Stop pretending America’s housing boom had nothing to do with lending standards

Why did Americans (and Spaniards and Irish) borrow so much against housing in the 2000s, only to find themselves stuck with more debt than assets? It sounds like a simple question, but it’s surprisingly difficult for economists to agree on an answer.

The standard approach is to attribute the excesses to changes in the behaviour of lenders, who, for whatever reason, became much more eager to give mortgages to people they previously would have avoided with terms they previously would have considered reckless. (For more on the European cases, see here.)

For example, about a third of all mortgage debt originated in 2005 and 2006 was either subprime or “alt-A”, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, compared to the stable 1990-2003 average of about 10 per cent. Subsequent experience tarnished these product segments so badly they effectively disappeared.

Continue reading: Stop pretending America’s housing boom had nothing to do with lending standards

Why did Americans (and Spaniards and Irish) borrow so much against housing in the 2000s, only to find themselves stuck with more debt than assets? It sounds like a simple question, but it's surprisingly difficult for economists to agree on an answer.

The standard approach is to attribute the excesses to changes in the behaviour of lenders, who, for whatever reason, became much more eager to give mortgages to people they previously would have avoided with terms they previously would have considered reckless. (For more on the European cases, see here.)

For example, about a third of all mortgage debt originated in 2005 and 2006 was either subprime or "alt-A", according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, compared to the stable 1990-2003 average of about 10 per cent. Subsequent experience tarnished these product segments so badly they effectively disappeared.

Continue reading: Stop pretending America’s housing boom had nothing to do with lending standards