More

REO To Rental Fed Plan Would Do Little For Housing, Says Goldman Sachs

Goldman Calls Out Bernanke

First Posted: 01/06/12 02:36 PM ET Updated: 01/06/12 06:30 PM ET

The Federal Reserve's foreclosure rental program would do little to lift the ailing housing market, Goldman Sachs analysts wrote in a research paper released on Friday morning.

The analysis, written in response to a Federal Reserve paper released earlier this week, calculates the nationwide effects of renting foreclosed properties as "positive but modest," possibly fostering a 0.5 percent increase in home prices in the first year of program implementation, and a 1 percent increase in the second year. But those are Goldman's maximum increases, and the researchers are quick to add that the "actual effect would likely be less."

According to Goldman, three factors limit the program's potential. First, there is the possibility that some of the foreclosed properties that would become available for rent could sit vacant as rental properties, meaning that while the homeowner vacancy rate would decline (because the home has never come up for sale), the vacancy rate on rental properties would not, merely pushing the problem of vacant structures from one part of the market to another.

Goldman researchers also argue that the program likely wouldn't do much to decrease the overall availability of homes for sale, which is one of the biggest problems currently plaguing the American housing market: There is too much housing supply relative to the demand. As Goldman sees it, even if every single foreclosed home owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the two government-owned mortgage giants that would sell the foreclosed homes to investors in any federal rental program -- shifted to the rental market, banks and large investors that have held off on selling some of their foreclosed homes would likely bring them on the market, in effect perpetuating the problem of too many homes for too few buyers.

Finally, the Goldman analysts assert that some of the foreclosed properties aren't suitable for rental, either because of the home's condition or location, or because the economics of renting that specific home are unappealing to an investor. Though there's no easy way to determine what percentage of homes would be inappropriate for renting, Goldman suggests that as many as half of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's homes wouldn't qualify, indicating that a rental program couldn't scale up to the size necessary to change the dynamics of the housing market in a meaningful way.

That some homes are unsuitable to rent is acknowledged in the Fed paper released Wednesday. But exactly because it's hard to get a sense for how big or small this issue would prove to be, the Fed's analysis on the issue remained very limited.

Goldman is not alone in its skepticism. Jed Kolko, chief economist at real estate website Trulia.com, agrees that the program is likely to have limited impact. "The typical government-owned home tends to be in areas where rental vacancies are higher than average and where more people are likely to be homeowners," he told HuffPost, "so there's a mismatch between where the stronger rental demand is and where these vacant homes are. So, while renting out homes is definitely worth doing and it will help stabilize neighborhoods where those homes get occupied, it's only a very small piece of a very big, messy housing picture."

Adds Jared Bernstein, a proponent of the rental model and an economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "There's no silver bullet for this market. One thing we've certainly seen is that many of these programs have tended to underwhelm. I just think that the cost benefit here is net positive. If Goldman is right and the price benefits are small, at least they're small in the right direction."

As an investment bank, Goldman's emphasis is on the program's impact on housing prices. Other organizations that support rental initiatives highlight the social benefits to individuals and communities. "Any occupant is better than having a vacant home," said Jorge Newbery, director of American Homeowner Preservation, a company that has purchased and subsequently rented more than 400 foreclosed properties nationwide. "Depending on the area, vacant homes can be magnets for crime and blight a community. If you've ever lived near a vacant home, you know it's definitely less comforting than having a neighbor, even one you don't really like."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
The Federal Reserve's foreclosure rental program would do little to lift the ailing housing market, Goldman Sachs analysts wrote in a research paper released on Friday morning. The analysis, writt...
The Federal Reserve's foreclosure rental program would do little to lift the ailing housing market, Goldman Sachs analysts wrote in a research paper released on Friday morning. The analysis, writt...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 153
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
10:59 PM on 01/09/2012
First GS, this move is to HELP THE PEOPLE not corporations LIKE YOURS, so get over it.
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
06:17 PM on 01/09/2012
Government Set to Sell Foreclosures in Bulk
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45925851/comid/2
12:54 PM on 01/09/2012
"We here at Goldman Sachs are going to sit in our glass towers and pass judgment on what is good for housing in America. As we cannot see how putting people in these houses is going to improve our bottom line, then it cannot be good for America. And if we did anything that might have contribute­d to the state of the Housing market, it does not follow that we have to do anything to fix it, unless it is of a great benefit to us. As we can see no benefit to us, these houses should sit empty. Also, we are thankful to the Fed, for not considerin­g our compensati­on when factoring inflation. That our compensati­on is rising higher than economic growth by a factor of dozens, is of no business to anyone but ourselves. Now excuse us, while we continue to find ways to generate income that has no redeeming social value."

(reposted)
12:39 PM on 01/09/2012
Why buy a house today when prices are falling fast? Buy later for 65% less.
12:27 PM on 01/09/2012
Good idea gov. The government must convert their vacant housing into money producers (i.e. get paying renters into them.) At least we know who holds the mortgage on the homes in question--the government (Fannie, Freddie and the FHA.) It will do at least 2 things right away: put downward pressure on rapidly rising apartment rental rates; finally create some rental money on these vacated homes.

And who shows up with their pitch to fight the idea, just when you don't need them-----da da---Goldman Sachs. Get back to sleep. Go round up some of those crummy mortagages you peddled a few years ago.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Mad Guesser
People are alike all over.
07:18 PM on 01/08/2012
I recall that during the Great Chicago Fire, Ms. O'Leary called the fire department but misdialed the number and got Goldman Sachs instead, who, after running the numbers, told her that 100 buckets of water would have a minimal effect on the fire, so she nixed the bucket brigade concept, and so the fire ultimately spread to destroy the City of Chicago. However, Goldman did send a Christmas fruitcake basket to each and every patient in the burn ward.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:05 AM on 01/09/2012
Well done...
F&F
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Mad Guesser
People are alike all over.
07:08 PM on 01/08/2012
One could write a simple law giving the foreclosed homeowner a right to stay in the home indefinitely as long as he pays the "rent" to the bank or sublets it to anyone who can afford to stay there, thereby creating sufficient economic incentive to keep the house inhabitable, which does not exist currently, as banking paper-pushers who don't have to live in the house, have irrational incentives such as to write off or package and sell the otherwise worthless asset. Moreover, such a right would create a value-floor of some rental income stream so that the bag-holders buying the mortgage would have a rental income stream.
04:50 PM on 01/08/2012
some reporters have no business writing about topics that they have no idea about what they are talking about!.
04:49 PM on 01/08/2012
not only that , the rental industry is a neccessity not a luxury, by replacing the propertys for sale to be for rent they will be leased faster then people can imagine, the rental market can sustain the inventory , the selling market can not. you have more people renting then buying first off and second off the rental market needs the inventory
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
06:19 PM on 01/09/2012
Sell to individual investors then, not giant investment groups.
04:48 PM on 01/08/2012
if you removed all of fannie mae and freddie macs inventory today from the market for sale and replaced these propertys with rentals , then the common home owner will be able to sell there property at the price they need to sell the property at instead of being forced to sell the property with a competing price of fannie and freddie.
04:46 PM on 01/08/2012
wow! i am the CEO of Help-Me-Rent , the analyst from the post and trulia comments are so out of line , they have no idea what they are talking about , they have no idea what this can do for the housing market in so many ways, its incredible, i was dancing on my corp office tables when the news came out. the effects of how this can change the housing market is un comprehend able to there little minds.
09:57 PM on 01/07/2012
The housing market has or will soon bottom. My rule of thumb is; when the people buying foreclosures get foreclosed on that is typically the end of the selling. That is happening. Banks are demoing properties and taking them off the market. People continue to remain as bearish as ever and the herd is always wrong. We are now 6 years in the the bursting of the bubble and we have fallen below the affordability trend. The only reason the Feds idea doesn't make sense is because we have tipped back over to the point where if you can afford to own it is cheaper than renting. And you will never make a home loan mortgage at a better rate if you can qualify. We sold two investment properties in we owned in March of 06. Got top $. I'm ready to start looking again.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:53 AM on 01/08/2012
You just do that. The banks have no right to be holding the houses, this is illegal. The houses belong to the taxpayer and should be sold to whatever the buying market will pay. This scam after scheme after scam is and has been a travesty to renters, and the assault continues.

Your post is of course wishful nonsense. This article shows the tipping point of 4 million houses coming on the market which will Finally Thankfully start the Real drop to a Real market, which we are nowhere near, nor will we be for years.

You pretend pollyanna. The rest of us prefer reality.
07:05 PM on 01/08/2012
Sounds like someone doesn't know how to play the game and never found a chair when the music stopped. I've been making money in RE since the mid 70s. And you?

Now that said I agree with most of your little tirade. That banks STOLE hundreds of billions from homeowners but that's another issue and if you want to better understand what really happened check it out. http://www.hulu.com/watch/59026/cnbc-originals-house-of-cards

Other than that believe what you want. That's what makes a market. It's your type of bearishness that will continue to make me bullish. But then I've always looked to the other side of the trade when everyone is thinking the same thing. Good trading.
photo
4eva
.-.. --- ...- . --..-- / -. --- - / .... .- - .
11:38 AM on 01/08/2012
We are nowhere near bottom ... though the power that be are being Herculean in their attempts to create a false bottom.

It won't work.
07:11 PM on 01/08/2012
Maybe your right, but I don't think so. We'll see.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
army193
04:21 PM on 01/07/2012
They foreclose on a home that had a mortgage for $200,000 failed to work with the owner then Bank/Investor took possession then auction off for $100,000. Then you have owners able to do short sales for much less than you owe on your home but wouldn't let you purchase it back for that amount. Remember if you own more than one home and go into bankruptcy the court can reduce the second homes value and restructure you loan on the second home but not on a first home. This make no sense whatever.
photo
victorianism
Theultrathinnothingnesshasabeautifulendforusall.
12:58 PM on 01/07/2012
Jared Bernstein has been so right here. I want him to go bigger be he not too old.
12:29 PM on 01/07/2012
The Problem: Grossly Inflated Housing Prices

The Solution: Dramatically Lower Housing Prices

The Solution is coming to ever city town and state in America.

Why buy a house today when you can buy later for 65% less?