Upload
ashlee-jones
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
Overview
Brief Tour of the Top 8 Subsidies to Housing Finance Description and Examples Pros and Cons Best and Worst Cases
Details in the Paper with Marja
3
#1 Interest Rate Subsidy:Direct to Lender
Reducing the effective rate through direct subsidies to market lenders
E.g., reduce 15% rate by 1/3rd or by 5% or to 10% (from market); each is different
Life of loan or phase out? Delivery: cash payment, subsidy to funding
Rationales: Housing is too costly: general access Targeting: by income, size of loan, 1st time buyer,
age? Address the tilt effect of inflation (w/phase out)
4
#1 Interest Rate Subsidy:Direct to Lender
(Cont’d) Pros:
Simple to understand, relatively simple to implement Cons:
Pretty inefficient unless tightly targeted, because of “buying out the base”
Inequitable if not gradated by income Not useful for LIH issues: requires access to HF Requires competitive lenders Usually very bad budgeting practices If deep, it encourages excessive borrowing,
discourages early repayment
5
#1 Interest Rate Subsidy:Direct to Lender
(Cont’d) Worst Case: Hungary pays 10% on funds
raised by mortgage bonds Cost of funds < 0.0% No budgeting of future cost On top of Bauspar, other rate subsidies, and tax
subsidy When loan rate < savings rate, 10x increase
Best Case: Jordan funds out of fixed pot, fully budgeted currently, and targeted
6
#2 Interest Rate Subsidy: Special Funds
Reducing the effective rate by drawing on special, non-market funds, often through non-market lenders
E.g., using civil service retirement funds to finance low-rate loans to some, but not all, members of Fund, usually through state-owned entities
Examples: Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines
Rationales: A service to the contributors (but severely
undermines the main goal of the fund)
7
#2 Interest Rate Subsidy:
Special Funds (Cont’d)
Cons: All of the above (#1), plus Costs are more thoroughly out of sight Deeply distortive of both purpose of fund and
evolution of HF in country; hard to reform Highly regressive
Benefits to higher income, cost to low income workers
Bad Cases: All, depending on: How deeply below-market is the rate or other non-
market terms (FRM, indexation) Nature of targeting Nature of delivery system (role of private lenders)
8
#3 Interest Rate Subsidy:
Tax Relief Reducing the effective rate by granting deduction
from taxable income for mortgage interest E.g., deduct interest at 15% when tax rate is 30%, so
pay only 10% Limits on interest, loan, or house price? Limits on tax rate (makes it a “tax credit”)? Include implicit income from housing in income?
Rationales: Homeownership (but usually not targeted) Housing too expensive (but why?) Loans too expensive (but why?)
9
#3 Interest Rate Subsidy:
Tax Relief (Cont’d)
Pros: Simple to implement Equity with those who have much cash Cheap initially, when few have loans/pay taxes
Cons: Cost is hidden, increasing Causes/softens higher tax rates Very inefficient if to boost ownership Very regressive if not capped credit Pushes up prices if inelastic supply
10
#3 Interest Rate Subsidy:
Tax Relief (Cont’d)
Worst Case: US has almost no limit and
encourages consumer debt in general Best Case:
UK gradually reduced the size and then eliminated it, and has introduced other support for homeownership.
11
#4 Savings Schemes Subsidy related to savings for housing:
Bauspar system in Germany Epargne-Logement in France Open, market rate system
Tying of savings to access to other subsidies Subsidy to low-income savers
Rationales Indicates and increases creditworthiness Increases total savings Stable pool of funds for lending “Complementary funding” (peculiar to Germany)
12
#4 Savings Schemes (Cont’d)
Pros (of BS and E-L) May indicate creditworthiness (but may not, or info may not
be needed or used) Stabilizes interest rate (but destabilizes the budget) Stabilizes funding (but with major distortions; needed?)
Cons (of BS and E-L) Huge cost of “buying out the base” Not much impact on housing (in Central Europe) Very difficult to modify
Can destabilize the system if new entrants decline Political attractions (reward to the “virtuous”)
13
#4 Savings Schemes (Cont’d)
Worst Case: The Czech Republic set up a BS system in 1993, and
has not changed the 25% premium despite a sharp decline in market rates on savings and lending (12% on BS v. 4% market). Now almost 50% of citizens have account
Best Case: Chile and South Africa tie priority access to lump-sum
subsidy to length and depth of savings Not aware of a supplement to market rate on savings
that is closely tied to income?
14
#5 Insurance: Primary Market
The state takes on some or all of the credit risk associated with individual housing loans
May or may not make an appropriate charge All or a share or the top part of risk? Optional or mandatory? Targeted?
Rationales Deal with uncertainties (small or large) about legal or
political environment for recovery Cover extra risks associated with lower-income or
high LTV lending
15
#5 Insurance: Primary Market
(Cont’d)
Pros Can diversify risk over submarkets and over lenders
within a country Can deal with some of the uncertainty about extending
credit at lower income levels or higher LTV ratios (but should only take part of risk that market cannot currently; set a sunset?)
Cons Dangers of adverse selection, moral hazard, political
pricing and management Reduction in pressure to resolve sources of risk
16
#5 Insurance: Primary Market
(Cont’d) Bad Cases:
Brazil insured against excessive accumulation of capitalized inflation and is still paying a huge bill.
Philippines was operating a system that seemed not actuarially sound.
US’ FHA has had to be recapitalized twice
Good Cases: Lithuania and South Africa have limited their capital
commitments to mortgage insurers, and operate on commercial principles. South Africa’s MI has commercially reinsured its risks.
17
#6 Insurance: Funding Market
The state takes on some or all of the financial risks associated with the operation of wholesale funding systems
Implicit or explicit? Public or public/private or private? Securitization or liquidity facility or mortgage bank
Rationales A “blanket guarantee” removes all perceived risks
involved in potentially more efficient ways of accessing capital markets, helping to achieve larger scale and greater innovation
18
#6 Insurance: Funding Market
(Cont’d)Pros
Such direct intervention can force change in the funding market
Useful for redirecting funds within a diverse country
Cons As with all guarantees, the losses are potentially
very large and there may be incentives to take advantage of the situation to some degree
Needs to be matched with statutory or regulatory limits that limit risk taking and encourage prudent management; also a sunset might be the best idea.
19
#6 Insurance: Funding Market
(Cont’d) Good Case:
A private securitization conduit such as Fannie Mae can drive a lot of good innovation, but also has incentives to take on excessive risk (e.g., act as a mortgage bank).
Better Case: Liquidity facilities such the US’ Federal Home
Loan Bank, Cagamas in Malaysia, and the JMRC in Jordan, are inherently lower risk.
20
#7 Lump Sum Grant In principle, the state provides those in the
target group a sum of money to use to buy a house in the way they see best
This is potentially the most efficient and transparent subsidy, since the size of grant is clear, the use is least constrained, and the least distortion to the market
In practice, the assistance comes with strings, such as buying a newly constructed house at a specific location, or it is tied to borrowing. It may also be difficult to implement.
21
#7 Lump Sum Grant (Cont’d)
Pros Cost is transparent and budgeted Allocation can be made transparent (forces discussion of
“equity”) and can be used to encourage savings Beneficiary evaluation tends to be closer to market costs
Cons Usually tie in to “non-market” new housing, with
debatable resale value and perhaps dubious locations May require “non-market” finance to make feasible
22
#7 Lump Sum Grant (Cont’d)
Good Cases: Chile pioneered this, but had to rely on state-
sponsored lending to make it work (see #8) South Africa did so on a massive scale, but relied on
“free” land and infrastructure and “first-come, first-served” allocation, and did not integrate finance
Pure Case: Germany offers all first time homebuyers a grant
spread over 8 years, that can help downpayment or with financing
No redistribution, but much better than other subsidies to middle-class ownership
23
#8 State Housing Banks Direct state intervention into the primary
market, through a state-controlled entity Could be partly private, or on commercial principles Market or special funding, instruments
Rationales In theory, it can pioneer the business of market-
rate lending for housing. In practice, it is usually a convenient shortcut in
developing housing finance without establishing proper conditions.
24
#8 State Housing Banks (Cont’d)
Pros Such an institution will deliver in the short-run, and,
if run on commercial principles, could possibly draw private lenders into the market
Cons Irresistible to political process to shortcut funding
and credit risk realities Also tends to prevent private entry, incur huge credit
losses, use inappropriate instruments, be a channel for corruption, and have high operating costs. Often a financial disaster.
25
#8 State Housing Banks (Cont’d)
Bad Cases Almost all, especially when tied into
special funds (see #2) Not So Bad Cases
Jordan and Thailand were able to keep theirs on commercial principles, and demonstrate potential for lending at lower middle income levels.
26
Summary Ratings? Good, bad, or ugly?
One can make such generalizations, but in fact, not black and white, so won’t do so here. E.g.,
Tax subsidies not so bad if a credit and tightly limited Lump-sum subsidies not so good if require access to
finance, and that’s not possible without hidden subsidies (e.g., state housing bank)
Key is close connection to goal, structuring to be efficient, transparent, equitable, and non-abused