take-home income per month is $4,500. The mortgage payment on an amortizing $600,000 loan at 5.5% would be $3,400, leaving us only $1,100 on which to live. And of that $1,100, there is a $400 car payment in there that will be around for the next four years. That's cutting it a little close"
MB: "That's easy - Take out an interest-only loan. That way your payment is much lower - $2,750 a month, and you're writing it all off on your taxes."
BF: "Okay, I understand that concept, and sure - it makes sense because we'll probably only be there for three or so years. But what about building my equity position, and what happens when that interest-only period is over?"
MB: "Prices are always going to go up. And you can always refinance or sell the place for a profit, or refinance and take cash out! But you said it yourself - you're going to be out in three years anyway. Also, you can further increase your take-home income if you don't get married, and claim nine tax dependents on your W4. And besides, your income will be going up over the years."
BF: "Ummm.... Interesting concept... Is that legal?"
MB: "Sure. Taxes are less if you're not married. And if you know you've got a mortgage interest deductions, you can increase your dependents on your tax forms! Instead of getting the money back at the end of the year, you just see it up front."
BF: "Right, I'm familliar with that concept. But nine dependents and the 'don't get married' thing just doesn't seem right... I'm never going to have nine kids; and really at the end of the day, us being married would make sure she's taken care of if something happens to me."
MB: "Sure, I see your point about the marriage; but you can get legal documentation to make sure she's protected. See, you'll never meet two more married people than us - we have four grown boys, we love to travel and spend every second together. But we make too much money for marriage to make sense. Technically, we're divorced, and I'm a Nevada resident."
BF: (eyes openining) "Really. Interesting. So what about my car payment?"
MB: "Just use your savings to pay off your car."
BF: "I was going to use my savings for the down payment on my house."
MB: "Don't do that - it's easy to buy with no money down. And I'm sure you can use that money for other things. Like furnishing your new house, or going on vacation, or buying a new car!"
BF: "Not my preferred course, but I'm keeping an open mind and hearing you out here... What about property taxes?"
MB: "Those will work themselves out."
BF: "OK... Great. Thank you for your time, but we really must be going. I really don't think this is going to work out right now."
I would really like to know how many people fell for that pitch. Wait, no I don't. I already know... I've read the foreclosure and short sale statistics from two years ago through today. The answer is "a lot."
So where does that lead us? Just the other day, I saw a commercial for a firm that specializes in helping people renegotiate their mortgages with their lenders, complete short sales without legal judgments or negative impacts on their credit ratings, or in some cases, to flat out walk away from their homes... ceasing payment, avoiding bankruptcy, and again not suffering the consequences on their credit ratings. What is this teaching us as a society?
How does this enable an economy to thrive? I was (half jokingly) told by a college professor that our entire college education boiled down to one concept - Buy Low; Sell High. Ultimately, that is true... Companies (in theory) sell their widgets for $x; manufacturing costs for said widgets were $y, corporate overhead was $z, leaving a profit of $a (or at least $0, signifying that at least costs are covered). That's not what we're seeing here... We are seeing Buy High, Sell Low (or walk), and forget about the difference!
As a lender, your primary concern with any loan is that you need two sources of repayment. Most people may say, "No, there's only one repayment source for a loan - the monthly payments!" They're missing the point. Let's think about it... Here are some basic types of loans and their sources of repayment. Oh yeah - unlike credit cards, most loans are secured in one way or another. But even credit cards have that second source of repayment... it's just a matter of whether or not the issuer is going to pursue it.
- A car loan - Primary Source: the Borrower's cashflow. Secondary Source: Repossession and sale of the car.
- A mortgage - Primary Source: Borrower's cashflow. Secondary Source: Foreclosure and sale of the real property.
- Margin Accounts - Primary Source: Cash on hand in the brokerage account or contributed through a Margin Call. Secondary Source: Sale of the margined stock.
- A Cash Secured Loan (yes, people do this): Primary Source: Borrower's cashflow. Secondary Source: the cash securing the loan.
- An unsecured personal loan - Primary Source: Borrower's cashflow. Secondary Source: legal remedies to sieze assets to sell (won't get in to this... unsecured lending is a total gamble in my mind).
- A Corporate Equipment Loan - Primary Source: Borrower's cashflow. Secondary Source: selling the equipment securing the loan.
Making sense?
Back to my point... When you buy high, and sell low, you are losing money. Your inflow is less than your outflow, which means someone is left holding the bag. The banks, mortgage brokers, and realtors were blinded by the money that they saw coming in, and the values of properties going up that they failed to look at the downside. So who funds those losses? Well, equity. In real estate, that initial equity is your down payment (remember that whole concept of "Loan to Value" that I mentioned?) Lenders want to incent borrowers to live up to their obligations - much easier to do if they stand to lose that equity that they have initially put in to the deal...
Think of equity from the standpoint of start-up companies and venture capital investments. Chances are, this start-up company is pre-revenue, and burning cash to get its product conceived, developed, marketed, and to the point that the Company is making money on its own, theoretically there is an investor in there putting money in to fund those losses. If not, then it is only a matter of time before that company fails.
Did you know that of every 10 investments in new companies ("new" meaning companies in the development/pre-profit stages) that a venture capitalist makes, 6 will fail? Of the four surviving companies, two or three will "bump along," probably eventually reaching breakeven/ self-sustainability, and only one (maybe two, if they're lucky) will be the home run. That's why equity players seek such huge returns. They need to pad their huge losses on those six that failed, and their zero-return on the two to three that are just scraping by, with huge gains from the one that succeeds.
Unfortunately, if you're a real estate lender, or any kind of lender for that matter, it doesn't work that way. You need to be right 98% of the time. I know it sounds ridiculous, but look at the loss ratios of the most successful banks out there... Even in this weak economy, the best are only reporting net charge-offs of 1.5% of their total loan portfolios. Anyway, as a lender, you're looking at the long term repayment of your loan, and an adequate amount of interest income over time. And if it pays off early, you're happy because that is capital that you can deploy elsewhere. But when you're taking a haircut on every loan you make, not only are you losing out on that income, but you're also losing the money that you put out the door! Sure, the seller is laughing all the way to the bank (not the one that made the loan!) - but where does that leave the lender? Exactly. He now has this hole to fill. And if this kind of situation is the norm as opposed to the exception, investors are probably saying "I'm not putting in any money - this model isn't sustainable."
Enter the government bailout.
Remember my source of repayment discussion above? What is the government's source of cash for the bailout? The taxpayers. Oh yeah - and let's not forget - the government is also taking haircuts on many people's tax bills, thus decreasing the source of cash available to be able to fund that equity hole - so let's requalify that with "THE HONEST TAXPAYERS." So, to what does all of this equate?
Simple. We the people who are honestly paying our taxes and our mortgages and fulfilling our other obligations are funding the bailouts. And what do we receive in return? That's right... Nothing. But the poorly run banks and Corporations get to stay open, and people who spend far in excess of their means are encouraged to continue to do so!
Now... I ask again... As that taxpayer who is funding these corporations and individuals by way of my honest tax payments. As that borrower who pays his mortgage payment on time, and who has effectively had any potential equity appreciation in his house disappear for the forseeable future...
WHERE IS MY BAILOUT?
