Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, both candidates were short on specifics about their housing policy, to put it very kindly. They ignored housing in the debates and acted as if the housing crisis were over. Neither their actions nor their policy statements gave a clear idea of what they might do about housing. But what the candidates didn't do or say helps draw out the differences between what housing policy will look like during Obama's second term and what housing policy would have looked like with a Romney administration. Here's what Obama's re-election means for housing:
1. The refinancing push continues. The Obama administration has made it easier for homeowners to refinance at today's low mortgage rates and plans to make refinancing available to even more borrowers. Refinancing is economic stimulus since it gives homeowners with mortgages more spending money, but it doesn't help most people on the verge of losing their homes. Although refinancing has been a priority for Obama, Romney made no mention of refinancing in his housing plan -- despite strong support for refinancing from one of his economic advisers.
2. New mortgage regulations are coming. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, established by the Dodd-Frank Act, will set new mortgage standards by January 2013. These standards will define which mortgages are judged to be beyond a borrower's ability to repay and would therefore trigger legal and financial implications for lenders. These standards, yet to be established, will need to strike a delicate balance between protecting consumers from high-risk loans and giving lenders the incentive to expand mortgage credit. Romney blamed Dodd-Frank for holding back mortgage lending, pledging to "repeal and replace" it. But with Obama's re-election, Dodd-Frank-and the coming mortgage regulations-is a reality.
3. The mortgage interest deduction lives to fight another day. Romney proposed capping overall income tax itemized deductions at $25,000, which would have, in effect, reduced the mortgage interest deduction (which accounts for 35% of the value of total itemized deductions) even for many middle-income taxpayers. Obama, in contrast, is open to cutting the mortgage interest deduction only for the wealthy. Even if deeply cutting deductions finds bipartisan agreement in Congress-and it might-Obama is likely to resist gutting the mortgage interest deduction. Why? The ten states that benefit most from the mortgage-interest-deduction ALL voted for Obama on Tuesday (see table below). The average household in an Obama-voting state claims 66% more for the mortgage interest deduction than the average household in a Romney-voting state. If Obama takes a swing at the mortgage interest deduction, he'll be hurting his supporters and putting his fellow Democrats in a tough political spot.
|States with the Most Mortgage Interest Deducted Per Household|
|#||State||Average Amount Deducted, $*|
|9||District Of Columbia||$4,581|
|* Average amount of mortgage interest deduction claimed per household. Includes households who do not itemize. National average = $3,343.|
4. A chance for principal reductions may have been lost. In his housing plan, Romney called for more "shared appreciation" loan modifications. This means that a borrower would get a reduction in their unpaid principal balance but would have to share some of the upside with whoever took the hit for the principal reduction if the home's value appreciates. Shared-appreciation loan modifications reduce a borrower's incentive to strategically fall behind on their payments in order to get a principal reduction. This "moral hazard" problem was one reason why many Republicans and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, resisted the Obama administration's call for more principal reductions earlier this year. Shared-appreciation loan modifications are an approach to principal reductions that Democrats, Republicans, and even a financial regulator could all learn to love. It would be a shame if this approach to keeping more people in their homes goes down in defeat.