House flipping fraud in Florida

I received the following email from Eric Budish, the Chicago market designer:

"I came across a neat investigative journalism feature on a form of mortgage fraud called “house flipping” .

The newspaper reviewed 19mm Florida real-estate transactions, and found that 50,000 involved appreciation of 30%+ in less than 90 days. They investigate one fraud circle in depth, and have features on the local police, lenders, etc.

What makes the fraud tick is that the buyer can finance at the new price. So if A legitimately buys a house for 100, then immediately sells it to his buddy B for say 150, B can get a mortgage against the 150 (especially if his buddy C is a real-estate appraiser). Even if B makes a small down payment on the 150, together A and B have extracted 50 minus downpayment minus fees in cash from the transaction. B never intends to repay the 150, and B’s mortgage lender is severely under collateralized.

The reason I think this is all so interesting is that the fraud is only possible because houses are idiosyncratic, but not too idiosyncratic. If houses were perfect substitutes, then A, B and C couldn’t trick the mortgage lender about house values (50,000 flips is a lot, and likely an underestimate, but still less than 1% of transactions). If houses were substantially more idiosyncratic, then banks would never have gotten in the habit of financing 90%+ of the purchase price in the first place: in the event of foreclosure they’d have to worry about whether the right types of buyers would be in the market. Put differently, the housing market is not too thick, but not too thin."

Real estate brokers and the internet

Now that many houses for sale can be viewed on the internet, it is entirely possible to conduct a search for a house without the assistance of a real estate broker. But a peculiarity of the real estate market is that a buyer who does not use a broker may not reduce the fees paid in the transaction. A typical seller's contract with the broker who helps put the house on the market (the "originating broker") is for 6% of the selling price. If the buyer is accompanied by an agent, this fee is split between the two. If the buyer comes without an agent, the 6% is paid entirely to the originating broker.

An internet brokerage firm has seen this as an opportunity. Redfin.com offers to represent buyers and refund 50% of Redfin's half of the fee set by the originating broker and seller. So, if the fee is the conventional 6% of the sales price, Redfin as the buyer's broker would get 3% and refund 1.5%. That is, if you are on the verge of buying a house for a million dollars without a broker, but instead close the deal through Redfin, they will give you $15,000. That's not a bad reason to have an agent.

Obviously this is inefficient from the point of view of the buyer, seller, and originating broker (since if they could negotiate efficiently they could divide among themselves the 15K that Redfin keeps). But the final moments of the negotiations are tense ones, in which the reservation values of all three parties are unknown, so this may not be the kind of 3-way negotiations in which we should expect efficiency. So Redfin may have a good business.

I keep expecting the real estate market to undergo some fundamental change, and maybe this is a sign of pressure building.

HT: Michael Schwarz

p.s. for completeness, I note that Redfin also offers discounted sell-side services, part of which come with a fee that is not contingent on whether or not a sale results.

Opposite of repugnance: Protected transactions

I've been thinking lately about transactions that are the opposite of repugnant, i.e. transactions that, as a society, we often seek to promote, for reasons other than efficiency or pure political expediency.

In yesterday's post I mentioned monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, which in many countries and U.S. states is promoted over other forms of marriage (such as polygamy or same sex marriage).

Home ownership in the US is an obvious one, in this post-housing-bubble financial crisis, in which there have been Federal bailouts of the various Government Sponsored Entities like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, set up to promote home ownership.

Food production by small farmers, not only in the US, but also in Europe and Japan: we protect this by subsidies, price supports, government supported crop insurance programs, etc.

Fishing by small fishing boats: if we were only interested in protecting fish to keep fisheries sustainable, we might regulate fisheries by imposing seasonal limits on how much could be caught. But in many cases we also set daily limits (e.g. some fishermen on Cape Cod are limited to catch no more than 400lbs of scallops a day). This makes large, factory fishing uneconomical, and protects small local fishermen.

The right to purchase guns probably falls into this category in the U.S.

Of course, as with repugnant transactions, protected transactions may involve a lot of complications, like providing public goods and protecting rights. But it may be that to better understand which kinds of transactions may come to be regarded as repugnant, it will help to understand which kinds of transactions are sometimes protected.

Update: looking at the comments, commuting alone in a car seems worth including on the list of protected transactions in the U.S. (And thank you to Dubner at Freakonomics for his generous plug of this blog...)

Property rights and real estate: Squatting in Britain

Markets allocate rights, but laws determine what those rights entail. Britain's real estate laws are unusual in giving owners only limited rights to their property when it is unoccupied. The Washington Post reports: Recession Revives Britain's Squatter Movement

"Squatting -- taking up residence in a vacant building -- has been a tradition in Britain since at least the 14th century, as well as a barometer of the times. It boomed after each of the 20th century's two world wars, when returning soldiers needed places to live, then picked up steam again in the radical 1960s.
Now, despite local governments' efforts to discourage it, squatting appears to be on the rise once more as a deep recession hits the country.
In Britain, trespassing is a civil offense, not a criminal one. Provided the squatters do not break a window or door to enter or otherwise damage the property, police are largely powerless to remove them.
Landlords must petition a court for an eviction order, and they can be prosecuted if they attempt to remove the intruders by force. " ...

""The owners are upset and distressed about this. They can't understand how the squatters can be permitted to break into their house and live there," said Andrew Jeffrey, a lawyer who represents the owners of the Mayfair house. "In nine out of 10 countries around the globe, this would not be tolerated, and the police would remove them immediately."
Nic Madge, a circuit court judge in London and a specialist in property law, said proposals in the 1970s to criminalize squatting were defeated in the face of "considerable political opposition."
"The standard British sign, 'Trespassers will be prosecuted,' is generally a legal fiction," Madge said. "

"Ron Bailey, an activist who started Britain's modern squatting movement in 1968 and has written books about squatting, said Britons have a history of sympathy for the practice that goes back hundreds of years. "We look at it as a social good," he said. "If it's a house left empty for a long time, I don't think people see anything wrong with it."

House swaps

Tight real estate markets make it especially difficult to complete transactions in which each party needs to sell his own house before he can buy another. Michael Ostrovsky points me to a variety of house-swap plans that resemble kidney exchange in various ways, including combinations of two-way exchanges, and larger exchanges and chains.

Here's a Times of London report: If you can’t sell your home, then swap it

Here's a WSJ report: I'll Buy Your HouseIf You Buy Mine

"Both sides of a swap transaction typically close simultaneously -- taking away the risk of being saddled with two mortgages at once, or of having to borrow more after purchasing a new home because your old house didn't sell for as much as you thought it would. When swap partners meet directly online they also save on brokers' sales commissions -- usually 4% to 7% in most markets. If there are homes of unequal value, one buyer provides the cash or gets a mortgage to make up the difference experts say.
Mr. Sawtelle found his swap via a $19.95 listing on OnlineHouseTrading.com, one of at least six swap sites started in the past year. Four have started in just the past seven months, including OnlineHouseTrading.com, GoSwap.org, DaytonaHomeTrader.com and DomuSwap.com. Together the six sites have roughly 16,000 postings. At Craigslist.org, the popular ad site, the number of "home swap" listings -- which includes people trading homes temporarily for vacation -- jumped 56%, to 7,392 in the 12 months ending in December, the company says, and much of the growth came from people trying to permanently sell each other their homes."

Note that even some of the simple game theory that leads to simultaneous kidney exchanges also leads to simultaneous house exchanges, despite the fact that it's perfectly legal to write contracts about the sale of houses.

Housemate match

A matching service run by the Atlanta JCC: Housemate Match

"Housemate Match (HMM) is a unique, nationally recognized, home sharing program that matches mature adult homeowners who have extra room in their homes with adults (tenants) seeking a roommate in a beautiful and safe place to live in the Atlanta area.
HMM provides rooms to rent for those who prefer to share a home rather than living alone and for those who choose to remain in their home and age in place.
International friends are welcome. "

Houses cost more in the summer. Here’s why

Tim Harford, reporting on the work of Rachel Ngai and Silvana Tenreyro of the London School of Economics, suggests it has to do with the thickness of the market.

He says "If Ngai and Tenreyro are right, then the housing market dynamic is something like this: buyers slightly prefer to buy houses in the summer, so house prices are slightly higher in the summer, so sellers prefer to put their houses on the market in the summer, and with more houses on the market, the market is thicker. That means that buyers are more likely to find the exact house they want, and so are willing to pay more; with prices higher, more sellers are attracted into the summer market, and fewer will contemplate selling in the winter. And so on. The self-reinforcing process can produce a large gap between summer and winter prices."