Category: Uncategorized

Let’s Kill the Mortgage Interest Deduction and Replace It With This

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

10.2011-Gold-Kim_HomeK_Accounts-A_Down_Payment_on_Homeownership_and_Retirement

The Atlantic highlights PPI’s proposal to create “HomeK” accounts for home buyers to aid in the purchase of new homes. The article further suggests that such accounts could replace mortgage interest deductions.

The mortgage interest deduction probably isn’t going anywhere soon. Voters are far too fond of it, and politicians are loathe to nix a popular sort-of-kind-of-middle-class entitlement. But while the tax break might be beloved by the people who actually show up on election day, it’s also a highly regressive giveaway to the top 20 percent of American households, who reap 75 percent of the benefit, as my colleague Matt O’Brien wrote yesterday.

So let’s say policy wonks could wave a magic wand and make the mortgage interest deduction disappear. How could we replace the thing? Even though everyone has sobered up a bit about it thanks housing bust, home ownership still has a lot of economic virtues we should want to encourage. For instance, it’s one of the few ways a large portion of this country actually saves. And we really don’t want Americans saving any less than they already are.

Read the entire article HERE.

Another Tool in the Toolkit: Short Sales to Existing Homeowners

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Overview

Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), is drawing fire from congressional Democrats for preventing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from writing down the principal on home mortgages held by underwater borrowers. With U.S. taxpayers already on the hook for nearly $200 billion in losses incurred by Fannie and Freddie since September 2008, DeMarco understandably doesn’t want to make a bad situation worse.

The lawmakers, however, have a point. The housing slump may be the most significant brake on America’s economic recovery. That’s why it’s worth experimenting with creative ways to help delinquent underwater homeowners dig out from under a mountain of “negative equity.”

Private sector experiences suggest that a carefully conceived principal reduction program could achieve significant savings for U.S. taxpayers by reducing losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Such a program could be enacted responsibly and fairly without fueling moral hazard—the risk that borrowers who otherwise would make their mortgage payments go delinquent in an effort to get their principal balances reduced.

In effect, Fannie and Freddie can offer “short sales” back to the existing homeowners in return for a share of their home equity. Unlike foreclosure and traditional short sales, which are to third parties and usually at a discount to true market value, this approach would help support home prices, lower future default risk, and save taxpayers billions of dollars.

I propose that FHFA direct Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac to conduct a pilot program to test the technique’s viability and that Congress ask the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to independently assess the potential savings for U.S. taxpayers should such a program be implemented on a full-scale basis.

The Principal Matter

Foreclosures are very expensive for lenders. In addition to the large costs of carrying, maintaining, and oftentimes improving homes they have foreclosed upon, disposing of the properties in foreclosure sales typically nets less than their fair market value. Similarly, short sales to third parties also usually suffer “distressed sale” discounts to the homes’ fair values. According to the latest LPS Home Price Index data, in today’s depressed real estate markets, foreclosed homes sell at an average discount of 29 percent and short sales at an average discount of 23 percent. And, of course, having on ongoing supply of such properties for sale adds pressure on home prices.

To avoid foreclosures, and thereby minimize their losses, many banks have already reduced principal balances on mortgage loans that they own. They have done this in two ways: by reducing the balances of outstanding mortgages through loan modifications, and by agreeing to short sales of homes which result in the borrowers’ loan obligations going away. In a short sale transaction, the bank lets the borrower sell her home for less than the mortgage loan balance without requiring her to repay the difference. This is a principal writedown for the borrower—it is equal to the amount by which the mortgage loan balance exceeded the sale price of the home in the short sale transaction.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already provide underwater borrowers with relief on mortgage principal by allowing short sales of homes. In fact, both of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) recently announced plans to streamline their short sales processes in order to stimulate the use of the technique. If they and FHFA are comfortable with granting principal reduction through short sales, then they must believe that doing so minimizes losses.

So the debate should not be about whether principal reduction per se can help minimize losses. It does. Rather, we should determine whether there is a better way to implement principal writedowns in order to reduce losses further for the GSEs without also creating meaningful additional moral hazard. Doing short sales of their homes to delinquent underwater homeowners, with them sacrificing some home equity as a cost, has the potential to save the GSEs (and, consequently, U.S. taxpayers) billions of dollars without stimulating moral hazard.

Download the entire report.

Telecom and oil companies top ‘Investment Heroes’ list

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Washington Post covers Diana Carew’s and Michael Mandel’s Investment Heroes paper, focusing on the strong telecoms and energy presence amongst the leading companies.

AT&T, Exxon Mobil and Wal-Mart are leaders among a top 25 list of corporations still investing within U.S. borders, according to a new study from a progressive think tank.

These “Investment Heroes,” according to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), continue to invest domestically in buildings, equipment and software — something most companies have slowed or stopped throughout the lackluster economic recovery. However, telecom and energy companies, which are ubiquitous on the list, are still building broadband infrastructure to keep up with demand and are investing in the discovery of new sources of oil and gas.

The report’s authors, PPI economists Diana Carew and Michael Mandel, have no misconceptions that these companies are doing everything right — they are often criticized for environmental issues, privacy concerns and low tax rates, among other things — but want to point out the positive impact these companies are having when it comes to creating jobs and growth through their domestic investment.

Read the full story here.

Manufacturing and Inflation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI’s Michael Mandel was cited over at Slate about the potential to decrease unemployment through an increase in manufacturing jobs in the United States. While Slate’s Yglesias views this as unlikely, the proposal is nevertheless intriguing.

It might seem odd for the United States to be running such a large trade deficit amid such high unemployment. One of the main reasons to import goods rather than make them yourself is that by importing goods you free up scarce labor to do other things. But right now we’ve freed up labor to enter the unemployment sector. Bad news.

One potentially useful way of thinking about this is through the calculation Michael Mandel deploys to ask what the economy-wide consequences would be of balancing America’s trade in nonoil manufactured goods (PDF). He thinks it would take 3.5 million to 4 million workers to make the requisite stuff. Potentially that would be a very costly change if it involved 4 million fewer people working in hospitals, schools, and restaurants just to get our hands on material goods that we already have. But unemployment is high. So under present circumstances, he writes that this could “reduce unemployment by about 2.3-2.6 percentage points,” which would be a lot.

However, firms don’t locate production abroad for no reason. They do it because it’s cheaper. So if we relied more on domestically made goods, prices would have to be higher

Read the entire article HERE

Can Eminent Domain Help Underwater Homeowners?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Several California counties are considering a controversial proposal to use their eminent domain powers to offer relief to underwater homeowners. The plan is quietly being shopped to counties hit hardest by the housing crisis, and it seems local politicians are listening.“We have a very large problem that’s causing severe economic problems and part of our exploring ways to deal with it is hearing from people like those representatives of the securities industry,” said San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer Greg Devereaux.

This has provoked a sharp reaction from Wall Street banks. In a letter to San Bernardino Supervisors, a coalition of securities investors said “Such an action would likely significantly reduce access to credit for mortgage borrowers in the San Bernardino area and other areas that undertake similar actions.”

It’s hard not to sympathize with the the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metro area, where half the mortgages are underwater and the unemployment rate for May was 11.8%. And some progressives may find it hard to be sensitive to the plight of the Wall Street banks that hold most of the underwater mortgages in San Bernardino.

But the basic policy question here is whether the proposed cure would be worse than the disease. Using government’s eminent domain powers to force investors to eat the losses on underwater mortgages is a very drastic remedy to the problem of negative equity. While it could ease the burden on some homeowners, it could also drive private investment out of California housing markets. This would only prolong the housing slump and deepen the state’s economic malaise.

Download the entire brief HERE

Libor Scandal and Public Data Manipulation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Editor’s Note: This item is cross-posted from Innovation and Growth.

I found myself reacting to the Libor scandal more strongly than a lot of the earlier revelations of financial institutions misdeeds. First, the banks were just blatant out-and-out lying about a simple number.

Second, their lying led to a distortion of a crucial piece of publicly available data–the Libor rate. In a market economy, intentional misrepresentation of a market price is not a victimless crime –in fact, the victims are everyone who relied on that price to make decisions.  That includes regulators who presumably watched Libor as one of their guides to the amount of stress in the global banking system. Here’s a chart of Libor across the key period (downloaded fromhttps://www.fedprimerate.com ).

Continue reading “Libor Scandal and Public Data Manipulation” →

Libor scandal and public data manipulation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I found myself reacting to the Libor scandal more strongly than a lot of the earlier revelations of financial institutions misdeeds. First, the banks were just blatant out-and-out lying about a simple number.

Second, their lying led to a distortion of a crucial piece of publicly available data–the Libor rate. In a market economy, intentional misrepresentation of a market price is not a victimless crime –in fact, the victims are everyone who relied on that price to make decisions.  That includes regulators who presumably watched Libor as one of their guides to the amount of stress in the global banking system. Here’s a chart of Libor across the key period (downloaded fromhttps://www.fedprimerate.com ).

Would Libor have shown more signs of stress sooner if it wasn’t being manipulated in 2007 and 2008? And would banks, regulators, and investors reacted sooner? We’ll never know.

But this confirms what I’ve written in the past–the financial crisis was in part a data crisis, where all sorts of numbers were sending misleading signals. In particular, the strength of the financial position of the banks was overstated.

The question is whether the Libor scandal is a vestige of the past, or a sign of future troubles to come. My sense is that we’ll see a lot more opportunities for manipulation of private data to send misleading public signals. Forget about financial markets for the moment. I’m thinking now about the way that websites continually try to game Google’s search algorithms in order to get a higher ranking. Hotels and restaurants have a big incentive to try and manipulate their reviews on consumer sites such as Yelp. App developers have an incentive to game their reviews on the Apple and Google app stores.

Will the bad information drive out the good? Or can we build information aggregation mechanisms that are more difficult to manipulate?

This item is cross-posted from Michael Mandel’s blog, Mandel On Innovation and Growth.

Telecom Giants Top List of Companies Investing in U.S.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI’s recent report on Investment Heroes has continued to be picked up by major media outlets.  This time, National Journal focused on the investment in the U.S. economy made by telecom companies.

AT&T and Verizon top a list of 25 major companies investing in the United States, according to a report released by the Progressive Policy Institute.

The think tank named its top 25 “investment heroes” that are spending resources domestically.The list of non-financial companies also includes tech and telecom giants such as Intel, IBM, Comcast, Time Warner, Sprint, Google, and Apple.

Tech companies like Apple have faced scrutiny over their outsourcing policies as domestic joblessness remains high. Other companies have cited their relative economic strength and contributions to the broader economy as reasons why lawmakers should be hesitant to impose new regulations on issues like privacy, cybersecurity, or antitrust.

Read the entire article HERE

 

 

 

Betting On America: How Much Do Apple and Google Invest at Home?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Atlantic recently published a piece on PPI’s most recent policy report Investment Heroes. The article provides analysis of the implications of Google and Apple’s investment and placement on Michael Mandel and Diana Carew’s list.

One of the more frustrating aspects of the thriving U.S. tech sector is that while its leading companies generate fabulous profits, they don’t actually employ that many American workers — especially compared to industrial titans of yore. At its 1970s peak, General Motors had more than 600,000 U.S. workers on its payroll. Apple, by comparison, claims just 47,000, most of whom are part of its retail operations. Google has about 18,500. They’ve perfected the low-employment, high-profit business model.

But measuring a tech company’s economic impact by its headcount alone is more than a bit misleading, in part for reasons I’ve written about previously. Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute, an occasional Atlantic contributor, has done some of the most interesting work on the topic, showing how California’s tech behemoths indirectly support hundreds of thousands of workers who produce and market mobile apps.

This week, Mandel and his PPI colleage Diana Carew, are out with a new report that illustrates another key way in which tech companies inject life into the economy: business investment, otherwise known as capital expenditures. That’s the money firms spend to upgrade and expand their operations, for instance by buying machinery, upgrading servers, or building new factories and offices. Google and Apple were numbers 24 and 25 on PPI’s list of companies investing most in the United States, right after Chrysler, and not far off from General Motors or Target (Their list excludes financial firms).

Read the entire article HERE.

American Economy: Points of Light

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI’s Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel was cited in The Economist this week regarding the growth and potential in America’s mobile technology sector. The Economist points to Mandel’s numbers as a promising aspect of the growing U.S. services exported around the world.

Services have long been an American strength, consistently making up 30% of its exports. Within that sector, though, the share held by lower-value tourism and travel has slipped, while royalties and so-called private services—such as scientific, engineering and other consulting, plus financial services—have advanced. Exports of such services to Brazil, India and China nearly doubled between 2006 and 2010.

This trend has been pushed on by digital technology, which makes effortless the sale of many services across borders. Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think-tank, reckons there are now 311,000 people employed making applications, games and so forth for smart devices such as Apple’s iPhone, and for Facebook. Zynga, one of the largest makers of online games and mobile entertainment applications, recorded $1.1 billion in revenue last year, largely from the sales of virtual goods in its games. A third of this came from players who live outside America.

Read the entire article HERE.

Where Are The Women Wonks?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

PPI managing director for policy and strategy Anne Kim writes about the gender discrepancy amongst think tank staff in Washington for the Washington Monthly. She elicits why she thinks the particularly strong trend exists as it does.

 Every day in Washington, D.C., brings numerous announcements about the various policy events, forums, and conferences around town that serve as meet-and-greets for the city’s thinking elite. In addition to a prepackaged muffin or a stale sandwich and some badly brewed coffee, these events typically feature a slate of experts on whatever topic is the focus. Also typically, most of these experts are men.

One recent big-name panel on money in politics, for example, featured seven white men (including the moderator) and just one woman: Jane Harman, the Woodrow Wilson Center resident and former congresswoman. Another recent all-day, all-star conference on economic policy included only twelve women among the fifty featured speakers.

Certainly, some of the most powerful people in policy today are women, such as the Center for American Progress’s president, Neera Tanden, and Sarah Rosen Wartell, president of the Urban Institute. But male “brand-name” policy experts far outnumber the women. Men—white men—dominate the senior management at many of the most influential D.C. think tanks. And men—white men—dominate the ranks of “scholars” in many institutions.

Read the entire article here