U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest in 13 Years on Stricter Lending

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

Stricter credit standards pushed the second-quarter U.S. homeownership rate to the lowest level since 1998, when the finale of television’s “Seinfeld” aired and President Bill Clinton denied an affair with an intern.

The ownership rate through June was 65.9 percent, the lowest since the same rate 13 years ago, the U.S. Census Bureau said in a report today. The vacancy rate, the share of properties empty and for sale, was 2.5 percent, compared with 2.6 percent in the first quarter.

The strictest mortgage standards in more than a decade are disqualifying potential buyers while owners are being evicted from homes after falling behind on loan payments, said Wayne Yamano, director of research at John Burns Real Estate Consulting in Irvine, California. Home purchases fell in June to a 4.77 million annual pace, the National Association of Realtors said July 20. If housing demand remains at that level, 2011 would have the fewest sales since 1997.

“Tight underwriting standards and the lack of a down payment are keeping a big chunk of buyers out of the market and other people are being displaced by foreclosures,” Yamano said in an interview before the report. The ownership rate may tumble to about 62 percent by 2015, he said.

MORE...

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-29/u-s-homeownership-rate-falls-to-lowest-in-13-years-on-stricter-lending.html

[n2doc]

1. MSM Always have to have a gratuitous Clenis reference n/t

[FarCenter]

2. Ownership is not 65.9%, probably less than 50%

You need to deduct all those people whose unpaid mortgage balance is more than 92% of the value of their home. Since they can't sell, pay the selling costs, and break even, they don't really own anything but debt.

[EFerrari]

13. You're absolutely right. I read something about that the other day,

it is under 50%.

[kestrel91316]

3. I don't know many homeowners. Most my clients these days rent

apartments or houses. Bush's Recession did a real number on everybody's finances.

[Eric the Blue]

4. Home Ownership Society

Does anybody else see the irony in this. The percent of homeowners is less than when W took office. During his administration one of the real pushes was "The Home Ownership Society". He did such a good job at promoting home ownership that a smaller percent of people now own their homes than when he took office, many are underwater with their mortgage and/or financially ruined. And Fox News wonders why some people think W was such an incompetent president.

[Dappleganger]

5. Great points, and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Roy Rolling]

6. the real goal

Home ownership in itself was not the goal, home ownership as a vehicle for bankers and speculators to cash in with government-backed mortgages and securites was the game. the scam was that home owners were used as pawns for speculators and financiers to make an easy buck with government guarantees that would mean taxpayers took the losses when the scheme unraveled.

[ms.smiler]

12. I’m in agreement with you Roy Rolling

Yes, homeowners were and remain pawns. Yes, the taxpayer does take the losses after the Federal Reserve and U.S. government purchased the failed MBS.

Part of this scheme though is how the banks use their private, (MERS) and our public land records systems.

The original mortgage lien was filed in our public land records with MERS as Nominee for the loan originator. The loan originator quickly sold the loan off to Wall Street for securitization and hasn’t owned it since. The balance of the history of the loan is tracked privately in the MERS database, not our public records.

Years later though, after the banks sold off the loans packaged as securities to the Fed and U.S. government and were paid on them, they are free to return to the original mortgage lien filed in our public land records.

All it takes is a fraudulent Assignment of Mortgage to steal that lien from our land records, file a foreclosure action and steal the property.

After all, why should our banksters collect payment on mortgage loans only once when they can collect multiple times? Aren’t our banksters innovative?

Our banksters are either collecting payments against loans that have already been paid or stealing homes if homeowners aren’t making their monthly shakedown payments.

If a homeowner goes to their land records and finds only the original mortgage filed with MERS as Nominee for the loan originator, it might be a splendid time to file a Quiet Title action and see if anyone can prove they own the loan and have a valid lien on the property. The chances are that whoever has the loan doesn’t have a lien.

I understand that any property that has MERS in the Title history doesn’t come with a clear Title. I also understand that it isn’t possible to obtain a legitimate mortgage while mortgage securitization is permitted and practiced. A person like me, isn’t about to enter the real estate market especially since this Wall Street scam hasn’t yet fully destroyed the value of our properties and stolen all our wealth, just most of it.


I’ve been researching mortgage/foreclosure fraud for nearly 3 years. I recently sued my mortgage servicer on a new issue in the fight against the banks and am presently awaiting a default judgment.

[Beavker]

7. Lesson:

I guess when you build it on fraud, greed, and shareholder interests, the housing market isn't really that strong.

No more crap loans, full doc, down payment (something, I'm not sure where exactly %20 came in, but something), and sorry...no more Mtg Interest deductions. Own a home because you want to. Have a kid because you want to.

[No Elephants]

15. ? Homebuyers were not responsible for collapse of the housing sector.

And I never knew anyone who had a child to get a tax deduction.

Sounds as though you are getting very bad info.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Nice misleading headline.

The drop is attributed to stricter lending and foreclosures.
Missing from this article is any way to separate the two attributes.


That said, current underwriting standards are much stricter and that should reduce the number of new borrower foreclosures.

[EFerrari]

14. Exactly. n/t

[seabeckind]

9. Another article I have to call BS on

The reason people aren't buying isn't because of tight credit.

It is because they don't want to buy -- they don't want to shove their money into something that they may not be able to get rid of when they need to get rid of it.

The article is trying to rationalize a situation by blaming the wrong people -- as usual. The only thing it's missing is a slam at poor people getting Fannie money.

My house has been for sale for 18 months. I'll be taking it off the market next month like so many others are. I bit the loss of potential profit when I put it up for sale. I'll take the $120,000 LOSS if I sell it -- I won't like it but I'll accept it.

The problem is nobody wants to buy the fukkin thing and I've got too much equity in it to walk away. So here I sit chained to the thing.

These "economists" can kiss my rosey red. They haven't a fukkin clue.

<on edit> The reason why there aren't as many being approved for credit? It's because nobody with any brains is asking for it. The only one coming thru the door is the one who shouldn't be there.

Sorry, a little bitter.

[krabigirl]

10. We rented ours out and are renting elsewhere now. Who knows when we will be able to sell it.

As for now, we have good tenants in there who pay on time and take care of it well, frankly better than we did!

[seabeckind]

11. Somebody else who suffers...sorry

A couple of lookers suggested I let them rent it (and leave my 45 yo maple furniture cause it looked so nice).

I'd get enough on the rental to cover my loan (15 year fixed to cover a small cost overrun when I built) and the taxes and insurance.

Why bother? Might as well stay here.