Renting Prosperity

Americans are getting used to the idea of renting the good life, from cars to couture to homes. Daniel Gross explores our shift from a nation of owners to an economy permanently on the move—and how it will lead to the next boom.

By DANIEL GROSS May 4, 2012, 6:08 p.m. ET for WSJ.com

Photo illustration by The Wall Street Journal

 

In the American mind, renting has long symbolized striving—striving, that is, well short of achieving. But as we climb our way out of the Great Recession, it seems something has changed.

"The Great Gatsby," the pre-eminent American novel of financial ambition, overextension and downfall, offers a revealing vignette about the great American obsession: real estate. The narrator, Nick Carraway, can't afford to buy in the rarefied Long Island world inhabited by Gatsby, and by Tom and Daisy Buchanan. But he can afford to rent. "When a young man at the office suggested that we take a house together in a commuting town, it sounded like a great idea. He found the house, a weather-beaten cardboard bungalow at eighty a month, but at the last minute the firm ordered him to Washington, and I went out to the country alone," he notes. "I had a view of the water, a partial view of my neighbor's lawn, and the consoling proximity of millionaires—all for eighty dollars a month."

 

 

The economy needs the dynamism that renting enables as much as—if not more than—the stability that ownership engenders.

In the American mind, renting has long symbolized striving—striving, that is, well short of achieving. But as we climb our way out of the Great Recession, it seems something has changed. Americans are getting over the idea of owning the American dream; increasingly, they're OK with renting it. Homeownership is on the decline, and home rentership is on the rise. But the trend isn't limited to the housing market. Across the board—for goods ranging from cars to books to clothes—Americans are increasingly acclimating to the idea of giving up the stability of being an owner for the flexibility of being a renter. This may sound like a decline in living standards. But the new realities of our increasingly mobile economy make it more likely that this transition from an Ownership Society to what might be called a Rentership Society, far from being a drag, will unleash a wave of economic efficiency that could fuel the next boom.

 

 

While downgrading the place of ownership in the American psyche may sound like a traumatic task, the cold, unsentimental fact about the American dream is that Americans never really owned it in the first place. For the past three decades, especially, consumers haven't so much bought their quality of life as they've borrowed it from banks and credit card companies. And since the Great Recession, Americans have been busy rebuilding their balance sheets and avoiding new financial encumbrances. When American consumers can't—or won't—borrow to purchase the goods and services they've come to consider part of their standard of living, how does the economy get back on its feet?

The answer lies in consumers following the example of corporations—that is, becoming more efficient. The reaction to extended leverage and foolish borrowing isn't to stop consuming and buying; it is to consume and buy more intelligently. That's what the Rentership Society is all about. And it starts at home. Literally. Housing is the biggest single component of consumption in the U.S. economy and the source of much of our present misery. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the typical consumer spends about 32% of his or her budget on shelter. In the last decade, that generally meant borrowing a lot of money to take "ownership" of a home.

The vast mortgage-political-financial complex, for a variety of reasons, valued homeownership as a good in its own right. Democrats saw the extension of credit to people on the lower end of the income scale as a matter of social justice; Republicans thought homeownership would make people more bourgeois. Banks and Wall Street firms salivated at the fees mortgages could generate.

So, during the boom, the homeownership rate grew steadily, peaking at a record 69% in 2006, according to the Census Bureau. But those gains were short-lived and came at a truly massive cost: a huge mortgage bust, expensive bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an overhang of millions of foreclosed properties and falling home prices. Ownership-boosters failed to note that homes purchased in 2005 and 2006 with no-money-down, interest-only mortgages weren't really bought. They were simply rented until the "owner" flipped them or walked away from the mortgage. Far from strengthening low-income neighborhoods, this destabilized them through the inevitability of foreclosure.

In the post-bust climate, renting has emerged as a much more economically efficient way to pay for housing. A one-year lease represents a far less onerous financial obligation than a 30-year mortgage. It's difficult to get into too much financial trouble as a renter. The homeownership rate has fallen from its peak in 2006 to 65.4% today. The foreclosure crisis, which has caused millions of Americans to turn over homes to lenders, is responsible for much of this decline. What's more, given the weak labor market and higher lending standards, more Americans today have a difficult time scraping together the required down payments.

For an increasing number of Americans, though, it simply makes more sense to rent these days. According to Moody's, by late 2011 it was cheaper to rent than to own in 72% of American metropolitan areas, up from 54% a decade ago. And the more people who do it, the more socially acceptable and desirable it becomes. The decline in the ownership rate means that about three million more households rent today than did at the height of the bubble.

It's tempting to view the rise of rentership as an economic step backward. Renters can't build up equity, and they have less control over their living standards than owners. Renting is generally seen as something you do when you've failed as a homeowner or are not yet ready to be one. But I'd argue the rise of rentership is a sign of a system adapting—albeit too slowly—to new realities.

Alamy

 

Renting has emerged as a much more economically efficient way to pay for housing, argues Daniel Gross.

The U.S. economy needs the dynamism that renting enables as much as—if not more than—it needs the stability that ownership engenders. In the current economy, there are vast gulfs between the employment pictures in different regions and states, from 12% unemployment in Nevada to 3% unemployment in North Dakota. But a steelworker in Buffalo, or an underemployed construction worker in Las Vegas, can't easily take his skills to where they are needed in North Dakota or Wyoming if he's underwater on his mortgage. Economists, in fact, have found that there is frequently a correlation between persistently high local unemployment rates and high levels of homeownership.

Home builders and property owners have caught on to the economic opportunity presented by the move toward rental. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become reluctant owners of more than 200,000 properties thanks to the foreclosure crisis, working through the backlog, one painstaking foreclosure sale at a time. But in February, Fannie Mae said it would put up for sale some 2,490 homes as a package, asking for $321 million. The Wall Street Journal reported that an assortment of real estate companies and private-equity investors were considering making bids. The presumption was that these sophisticated investors would turn the homes into rental properties. No less a sage than Warren Buffett told CNBC in February that he'd love to buy "a couple hundred thousand" single-family homes for rentals.

The depressed home-building industry has also shifted gears to adapt to the new reality. Housing starts for multifamily units have risen sharply since 2009, according to the Census Bureau. In 2011, whereas single-family housing starts fell 9% from the year before, starts of structures with five or more units were up 60%. In the first quarter of 2012, starts of multifamily housing structures were up another 27%, while single-family starts were up only 16.7%.

What's more, the builders of these structures increasingly intend to rent them out. In 2007, only 62% of the housing units in buildings with two or more units were built for rent. In 2009, 84% of the units in such buildings were built to be rented. In 2011, 91% of the units in such structures were aimed at the rental market.

And the rising popularity of rentership is hardly contained to the housing market. Indeed, it has spurred the creation and growth of innovative businesses in a number of other realms—particularly those that cater to America's cash-strapped, credit-wary youth.

Take cars. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that private transportation—owning and running a car—is the second largest cost for a typical American household, accounting for 16% of expenditures. Factoring in finance costs, depreciation, repairs, insurance, taxes and gas, AAA calculates that an owner of a midsize sedan who drives 15,000 miles a year spends $8,588 a year on his car.

Enter auto-sharing firm Zipcar. Founded in 2000, it grew by focusing on cities and college campuses. It uses information technology to manage its fleet, and control access—people get cards that let them into garages where cars are kept and into the cars themselves. Users in New York pay a $60 annual fee and then $8.75 per hour on weekdays and $13.75 per hour on weekends—no extra charge for gas or insurance or miles. As the U.S. economy contracted, Zipcar went into hyper-growth: from 225,000 members in 2008 to 650,000 members and 9,500 cars in November 2011. Zipcar, which went public in 2011, has had success in the predictable big cities like Boston, New York and San Francisco, but its vehicles can also be found on 350 college campuses and in smaller cities like Providence, R.I., and Portland, Ore. Large rental agencies like Enterprise and Avis have responded by rolling out similar services.

Or take textbooks. College textbooks are, in effect, rental goods. Students buy them at retail, use them for four months, and then resell them to the campus store or a used-book dealer. In 2010, the U.S. college-textbook market was worth about $4.5 billion, according to the American Association of Publishers. But why buy textbooks when you can spend less and rent them? Chegg.com, founded in 2001, has raised more than $200 million in funding and is aiming to displace the college bookstore. An undergrad can buy an economics textbook new for, say, $263. At Chegg.com, she can rent a hard copy of the same book for $94 for 180 days, or an electronic copy for $128 for the same period. As more students come to campus with Kindles, Nooks and other e-readers, the more efficient consumption of college textbooks is likely to grow rapidly.

Rent the Runway, another Rentership Society business, has likewise found a foothold on college campuses. The company was started in 2009 by Harvard Business School classmates Jennifer Hyman and Jennifer Fleiss. Ms. Hyman has called the company "the Netflix for fashion." As with Netflix, customers open accounts and then pay for the temporary use of goods sent to them through the mail. A Thread Social Poppy Sweetheart Dress (retail price: $365) rents for $50. Accessorize with Crislu Crystal Tear Earrings (retail $96, rent for $20). In business for less than two years, Rent the Runway has raised $31 million in venture capital, attracted one million customers and is turning a profit.

All these models involve more sharing than American consumers are typically accustomed to doing. But the culture is changing. Consider how quickly the attitude of consumers toward housing has changed. And I'm not just talking about the rising incidence, popularity and acceptance of home and apartment rental. At the height of the boom, people believed their homes generated cash by serving as a source of home equity credit, or by returning profits when they were sold. Today, not so much.

But thanks to another postrecession business, efficiency-seeking homeowners have come to realize that their homes can still generate cash. Airbnb, founded in August 2008, is dedicated to the promise that lots of people are willing to earn money by renting out a room in their home and that lots of people are willing to save money by crashing in strangers' abodes rather than in motels or hotels.

Only in America could entrepreneurs rapidly transform couch-surfing into a high-tech business worth more than $1 billion in the space of 36 months. With over 100,000 listings available in more than 16,000 cities and 186 countries, it's a real business. It has booked over 5 million nights. In July 2011, Airbnb raised $112 million from venture-capital firms Andreessen Horowitz, DST Global and General Catalyst. But the real value of Airbnb isn't necessarily what profits it brings to investors. Rather, it's the cash it puts into the hands of homeowners. That cash is not enough to turn around the economy. But it's part of a sea change in how people view the true value of their property and how they role of ownership in their lives as a whole.

Finally, perhaps, Americans are absorbing a piece of wisdom not from Gatsby, but from Thoreau: "And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him."

—Mr. Gross is economics editor at Yahoo Finance. This essay is adapted from his new book, "Better, Stronger, Faster: The Myth of American Decline and the Rise of a New Economy," which will be published Tuesday by the Free Press.

A version of this article appeared May 5, 2012, on page C1 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Renting Prosperity.

Original Post: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577382321021920372.html?mod=WSJ_RealEstate_RIGHTTopCarousel

HUD’s Donovan: Fannie, Freddie Should Embrace Loan Forgiveness

By Nick Timiraos  for WSJ.com February 16, 2012, 4:27 PM

The Obama administration would like the federal regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to begin reducing loan balances for certain troubled borrowers, a top official said Thursday.

“More and more economists across the political spectrum are recognizing [principal reduction] is a critical step,” said Shaun Donovan, secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “If a family is in their home for 10, 15 years and has no hope of being able to build equity again, they’re going to give up at some point.”

Officials have said for more than a year that they’d like to see mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie adopt principal reduction, and several steps in recent weeks have put more pressure on the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the firms’ regulator, to approve write downs.

“Clearly it’s an important piece of the puzzle that Fannie and Freddie move forward on this,” said Mr. Donovan. Last month, the White House said it would triple incentive payments under an existing loan-modification program that subsidizes the cost of loan forgiveness and that it would offer them to Fannie and Freddie.

When the principal reduction program was rolled out two years ago, those incentive payments weren’t extended to Fannie and Freddie, and their regulator has said there are less costly ways to help borrowers avoid foreclosure. The firms are being propped up with massive taxpayer infusions of their own, and the FHFA is tasked with preserving the firms’ assets.

By providing new taxpayer funds, the administration is making it harder for the FHFA to maintain its stance that principal reduction is less costly because Treasury funds will effectively subsidize some of those losses. The FHFA has said it is currently evaluating the newest proposal.

The firms are “working right now…to make a decision on whether they are going to begin principal reduction,” said Mr. Donovan. “We certainly hope that they will start to do that based on these incentives. That’s why we made them available.”

Separately, Mr. Donovan said he remained “concerned” about the prospect of taxpayers being forced to backstop losses at the Federal Housing Administration. Budget projections this week showed that the agency could deplete its reserves this year. The FHA, which doesn’t make loans but instead insures lenders, has played a critical role supporting housing markets amid a sharp pullback by the rest of the market.

The agency could announce within days its plan to increase the premiums charged to borrowers in order to build up its reserves. HUD also announced in recent days settlements with two of its biggest lenders over fraudulent loan claims that will net more than $680 million for the agency.

But Mr. Donovan warned of precipitous actions to boost reserves that limit the availability of credit and undermine fragile housing markets. “This is a delicate balancing act because if we go too far…what we’re going to be doing is stalling the momentum that we have in the housing recovery,” he said. “Frankly, that not only hurts homeowners more broadly in the housing market, it hurts FHA because the value of our existing investments goes down.”

• Fannie Mae,
• Freddie Mac,
• Obama administration

Original Post: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2012/02/16/huds-donovan-fannie-freddie-should-embrace-loan-forgiveness/

What The Mortgage Relief Plan Would Do For Homeowners

 

by Deborah L. Jacobs, Forbes Staff  for Forbes.com

After more than a year of wrangling over various mortgage relief proposals, influential state leaders seem close to adopting a plan that Pres. Obama announced Feb. 1. Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York and California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris have indicated they are closer to agreement than in the past.

There are two important elements of the plan and details of both have been a subject of fierce disagreement. One, which could be worth about $25 billion, relates to how much money would be allocated to benefit homeowners and the specific relief they would receive. The other involves the power states would have to investigate past practices by banks, oversee future ones and monitor compliance with the plan.

If the plan is adopted, here’s what it would do for homeowners in specific situations.

Mortgage underwater but current with payments. More than 10 million homeowners in the U.S., due to a decline in home prices, owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth. So even though interest rates have declined, they have been unable to refinance. The latest plan would enable people who have been making loan payments on time to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage by refinancing with lower-interest loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.

Mortgage underwater and behind with payments. Depending on how many states sign on to the plan, up to $17 billion would be set aside to reduce principal for homeowners who are behind on their payments and owe more than their houses are currently worth. The plan would not guarantee a minimum amount of mortgage relief by state.

Victims of foreclosure fraud. The plan would provide payments of about $1,800 apiece to approximately 750,000 families that have been the victim of an improper foreclosure practice. Since 2010, federal authorities have been investigating banks’ routine electronic notarization of documents being transferred from one financial institution to another as part of the foreclosure process–a practice known as robo-signing.

Compensation is likely to be offered to people who lost their homes between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2011. They would not be required to give up their right to sue the financial institutions. Banks, among them the five biggest mortgage providers–Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial—want to be relieved of liability for future claims involving robo-signing.

In announcing the plan on Feb. 1, the President said he was “working to turn more foreclosed homes into rental housing.” So far such a plan is not contained in the pending proposal.

Deborah L. Jacobs, a lawyer and journalist, is the author of Estate Planning Smarts: A Practical, User-Friendly, Action-Oriented Guide. You can follow her articles on Forbes by clicking the red plus sign or the blue Facebook “subscribe” button to the right of her picture above any post. She is also on Twitter.

Original Post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/02/06/what-the-mortgage-relief-plan-would-do-for-homeowners/

Flooring in Florida: Is This the Start of Something Good for the Housing Market?

by Alex Villacorta, Contributor for Forbes.com Lifestyle 1/31/2012 @ 4:13PM

Have we turned the corner? Without a doubt, that is the most popular question I get about the housing market. No one can be 100% positive at this point, but a good start for any recovery is when markets build a “floor,”or foundation for which the fundamentals of price appreciation can be built. Given the positive signs we’ve seen recently, I started looking for patterns in various markets to determine if a recovery is starting, and if flooring is being laid anywhere.

After publishing our 2011 Year End Market Report and 2012 Forecast, some interesting trends were discovered in Florida. In 2011, all four Florida metros (Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami and Tampa) ranked in the highest 15 of all 50 metros for price growth over the year. In addition, our November 2011 market report showed three out of four of Florida’s metro markets in the highest performing markets on a quarterly basis. Finally, the 2012 forecast showed each of the areas continuing the trend of improving home values, while leading the country in gains.

It is important to note these markets received more than their fair share of price depreciation after the market peaked in 2006. Orlando had a 63% decline from the peak to the bottom of the market in 2009, and Miami’s prices slid 65% over the same period, so there is a lot of ground to make up.

So with that, it was time to dig deeper and see if flooring was being laid, and more importantly, if a clear pattern could be identified for what an early stage of a recovery looks like.

The first step was finding the fundamental drivers for what pushes prices up. Are there clear variables or consistencies across these markets, and would these variables drive similar market behaviors outside the sunshine state?

Both Orlando and Miami’s growth is being built on a foundation of increases in low tier and distressed home sales. Both these markets show:

• Substantial improvement in values in their lower priced segments – below $70,000
• Modest improvement in distressed home sale prices across all price tiers
• Declining levels of distressed sales as a percentage of total sales

In Orlando, the lower priced segment experienced a whopping 19.8% increase in prices in 2011, while on a price per square foot basis their distressed only sales increased by 4.4%. These growth rates are significantly above the U.S. average.

Low tier home values in Miami jumped 15.28% in 2011, as compared to the top segment of that market which only returned a 1.8% yearly gain. And again, on a price per square foot basis, the distressed only segment across all price tiers saw healthy price increases of 4.9% through the year.

Now while the gains in the distressed segment were not as strong as that of the low price tiers in both markets, just the fact that REO sale values were increasing at all is important. A recovery in the distressed segment, regardless of the magnitude, creates a resistance to future losses across all price tiers as it is this segment that has created much of the pressure on prices over the past several years.

Along with the upward movement in price for the distressed market, the overall saturation of REO sales decreased in both Miami and Orlando. In Miami distressed sales as a percentage of all sales went down to 31% from 44% at the start of the year, well off the high point of over 50% seen in mid-2009. Orlando experienced a similar trend with current distressed sales representing 25% of total sales, a substantial improvement over the rate of 49% at the start of the year, and below the high of over 54% seen in mid-2009. These markets are coming off extreme highs in the percentage of REO sales down to levels closer to the US average of 25.3%. As these numbers are at, or even above the U.S. average, it is the movement of REO saturation that is extremely important, more so than the actual figure. The substantial decrease in REO saturation, especially in Orlando, is certainly helping prices to recover.

Another factor we analyzed was the type of transaction, and it appears that Miami in particular, has found a strong appetite for investing along with their appetite for spicy food. About 59% of Miami’s transactions were conducted with cash, followed by Orlando’s 48%. This is a significant increase from the national rate holding right around 30% over the last year as reported by the National Association of Realtors.

For 2012, we forecast anticipated growth of 8.7% and 5.6%, for Orland and Miami, respectively and expect to see each of these markets among the best performers for the year.

So, could the presence of low tier price increases, distressed home sale price increases, smaller percentages of distressed sale levels, and high levels of investor activity be what a floor looks like? Is it a blueprint for what a broader market recovery looks like as well? It seems very likely.

If it is, keep your eyes on Phoenix. Currently this market is showing strong growth in the low tier segment, notable gains in distressed sale prices and lower levels of distressed sales overall. We’ll continue reporting on other markets that reflect this same pattern in our monthly Market Reports.

I can’t ever remember a time when installing new flooring sounded this interesting.

Original Post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexvillacorta/2012/01/31/flooring-in-florida-is-this-the-start-of-something-good-for-the-housing-market/

Economists See Ways to Aid Housing Market

By NICK TIMIRAOS  for wsj.com

The underpinnings of a housing recovery are hiding in plain sight: sharp price declines, low mortgage rates and rising rents have made owning more affordable than renting in a growing number of markets.

Yet housing largely remains in a funk. The prospect of continued price declines—led by the oversupply of foreclosed homes—has deterred some potential buyers, while others can't qualify for loans.

Many economists, including some at the Federal Reserve, are urging President Barack Obama to do more, and the president will be "aggressive on housing" in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, his housing secretary said last week. The administration is already rebooting a refinancing initiative and putting finishing touches on programs to convert some foreclosed properties into rentals.

View Interactive

What more can be done? Economists cite three broad ideas that could advance a housing recovery.

First, local investors could play a greater role in spurring a recovery in their own communities. Some mom-and-pop investors have begun to buy up excess housing stock and rent it out.

These buyers are important to clear the large "shadow supply" of foreclosures. Banks owned around 440,000 homes at the end of October, but an additional 1.9 million loans were in some stage of foreclosure, according to Barclays Capital.

While there's no shortage of investor demand in many markets, financing remains an obstacle. In 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the main funders of mortgages, faced soaring losses from speculators and reduced to four from 10 the number of loans they would guarantee to any one owner. Fannie now backs as many as 10 loans, but some banks have kept lower limits.

"If that number were raised...to 25, you would very quickly start whittling down this very big backlog," said Lewis Ranieri, the mortgage-bond pioneer, in a speech last fall. He said loans should be made on conservative terms that include 30% or 35% down payments.

Today's investors differ from the speculators who earlier bought on the prospect of ever-rising values that inflated the real-estate bubble. In contrast, today's mostly all-cash buyers estimate values based on market rents. But economists say because they are underfunded and often the sole buyers, they are driving hard bargains that have homes selling below their replacement costs.

The mortgage-finance companies and their regulator "are ignoring the market fundamentals of who the buyers are and where the money is," said Tim Rood, a partner at the Collingwood Group, a housing-finance consultancy. "Right now, investors are treated like pariahs. You want to clear some inventory? Finance them."

For the past four years, prices of foreclosed and traditional homes fell in tandem, but in recent months, a new pattern has emerged. U.S. home prices were down 4.3% from one year ago in November. But after stripping out foreclosures and other "distressed" sales, prices were down just 0.6%, according to data firmCoreLogic.

Lawmakers also could consider eliminating capital-gains taxes on properties bought as a longer-term investment and converted to rentals as well as allowing them to accelerate the depreciation of those properties, said William Wheaton, a professor of economics and real estate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"We need to re-establish equilibrium. I don't want to see another spike in house prices, but the homeownership rate is dropping and we also don't want to see rental spikes," Prof. Wheaton said.

Second, policy makers could restore clarity to lending by finalizing a clutch of pending regulations. The government's extraordinary steps to rescue Fannie and Freddie helped prevent a cataclysmic shock but it has made no real movement to overhaul the companies and the nation's broader housing-finance machinery.

While prospects are dim for a revamp before the election, smaller steps to establish certainty around the rules for lending as well as handling soured mortgage loans could make banks less stingy with credit.

For example, Fannie and Freddie are pushing banks to repurchase any defaulted loans that they can prove ran afoul of underwriting standards, even if the loan went bad for another reason, such as job loss. The "blanket repurchase regime" has led banks "to focus only on the lowest-risk customers," said William Dudley, president of the New York Federal Reserve, in a speech this month.

Third, a growing number of economists are warning that the overhang of debt in some of the most distressed housing markets will linger for years, particularly if more borrowers default. They say mortgage investors and banks should consider reducing debt for more troubled homeowners.

Principal write-downs remain controversial and have high upfront costs. But the problem of negative equity looks unlikely to cure itself: In markets such as Las Vegas, more than six in 10 borrowers owe more than their homes are worth.

Banks are rightly worried that widespread debt forgiveness could encourage more borrowers to default, but several proposals seek to limit that moral hazard. Prof. Wheaton said investors in the loans should be given equity stakes in homes in order to deter all but the most desperate borrowers from seeking relief, and that relief should be limited to borrowers who are deeply underwater.

"This needs to be a shared responsibility," he said. "For borrowers silly enough to borrow enough at the top of the market, there was a lender stupid enough to lend."

Principal write-downs could also be done on an "earned" basis, where borrowers receive relief only if they stay current on their loans, said Daniel Alpert, managing partner at Westwood Capital, which has employed the technique when buying distressed mortgages.

Even then, write-downs will remain under-used until regulators or lawmakers simultaneously deal with the second mortgages, which are primarily held by banks, sitting behind many underwater first mortgages.

Mustering the political will to take any of these three steps wouldn't be easy. Given the state of the market, "there isn't a solution which will make everyone love you and cost no money," Mr. Ranieri says.

Indeed, no single idea will fix all of housing's problems. Many involve taking on more risk or rewarding bad behavior.

Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com

Original Post: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577173001251941984.html?mod=WSJ_RealEstate_LeftTopNews

Dimon on Housing: ‘No One Is in Charge’

By Nick Timiraos

Bloomberg News

Jamie Dimon, chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The government and the banking industry needs to get serious about fixing the housing market’s problems, but there’s no one leading the charge, said Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., during the bank’s quarterly conference call on Friday.

“I would convene all the people involved in the business. I would close the door. I would stay there until we resolved a bunch of these issues so we could have a more healthy mortgage market,” he said. “You could fix all this if someone was in charge.”

Mr. Dimon ticked off a list of unresolved issues, including foreclosure delays, the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, conflicts of interest between owners and servicers of first mortgages and second mortgages, and pending rules from the Dodd-Frank Act that will establish new rules of the road for mortgages that are pooled into bonds.

“There is no one really in charge of all of this. It is just kind of sitting there,” he said. A “holistic” approach to tackle those issues could lead to a faster recovery in housing, he said, endorsing the sentiment behind the Federal Reserve’s call to action on housing last week with its release of a 26-page white paper.

Mr. Dimon also elaborated on his view that housing markets have neared bottom. “In half the markets in America it is now cheaper to … buy than to rent. Housing is at all-time affordability,” he said. “What you need to see is employment.”

An stronger surge in job growth would boost household formation, which coupled with positive demographics, means that “you’re going to have a turn at one point,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s three months, six months, nine months, but it’s getting closer.”

Mr. Dimon said his bank had made mistakes in handling mortgage foreclosures, and said the bank “should pay for the mistakes we made.” But he added that banks have also offered millions of mortgage modifications, and that banks “are doing it as aggressively as we can.”

He also brushed aside calls for widespread principal reductions, saying that he didn’t agree “that somehow principal forgiveness would be the end-all, the be-all.”

Follow Nick @NickTimiraos

• J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Can Record Low Mortgage Rates Help You?

Interest rates for fixed-rate mortgages are at all-time lows. But does it make sense to refinance? MarketWatch's Andrea Coombes outlines the pros and cons, including costs, appraisals and risks.