DOCSLIB.ORG

Housing Markets Economy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:00 AM Page i HOUSING MARKETS AND THE ECONOMY ___–1 ___ 0 ___+1 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:00 AM Page ii –1___ 0___ +1___ 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:00 AM Page iii HOUSING MARKETS AND THE ECONOMY Risk, Regulation, and Policy o ESSAYS IN HONOR OF KARL E. CASE Edited by EDWARD L. GLAESER AND JOHN M. QUIGLEY ___–1 ___ 0 ___+1 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:00 AM Page iv © 2009 by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Housing markets and the economy: risk, regulation, and policy: essays in honor of Karl E. Case / edited by Edward L. Glaeser and John M. Quigley. p. cm. Papers from a conference sponsored by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, held in Dec. 2007. Includes index. ISBN 978- 1- 55844- 184- 2 1. Housing—United States— Congresses. 2. Housing policy— United States— Congresses. 3. Housing—Prices—United States— Congresses. 4. Housing—Law and legislation— United States— Congresses. I. Case, Karl E. II. Glaeser, Edward L. (Edward Ludwig), 1967– III. Quigley, John M., 1942–HD7293.H678 2009 333.33'80973—dc22 2008043990 Designed by Westchester Book Composition Composed in Electra LH Regular by Westchester Book Composition in Danbury, Connecticut. Printed and bound by (printer) in (city, state). The paper is (paper name), an acid- free, recycled(?)sheet. –1___ 0___ MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA +1___ 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:00 AM Page v Contents List of Figures vii List of Tables ix Foreword xiii GREGORY K. INGRAM Part I Introduction 1 Karl E. Case, Housing, and the Economy 3 EDWARD L. GLAESER AND JOHN M. QUIGLEY Part II Housing Risks and Choices 2 Derivatives Markets for Home Prices 17 ROBERT J. SHILLER Commentary Timothy J. Riddiough 34 Commentary ROBERT VAN ORDER 37 3 Home Equity Insurance: A Pi lot Project 39 ANDREW CAPLIN, WILLIAM GOETZMANN, ERIC HANGEN, BARRY NALEBUFF, ELISABETH PRENTICE, JOHN RODKIN, TOM SKINNER, AND MATTHEW SPIEGEL 4 Spatial Variation in the Risk of Home Owning 83 TODD SINAI 5 Arbitrage in Housing Markets 113 EDWARD L. GLAESER AND JOSEPH GYOURKO Part III Housing Regulation and Policy 6 Subprime Mortgages: What, Where, and to Whom? 149 CHRIS MAYER AND KAREN PENCE Commentary C. F. SIRMANS AND KERRY D. VANDELL 197 ___–1 ___ 0 ___+1 v 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:00 AM Page vi vi | Contents 7 Government- Sponsored Enterprises, the Community Reinvestment Act, and Home Own ership in Targeted Underserved Neighborhoods 202 STUART A. GABRIEL AND STUART S. ROSENTHAL Commentary LAWRENCE D. JONES 230 8 Siting, Spillovers, and Segregation: A Reexamination of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program 233 INGRID GOULD ELLEN, KATHERINE M. O’REGAN, AND IOAN VOICU Commentary DANIEL P. MCMILLEN 268 9 Mea sur ing Land Use Regulations and Their Effects in the Housing Market 271 JOHN M. QUIGLEY, STEVEN RAPHAEL, AND LARRY A. ROSENTHAL Commentary RICHARD K. GREEN 301 Commentary STEPHEN MALPEZZI 304 10 Do Real Estate Agents Compete on Price? Evidence from Seven Metropolitan Areas 308 ANN B. SCHNARE AND ROBERT KULICK Part IV Urban Form 11 The Dynamics of Job Creation and Destruction and the Size Distribution of Establishments 351 NANCY E. WALLACE AND DONALD W. WALLS Postscript: What’s Better than Beating the Yankees? 397 DAVID WARSH Publications by Karl E. Case (1976–2000) 401 Contributors 405 Index 000 About the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 409 –1___ 0___ +1___ 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:00 AM Page vii Figures 3.1 Index Plot for Selected Zip Codes 58 3.2 Insurance Claims to Date by Year of Issuance 63 3.3 Projected Claims Following Origination 65 3.4 Capital in Various Scenarios 69 3.5 Price Paths Associated with Different Paths of Capital 69 3.6 OFHEO Indices 80 4.1 Relationship of House Price Volatility to Rent Volatility, 1990–2002 99 4.2 Standard Deviation of Real Annual House Price Growth Versus Average Covariance of Real Annual House Price Growth with Other MSAs 104 5.1 House Prices and Incomes Across Metropolitan Areas, 2000 119 5.2 House Prices and Winter Warmth Across Metropolitan Areas, 1990 120 5.3 Twenty- Year Changes in House Prices and Incomes, 1980–2000 122 5.4 Housing Unit Size 127 6.1a Subprime Originations by Year 158 6.1b Subprime Originations as a Share of HMDA Originations 160 6.2 Percentage of Housing Units with Subprime Loan Originations in 2005, LP 166 6.3 Percentage of Housing Units with Subprime Loan Originations in 2005, HMDA Higher- Priced 167 6.4 Percentage of Housing Units with Subprime Loan Originations in 2005, HUD Subprime Lender 168 6.5 Percentage of Housing Units in Southern California with Subprime Loan Originations in 2005, LP 172 8.1 Location of LIHTC Developments in New York City 249 9.1 Cities and Counties of the San Francisco Bay Area 274 9.2 California Home Values and Number of Growth- Restricting Mea sures, 1990 and 2000 276 9.3 California Rents and Number of Growth- Restricting ___–1 Mea sures, 1990 and 2000 277 ___ 0 ___+1 vii 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:00 AM Page viii viii | Figures 9.4 Housing Prices and Regulation, U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1990 278 9.5 Indexes of Growth Management for the San Francisco Bay Area 281 9.6 Scatterplot: BLURI Factor Scores by Raw Sum of Indexes 287 9.7 BLURI for the San Francisco Bay Area 288 10.1 Housing Market Trends in Selected Markets 321 10.2 Average Quarterly Buy- Side Commission Rates, 2000–2007 324 10.3 HPA Versus Commission Trends by MSA 327 10.4 Distribution of Commission Rates, 2000 and 2007 328 11.1 Total Job Creations and Destructions in the United States, 1990–2005 329 11.2 Total Establishment Births and Deaths in the United States, 1990–2005 330 11.3 Total Venture Capital Investments by Census Regional Divisions, 1995–2006 331 11.4 Total Origination of Small Business Loans of Less than $1 Million by Census Regional Divisions, 1995–2005 332 –1___ 0___ +1___ 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:00 AM Page ix Tables 3.1 Standard Deviation of Returns at Different Time Horizons 56 3.2 Index Per for mance in Syracuse 58 3.3 Index Per for mance in New Haven 60 3.4 Index Per for mance in Los Angeles 60 4.1 Factors that Affect Rent Variance 91 4.2 Real Rent Volatility by MSA 94 4.3 Real House Price Volatility by MSA 97 4.4 Average House Price Correlations Among MSAs, 1990–2002 102 4.5 Average House Price Covariances Among MSAs, 1990–2002 103 4.6 Net Rent Volatility by MSA and Expected Length of Stay 106 5.1 Comparing the Owner- Occupied and Rental Housing Stocks 126 5.2 Comparing House Price and Rental Growth in 44 Markets with Continuous Rent Data 129 5.3 Is Actual Real House Price Appreciation Consistent with Forecasts from a User Cost Model? 130 5.4 Estimating the Benefits of Short- Term Predictability 136 5.5 Price Changes Within Market Over Time 140 6.1 Subprime Originations in the LP and HMDA Data, 2004–2006 162 6.2 Subprime Originations by Zip Code, 2004–2006 164 6.3 LP Subprime Originations as a Share of Housing Units by State, 2005 169 6.4 LP Subprime Originations as a Share of Housing Units by MSA, 2005 170 6.5 LP Subprime Originations as a Share of All Originations by State, 2005 173 6.6 LP Subprime Originations as a Share of All Originations by MSA, 2005 174 6.7 Sample Characteristics, 2005 177 6.8 Incidence of LP Subprime Originations in MSA Zip Codes, 2005 180 6.9 Incidence of LP Subprime Refinancings in ___–1 MSA Zip Codes, 2005 184 ___ 0 ___+1 ix 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:01 AM Page x x | Tables 6.10 Incidence of HMDA Higher- Priced Subprime Originations in MSA Zip Codes, 2005 185 6.11 Incidence of HMDA HUD Subprime Originations in MSA Zip Codes, 2005 187 6.12 Incidence of LP Subprime Originations in MSA Zip Codes, 2005 190 7.1 HUD- Specified Affordable Housing Loan Purchase Goals 208 7.2 Impact of GSE Underserved Status on GSE Purchase Share 209 7.3 Impact of GSE Underserved Census Tract Status 217 7.4 Impact of CRA Census Tract Status 219 7A.1 Impact of CRA Census Tract Status on Nonconforming Originations 225 8.1 LIHTC Units Placed in Ser vice by Year 236 8.2 Distribution of Low- Income LIHTC Units by Neighborhood Poverty Level 242 8.3 Regression Results: Change in Tract Poverty Rate, 1990–2000 246 8.4 Distribution of LIHTC Units in New York City 248 8.5 Characteristics of Residential Properties Sold 253 8.6 Regression of Spillover Effects on Property Values in New York City 255 8.7 Regression Results: Segregation of the Poor 262 8.8 Regression Results: Segregation of the Near Poor 263 9.1 BLURI: Po liti cal Influence Index 283 9.2 BLURI: Project Approval and Zoning Change Indexes 284 9.3 BLURI: Development Caps and Density Restrictions Indexes 285 9.4 Correlation Matrix of BLURI Subindexes and BLURI Values 286 9.5 Selected Project Level Indicators by Product Type (Survey of Developers) 289 9.6 Selected Project Level Indicators by Controversy Level (Survey of Developers) 290 9.7 Selected Project Level Indicators by Product Type (Survey of Environmental Professionals) 291 9.8 Selected Project Level Indicators by Controversy Level (Survey of Environmental Professionals) 291 –1___ 9.9 Regulatory Restrictions and the Value of Owner- Occupied 0___ Housing 293 +1___ 531-38784_ch00_1P.qxp 1/14/09 1:01 AM Page xi Tables | xi 9.10 Regulatory Restrictions and Monthly Rents 295 9.11 Project Approvals Index, Po liti cal Influence Index, and House Values 296 9A.1 Factor Loadings and Correlations Between Subindexes and BLURI I 297 9A.2 BLURI: Open Space, Infrastructure Improvement, and Inclusionary Housing Indexes 297 9A.3 BLURI: Approval Delay Index 298 9A.4 BLURI: Rate of Approval Index 298 10.1 Trends in Average Commission Rates 316 10.2 Negotiation of the Agent’s Commission or Fee 317 10.3 House Price Appreciation in Selected Metropolitan Areas 319 10.4 Applicable State Laws 320 10.5 Means and Standard Deviations of Buy- Side Commissions, Selected Years 332 10.6 Summary of Regression Results 334 10.7 Estimated Elasticity of Commission Rate to Housing Prices 341 10A.1 OLS Regressions 342 11.1 Summary of the Size Distribution of Establishments 358 11.2 Summary Statistics for the Capital- Labor Ratios by BEA Industry Sectors, 1995–2005 362 11.3 Summary Statistics for Capital Investment Flows by States Within Regional Divisions of the U.S.
Recommended publications
  • The Location Market

    The Location Market

    2012] 637 THE LOCATION MARKET Daniel B. Rodriguez*and David Schleicher- INTRODUCTION Individual location decisions are not given much respect by local gov- ernments. Governments frequently use zoning and other regulatory rules to spread development across a city, claiming that the whole city, and not just one favored or disfavored part, should get the benefits and bear the costs of new development.' Local governments also create incentives to encourage certain types of development to locate in certain areas-using policy tools that range from non-cumulative zoning to outright subsidies-in order to create particular mixes of industrial, commercial, and residential develop- ment.2 However, the arguments in favor of these policies frequently rely upon a specious depiction of the incentives of governmental decisionmakers on the one hand and private citizens on the other.' That is, they fail to see the wisdom behind the old saying that the three most im- portant factors in real estate are "location, location, location." When justifying such policies, officials and interest groups rely on an assumption, frequently unstated, that property developers, businesses, and individuals just do not care very much (or do not have the right incentives to care) about where they locate inside a given city.4 And this assumption is surely wrong. Instead, locational decisions are motivated by specific bene- fits citizens and firms receive when they choose to reside in one specific area rather than in another.' Moreover, locational decisions are frequently "sticky"-that is, they are resistant to governmental management and are resistant for good reasons. 6 The fact that residents do in fact care about the identity and number of their neighbors for reasons other than their potential for creating nuisances * Dean and Harold Washington Professor, Northwestern University School of Law.
  • Understanding Home and Renters Insurance

    Understanding Home and Renters Insurance

    Understanding Home and Renters Insurance With multiple types of home and renters insurance and varying degrees of coverage available, it can be a challenge to know what’s right for you. However, carrying adequate insurance is one of the best ways to protect your assets. By paying for home or renters insurance now, you’ll have the coverage you need if something happens in the future. What is home insurance? A home insurance policy provides protection for your home’s physical structure and belongings in the event of damage caused by a disaster or loss of property from theft. Additionally, most home insurance policies also cover your own personal liability for harm caused to other people or property at your home or by members of your household. For instance, if a visitor to your home were to fall down your stairs, your home insurance policy may cover medical expenses. However, home insurance policies don’t cover earthquakes or floods — those are typically covered through separate policies or riders. Make sure your coverage is adequate for your current location and update accordingly when you PCS. Did you know? Most home insurance policies have an occupancy clause stating that your home can’t be unoccupied for longer than a certain period of time. If you deploy and leave your home ? vacant, your policy could become void, so check requirements with your provider. What is renters insurance? If you rent or sublet, renters insurance protects your personal property within your home from damage caused by disaster or theft. Renters insurance policies also protect against personal liability claims, but exclude injuries caused by the structure of the home.
  • Fraud Is Fun Or How a Foreclosure Rescue Scam Changed My Life

    Fraud Is Fun Or How a Foreclosure Rescue Scam Changed My Life

    Fraud Is Fun or How a Foreclosure Rescue Scam Changed My Life Peter A. Holland We are an association of trial lawyers seeking justice were raised there. Her mother died there. Mary told me that for our clients and for society. As such, we study diligently she earned $50,000 a year, and that the house was mostly paid “how” to try a case. Get the documents. Note the depositions. for – she had over $100,000 in equity in that house. Subpoena the witnesses. Anticipate the objections. Know the Now my stomach is grumbling, but I have to ask: “How judge. Prepare the Opening Statement. did you get into this mess which I cannot get you out of?” But before we can learn “how” to try a client’s case, we Although she was working part time at the time that I met her, should ask the big question: “why?” Specifically, we should previously she was being treated for a very aggressive breast ask at a very deep level: “Why should anyone care about this cancer. Although Mary’s employer was great to her, after her client and this case”? If we cannot articulate the answer this surgery, rehabilitation, chemotherapy and brief relapse, she question, then we can never truly “win” the case. Why we care about a cause can – and should – direct how we try the case. got laid off from work. She fell behind in her mortgage. Getting in touch with the why instead of obsessing on With nowhere to move to, and with the looming the how can restore the creative juices and the passion to your foreclosure sale of the family homestead, Mary turned to a practice.
  • Real Estate Price Indices & Price Dynamics: an Overview from an Investments Perspective by David Geltner* Submitted to the A

    Real Estate Price Indices & Price Dynamics: an Overview from an Investments Perspective by David Geltner* Submitted to the A

    Real Estate Price Indices & Price Dynamics: An Overview from an Investments Perspective By David Geltner* Submitted to the Annual Review of Financial Economics October, 2014 Abstract: This article reviews the state of the art in real estate price indexing and, related to that, the current state of knowledge about real estate price dynamics, with a primary focus on investment property, income generating commercial properties. Such assets form a large component of the national wealth and of the capital markets, and represent a major investment asset class. They are characterized by heterogeneity of various types, among assets, markets, and data sources, making the study of real estate pricing uniquely challenging. Yet urban economists and econometricians have pioneered major new price indexing methodologies in recent decades which, combined with new types of data sources, are now shedding new light on the nature of commercial property price dynamics, revealing both important commonalities as well as unique differences compared with equities and fixed-income securities pricing. Keywords: Commercial Property; Real Estate; Price Indexing; Price Dynamics; Asset Markets. *Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies & Planning, Center for Real Estate. Contact: [email protected]. 1 Table of Contents: 1. Introduction & Background …………………………………………………….…….. 3 2. Some Considerations About Real Estate Asset Markets …………………………….. 6 3. Pricing and Price Indexing in the Property Asset Market ………………………… 13 4. Methodology of Property Price Indexing …………………………………………..... 19 5. Some Findings from Property Price Indices ………………………………………… 24 6. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………….. 28 Literture Cited …………………………………………………………………………... 30 2 Real Estate Price Indices & Price Dynamics: An Overview from an Investments Perspective David Geltner 1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND This article will focus on asset price indices and price dynamics in real estate.
  • What More Do We Need to Know About How to Prevent and Mitigate Displacement of Low- and Moderate-Income Households from Gentrifying Neighborhoods?

    What More Do We Need to Know About How to Prevent and Mitigate Displacement of Low- and Moderate-Income Households from Gentrifying Neighborhoods?

    What More Do We Need to Know about How to Prevent and Mitigate Displacement of Low- and Moderate-Income Households from Gentrifying Neighborhoods? VICKI BEEN1 New York University he extent to which gentrification results in the displacement of low- and moderate-income households from neighborhoods undergoing signifi- cant change is still the subject of study and debate among urban policy researchers.2 Recent evidence suggests that, at least in areas outside low- vacancy “superstar cities”3 with intense gentrification, renters who likely Tare the most vulnerable to displacement generally do not move away from gentrifying neighborhoods at higher rates than such households move from nongentrifying areas.4 Elected officials, housing advocates, and the public, on the other hand, have no doubt that gentrification can and does cause displacement.5 There are a number of reasons the research findings on displacement may be less accu- rate or complete than reports from affected neighborhoods. First, there is considerable disagreement, especially early in the process, about which neighborhoods actually are gentrifying. Second, data tracking people’s moves to and from neighborhoods is limited because of concerns about the confidentiality of tax, social service, and other governmental data files that follow individuals over time, and because private sources of linked data, such as credit reporting bureau files, are incomplete in a variety of ways (some households don’t have credit files, for example). Third, even if residents of gentrifying neighborhoods may move no more often from gentrifying neighborhoods than similar households in other areas, they may move for different reasons. Residents of non-gentrifying neighborhoods may more often move voluntarily — seeking better neighborhoods or jobs, for example — while residents of gentrifying neighborhoods may more often move involuntarily, wanting to stay in the neighborhood but unable to afford it.
  • Estimating Home Equity Impacts from Rapid, Targeted Residential Demolition in Detroit, MI: Application of a Spatially-Dynamic Data System for Decision Support

    Estimating Home Equity Impacts from Rapid, Targeted Residential Demolition in Detroit, MI: Application of a Spatially-Dynamic Data System for Decision Support

    Estimating Home Equity Impacts from Rapid, Targeted Residential Demolition in Detroit, MI: Application of a Spatially-Dynamic Data System for Decision Support A Report Produced by Dynamo Metrics, LLC1 July 2015 ABSTRACT In an effort to further the goals of the Motor City Mapping Initiative, investments were made to create a data architecture for a spatially-dynamic decision support system in Detroit, Michigan. The data system that now exists is capable of tracking the time series dynamics of every one of the more than 384,000 parcels in Detroit between January 1st, 2011 and March 31st, 2015 on a quarterly basis (seventeen quarterly time steps for each parcel). To provide a rapidly produced and useful example of the analytic capabilities of the spatially-dynamic data system, it was used to estimate the effect of the in progress, rapidly deployed Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) demolition investment concentrated in selected areas of Detroit between April 1st, 2014 (Q2 2014) and March 31st, 2015 (Q1 2015). This study utilizes causal modeling that incorporates spatially- dynamic econometric methods in the context of a spatio-temporal treatment effects analysis to estimate the impact of the HHF Blight Elimination Program implementation on single-family home values in Detroit. Using the year prior to HHF implementation (Q2 2013 – Q1 2014) as a control for the rapid and targeted HHF implementation (Q2 2014-Q1 2015), findings suggest that home equity increases of up to 13.8%2 exist for single-family homes that sold inside HHF demolition zones (HHF Zones) after the implementation of the HHF Blight Elimination Program.
  • U.S. House Price Dynamics and Behavioral Economics

    U.S. House Price Dynamics and Behavioral Economics

    U.S. House Price Dynamics and Behavioral Finance Christopher J. Mayer and Todd Sinai There has been considerable debate in recent years regarding the role of behavioral factors in determining housing prices. The question of whether psychology matters in the housing market has been settled long ago: the answer is yes. Rather, economists are now debating in what ways psychology impacts market behavior and how large an effect this impact has on housing prices. One oft-cited example of a clear behavioral bubble in housing is the sharp boom-bust in the Vancouver housing market during the early 1980s (see figure 1). In the 18 months between January 1980 and July 1981, real house prices grew 87 percent. In the subsequent 18 months, real prices fell by nearly 44 percent, plateauing at a level only 6 percent above where prices were three years earlier before the boom began. While news and rumors about Britain’s returning Hong Kong to China may have swayed sentiment in the Vancouver market, where many wealthy Hong Kong residents own second homes, it is very difficult to use funda- mental factors in explaining the sudden boom-bust pattern witnessed in the early 1980s. In this paper we examine the relative roles played by economic funda- mentals and market psychology in explaining U.S. house price dynam- ics using two different boom periods, one in the 1980s and the other one in the early-to-mid-2000s. We begin by considering what proportion of the variation in the house price-rent ratio within metropolitan areas can be explained by fundamentals using a single-period version of the user cost model with static expectations of price growth, as in Himmel- berg, Mayer, and Sinai (2005).
  • Reinventing Boston: the Changing American City

    Reinventing Boston: the Changing American City

    REINVENTING BOSTON: THE CHANGING AMERICAN CITY United States in the World 24, Fall 2010 Tuesdays and Thursdays, 1:15 pm-2:30 pm, Harvard Hall 104 Weekly Sections: To Be Arranged Christopher Winship David Luberoff Diker-Tishman Professor of Sociology Executive Director [email protected] Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston 620 William James Hall [email protected] 617-495-9821 Taubman 352, KSG, 617-495-1346 Office hours: By Appointment Office hours: By Appointment Josh Wakeham Head Teaching Fellow [email protected] 618 William James Hall In the 1970’s, Boston was marred by racial violence and its economy was rapidly collapsing. Boston, as was claimed at the time about many other American cities, was dying. Given this situation, how is it that Boston has come to reinvent itself and become one of America’s most successful and vibrant cities in the 21st century? Today, Boston, like many other cities, faces a variety of challenges brought on by the worldwide economic downturn. Can Boston maintain its success in coming years? And what, if anything, can Boston’s reinvention teach us about cities in general? This course seeks to answer these interrelated questions via a unique combination of lectures by both scholars and civic leaders, a wide array of readings, student observations of Boston neighborhoods, and student research on the city’s neighborhoods, leaders, and institutions. Taken together, the lectures, readings, neighborhood visits, and research should give students not only a better understanding and “feel” for Boston but also a better understanding and appreciation for cities in general. COURSE OVERVIEW This course seeks to help students understand how economic, social, and political factors have combined to produce what has become known as Boston’s Renaissance.
  • Overwhelmed an Overview of Factors That Impact Upon Insurance Disclosure Comprehension, Comparability and Decision Making, September 2018

    Overwhelmed an Overview of Factors That Impact Upon Insurance Disclosure Comprehension, Comparability and Decision Making, September 2018

    Overwhelmed An overview of factors that impact upon insurance disclosure comprehension, comparability and decision making, September 2018 Monash University and the Financial Rights Legal Centre, with the support of funding from the Victorian Fire Services Levy Monitor have produced a report titled: (In)effective Disclosure: A study of consumers purchasing home and contents insurance1. The experimental study aimed at examining how the newly introduced requirement for providing a Key Fact Sheet (KFS) for home and contents insurance enhances consumer perceptions and decision outcomes. The study in particular examined how: (i) consumers engage with the KFS and/or Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) at the point of sale; (ii) consumers perceive the information provided by the KFS and/or PDS; and (iii) the obtaining of this information and knowledge leads to perceptible changes in consumer decision-making behaviour. The study tested engagement, comprehension and behaviour of consumers in a specifically designed, experimentally controlled environment that nevertheless reflected the insurance purchasing process, albeit a simplified version. The study limited the number of parameters to ensure that the participant respondents were, in a sense, given the best chance to select the best PDS or KFS. For example, all tested policies were equally priced. Policies were non-branded to control for the effect of brand names. PDSs were reduced in size to 20 pages each rather than the usual 80 plus pages. KFSs also closely matched the legislated requirements but the number of covered events was reduced. The decision to essentially simplify the KFS and PDS and control for as many factors as possible, was made to ensure that the findings were obtained in as optimized a purchasing and decision-making context as possible.
  • 2003 Annual Housing Activities Report

    2003 Annual Housing Activities Report

    Opening Doors for America’s Families Freddie Mac’s Annual Housing Activities Report for 2003 March 15, 2004 Freddie Mac’s Annual Housing Activities Report March 15, 2004 Page 1 About this Report Freddie Mac provides this report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in fulfillment of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (“the Freddie Mac Act”)1 and regulations issued by HUD (“the Final Rule”).2 This report describes Freddie Mac’s central role in the housing finance system and housing finance activities in 2003, including information Freddie Mac is required to report under the Freddie Mac Act and the Final Rule.3 This report provides a comprehensive picture of Freddie Mac’s secondary mortgage market activities and the benefits we provide to the housing finance system and to America’s homeowners and renters. Although 2003 was a challenging year for Freddie Mac in many respects, our service to the homeowners and the housing finance system was stronger than ever. Our mortgage purchases enabled millions of families to obtain low-cost mortgages, strengthened the housing market and helped bolster the national economy. We met all of the housing goals and reinforced our strong commitment to increasing minority homeownership with new initiatives in support of the President’s goal. Freddie Mac is proud of the role we play in making the world’s best housing finance system even better for America’s families. 1 12 U.S.C.
  • The Detroit Housing Market Challenges and Innovations for a Path Forward

    The Detroit Housing Market Challenges and Innovations for a Path Forward

    POLICYADVISORY GROUP RESEARCH REPORT The Detroit Housing Market Challenges and Innovations for a Path Forward Erika C. Poethig Joseph Schilling Laurie Goodman Bing Bai James Gastner Rolf Pendall Sameera Fazili March 2017 ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE The nonprofit Urban Institute is dedicated to elevating the debate on social and economic policy. For nearly five decades, Urban scholars have conducted research and offered evidence-based solutions that improve lives and strengthen communities across a rapidly urbanizing world. Their objective research helps expand opportunities for all, reduce hardship among the most vulnerable, and strengthen the effectiveness of the public sector. Copyright © March 2017. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute. Cover image by Tim Meko. Contents Acknowledgments iv Sustaining a Healthy Housing Market 1 Demand 1 Supply 10 Credit Access 23 What’s Next? 31 Innovations for a Path Forward 32 Foreclosed Inventory Repositioning 34 Home Equity Protection 38 Land Bank Programs 40 Lease-Purchase Agreements 47 Shared Equity Homeownership 51 Targeted Mortgage Loan Products 55 Rental Housing Preservation 59 Targeting Resources 60 Capacity 62 Translating Ideas into Action 64 Core Principles for Supporting Housing Policies and Programs in Detroit 64 A Call for a Collaborative Forum on Housing: The Detroit Housing Compact 66 Notes 70 References 74 The Urban Institute's Collaboration with JPMorgan Chase 76 Statement of Independence 77 Acknowledgments This report was funded by a grant from JPMorgan Chase. We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
  • Regulating Home Equity Protection Companies and Contracts: Are States Making “The Best” an Enemy of “The Good”?

    Regulating Home Equity Protection Companies and Contracts: Are States Making “The Best” an Enemy of “The Good”?

    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Insurance Law Journal School of Law 2016 Regulating Home Equity Protection Companies and Contracts: Are States Making “the Best” an Enemy of “the Good”? John E. Marthinsen Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cilj Part of the Insurance Law Commons Recommended Citation Marthinsen, John E., "Regulating Home Equity Protection Companies and Contracts: Are States Making “the Best” an Enemy of “the Good”?" (2016). Connecticut Insurance Law Journal. 153. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cilj/153 REGULATING HOME EQUITY PROTECTION COMPANIES AND CONTRACTS: ARE STATES MAKING “THE BEST” AN ENEMY OF “THE GOOD?” JOHN E. MARTHINSEN* *** Residential homes are the largest, most leveraged assets in most U.S. families’ portfolios. Home equity protection (HEP) contracts offer opportunities to safeguard these real estate interests. In the United States, each state decides if a HEP contract is financial guarantee insurance (FGI) and, therefore, regulated by the state laws and insurance commission rules, or non-insurance financial protection (NIFP), which may escape state and federal regulations. Because HEP contracts have the potential to provide substantial benefits to homeowners, their regulation should be designed to protect state residents and encourage the development of safe alternatives. This article explains HEP contracts, their development, and why states should treat those that require material interests as FGI. Particular focus is put on: (1) the advantages and disadvantages of HEP contracts that are linked to home price indices, (2) why linking these contracts to price indices should not disqualify them as FGI, and (3) how HEP companies engage in regulatory arbitrage by linking their policies to home price indices and claiming NIFP status.