Household Debt

David Greenberg, author of Nixon’s Shadow in WSJ 3/21/09: “Reagan was struggling to pass his tax cuts when John Hinckley’s bullets landed him in the hospital. The outpouring of sympathy, aided by Reagan’s winning bedside humor, buoyed his popularity and helped him win a big victory. But that success didn’t foreshadow any continued mastery of Congress; his relations with the Democratic House, and later, the Senate, would deteriorate.”

For the first 6 years of the two term Reagan presidency, the Republicans controlled the Senate while the Democrats controlled the House. The last two years of his presidency, the Democrats controlled both houses.

In 1980, total Federal receipts, including Social Security taxes of almost $120B, were $517B. In 1988, total receipts were $909B, including SS taxes of almost $264B (U.S. Dept of Treasury).

In 1980 the Federal Debt was $907.7B; in 1988 it was $2602.3B. The deficit had almost tripled.

At the end of 1980, the CPI-U index was 86. It was 120 when Reagan left office.

In 1988, the top marginal tax rate was 28%. In 1980, it was 70%. Some argue that lowering tax rates dramatically raises tax revenues. The data above shows that tax revenues did increase, although the increase was not dramatic. Excluding Social Security tax receipts and adjusting for inflation, net tax revenues increased 16% in 8 years. Will lowering marginal income tax rates always produce increased tax revenues? Is there some optimal income tax rate? I’ll look at different theories on that subject in a future blog.

How much of this tax revenue increase came from capital gains taxes? The Dow Jones index stood at 930 when Reagan took office. It was 2239 when he left. I will take a look at that in a later blog but here is a 1997 congressional committee discussion of capital gains tax rates.

The data does show one very clear point. Increasing tax revenues can not offset runaway spending.

Buffett Sense

Berkshire Hathaway, the holding company headed by Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, owns Clayton Homes, the largest producer of manufactured housing in the U.S. Clayton Homes finances almost 200,000 homeowners. The market they serve is below average in credit risk and with a thin cushion, at best, when times get tough.

From Warren Buffett’s annual letter to shareholders: “[Clayton’s homeowners’] median FICO score is 644, compared to a national median of 723, and about 35% are below 620, the segment usually designated ‘sub-prime.'” Yet, they have had no unexpected losses.

The “delinquency rate on loans we have originated was 3.6%, up only modestly from 2.9% in 2006 and 2.9% in 2004. Clayton’s foreclosures during 2008 were 3.0% of originated loans compared to 3.8% in 2006 and 5.3% in 2004.” In contrast, TransUnion reported that the national average for mortgage delinquency was 4.58%.

“Though Berkshire’s credit is pristine – we are one of only seven AAA corporations in the country – our cost of borrowing is now far higher than competitors with shaky balance sheets but government backing. At the moment, it is much better to be a financial cripple with a government guarantee than a Gibraltar without one.”

“The present housing debacle should teach home buyers, lenders, brokers and government some simple lessons that will ensure stability in the future. Home purchases should involve an honest-to-God down paymentof at least 10% and monthly payments that can be comfortably handled by the borrower’s income. That income should be carefully verified.”

“Putting people into homes, though a desirable goal, shouldn’t be our country’s primary objective. Keeping them in their homes should be the ambition.”

Amen, Warren.

House Walkaway

The following is not a script from a Monty Python episode.

In a 3/29/09 NY Times article, Susan Saulny reports: “Banks are quietly declining to take possession of properties at the end of the foreclosure process, most often because the cost of the ordeal – from legal fees to maintenance – exceeds the diminishing value of the real estate.”

After vacating the house in anticipation of foreclosure, the “former” homeowner finds that, to the city, they are still the “current” homeowner and the city wants them to clean up and maintain the abandoned property.

It does sound like the “dead parrot” episode from Monty Python, doesn’t it?

House Visas For Sale

Here’s an interesting idea by Richard LeFrak (of LeFrak Org, builder of LeFrak City in Queens) and Gary Shilling, an investment advisor, in a WSJ op-ed 3/17/09. The authors present the problem of the huge inventory of excess houses, estimating the total at 2.4 million, and offer a solution.

“Offer permanent resident status to the many foreigners who are clamoring to get into the U.S. – if they buy houses of minimal values (not shacks). They wouldn’t need to live in those houses, but in order to remove the unit from the total housing market, they couldn’t rent them. Their temporary resident status grant upon purchase would become permanent after, perhaps, five years, if they still owned the houses and maintained clean records.”

A good idea but I see several problems. What kind of background check will these foreigners be subject to? This situation would be ideal for drug dealers in foreign countries who want to set up shop in the U.S., where the demand for their goods is strong. Who will monitor whether the new owners will rent the house? It could cause a “land rush” as the demand for those 2.4 million surplus houses would be strong, possibly stronger than the supply, thus causing another housing bubble.

The authors continue: “The blueprint for a program to sell surplus housing to immigrants is already in place with the EB-5 visa program. Each year, 10,000 EB-5 visas are available for foreigners who each invest $1 million in a new enterprise ($500,000 in economically depressed area) that creates at least 10 full-time jobs. After two years, the entrepreneur and his family can become permanent residents.”

This is free market citizenship at its best.