Odd Lots:Is There an Extremely Simple Fix for Affordable Housing?
Housing affordability remains one of the single greatest sources of economic stress. Even if inflation measures were to come down, the simple cost of shelter is a huge burden on a wide swathe of the population. Hardly anyone disagrees with the idea of increasing supply, but this is easier said than done. There isn't a lot of spare construction capacity and the political fights over liberalizing zoning are tedious and slow. On this episode, we speak with Kevin Erdmann, a senior affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who proposes a simple idea. He argues that after the Great Financial Crisis, regulators over-tightened lending standards, and in so doing, took out the entire "starter home" segment of the new housing market. He says that if Fannie and Freddie were to liberalize their lending standards, homebuilders would be incentivized to build more homes that cater to people with lower incomes and lower FICO scores, essentially re-creating a whole slice of the new home market that's disappeared over the last 15 years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
7 hours ago
- Washington Post
We asked 1,000 Americans about the L.A. protests. This is how they responded.
We asked 1,000 Americans about the L.A. protests. This is how they responded. We texted 1,000 Americans about the L.A. protests agitators that have no lives It will only escalate things These people just wanted to destroy suppressing freedom of speech out of control immigrants make America great This is how they responded. By Washington Post staff June 11, 2025 at 8:00 p.m. EDT 4 minutes ago What do Americans think about the protests in Los Angeles and President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines there? The Washington Post and George Mason University's Schar School texted more than 1,000 people Tuesday — including more than 200 California residents — to ask. The survey finds Americans are divided in their views toward L.A. protesters and Trump's decision to send the National Guard and Marines to the city. California residents are more critical of Trump's actions, as are Democrats and political independents. Americans are also mostly negative on Trump's handling of immigration, an issue that was a strength for him early in his presidency. Participants' answers have been lightly edited for clarity and style. Do you support or oppose Trump sending the National Guard and Marines to respond to the L.A. protests? Support 41% Unsure 15% Oppose 44% Deploying the military to crush political protest is classic authoritarian fascism, and must be opposed. California man, 38, independent Quell the uprising before it gets out of control. California man, 63, Republican It doesn't seem like the city or state asked for or wanted that support and seems to be escalating an already tenuous and difficult situation. Maryland woman, 37, Democrat Show more responses Americans are roughly split on Trump sending the National Guard and Marines to respond to the protests in L.A., while a majority of Californians oppose Trump deploying the military. Support Unsure Oppose California 32% In the "undefined" group, 32 percent of people responded with "Support." 10 In the "undefined" group, 10 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 58 In the "undefined" group, 58 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Other states 43 In the "undefined" group, 43 percent of people responded with "Support." 15 In the "undefined" group, 15 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 42 In the "undefined" group, 42 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Democrats 10 In the "undefined" group, 10 percent of people responded with "Support." 14 In the "undefined" group, 14 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 76 In the "undefined" group, 76 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Republicans 86 In the "undefined" group, 86 percent of people responded with "Support." 8 In the "undefined" group, 8 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 6 In the "undefined" group, 6 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Independents/Others 33 In the "undefined" group, 33 percent of people responded with "Support." 19 In the "undefined" group, 19 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 48 In the "undefined" group, 48 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Most Democrats oppose Trump sending the National Guard and Marines to L.A., while almost 9 in 10 Republicans support it. Independents lean against Trump's action by a 15-percentage-point margin, 48 percent to 33 percent. Tuned-in Americans tend to oppose sending the National Guard and Marines to L.A. Support Unsure Oppose Paying a lot of attention to L.A. protests (34%) 37% In the "undefined" group, 37 percent of people responded with "Support." 8 In the "undefined" group, 8 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 54 In the "undefined" group, 54 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Paying some attention (40%) 42 In the "undefined" group, 42 percent of people responded with "Support." 13 In the "undefined" group, 13 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 45 In the "undefined" group, 45 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Paying a little/no attention (26%) 46 In the "undefined" group, 46 percent of people responded with "Support." 26 In the "undefined" group, 26 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 29 In the "undefined" group, 29 percent of people responded with "Oppose." The more people are paying attention to the protests in L.A., the more likely they are to oppose Trump sending in the National Guard and Marines to respond to the protests. This is partly due to Democrats following the protests more closely, although independents who are paying more attention are also more critical of Trump's decision. Do you support or oppose the protests in Los Angeles against the federal government's immigration enforcement? Support 39% Unsure 21% Oppose 40% Americans are almost evenly split over the protests against the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts, with about 4 in 10 in support and opposition, and the remainder unsure. Riots are not peaceful protests. Damaging property and injuring people is not included in the right to assemble/protest. California woman, 56, independent Los Angeles is a county of immigrants who do a lot for our community & they are our friends. Most of them are hard working, great people. California woman, 72, Democrat I believe everyone has a right to disagree and protest ICE, however arson and violence is not acceptable. Florida man, 57, independent Show more responses Support Unsure Oppose California 45% In the "undefined" group, 45 percent of people responded with "Support." 19 In the "undefined" group, 19 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 36 In the "undefined" group, 36 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Other states 38 In the "undefined" group, 38 percent of people responded with "Support." 22 In the "undefined" group, 22 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 41 In the "undefined" group, 41 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Democrats 70 In the "undefined" group, 70 percent of people responded with "Support." 18 In the "undefined" group, 18 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 11 In the "undefined" group, 11 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Republicans 6 In the "undefined" group, 6 percent of people responded with "Support." 14 In the "undefined" group, 14 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 79 In the "undefined" group, 79 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Independents/Others 39 In the "undefined" group, 39 percent of people responded with "Support." 27 In the "undefined" group, 27 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 33 In the "undefined" group, 33 percent of people responded with "Oppose." Californians are more likely to support the protests, along with 7 in 10 Democrats. Independents are slightly more likely to support the protests than to oppose them, while about 8 in 10 Republicans are opposed. Do you think the L.A. protesters have been mostly peaceful or mostly violent? Mostly peaceful 35% Unsure 27% Mostly violent 37% Americans are also split over whether the protests in L.A. are mostly peaceful or mostly violent, with over one-quarter saying they are unsure. The protests in L.A. since Friday have been largely confined to a few city blocks. There have been sporadic, violent clashes involving a few protestors that prompted the mayor to impose a curfew. Mostly peaceful Unsure Mostly violent Democrats 60% In the "undefined" group, 60 percent of people responded with "Mostly peaceful." 23 In the "undefined" group, 23 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 16 In the "undefined" group, 16 percent of people responded with "Mostly violent." Republicans 11 In the "undefined" group, 11 percent of people responded with "Mostly peaceful." 23 In the "undefined" group, 23 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 66 In the "undefined" group, 66 percent of people responded with "Mostly violent." Independents/Others 35 In the "undefined" group, 35 percent of people responded with "Mostly peaceful." 32 In the "undefined" group, 32 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 33 In the "undefined" group, 33 percent of people responded with "Mostly violent." Six in 10 Democrats say the protesters have been mostly peaceful while two-thirds of Republicans say they have been mostly violent and independents are split. Are police using too much force dealing with L.A. protesters, not using enough force or handling it about right? Too much 31% About right 43% Not enough 26% About 3 in 10 Americans say police are using too much force dealing with L.A. protesters, about a quarter say they are not using enough force and over 4 in 10 say they are handling it 'about right.' Too much About right Not enough Democrats 55% In the "undefined" group, 55 percent of people responded with "Too much." 35 In the "undefined" group, 35 percent of people responded with "About right." 9 In the "undefined" group, 9 percent of people responded with "Not enough." Republicans 4 In the "undefined" group, 4 percent of people responded with "Too much." 46 In the "undefined" group, 46 percent of people responded with "About right." 50 In the "undefined" group, 50 percent of people responded with "Not enough." Independents/Others 34 In the "undefined" group, 34 percent of people responded with "Too much." 45 In the "undefined" group, 45 percent of people responded with "About right." 21 In the "undefined" group, 21 percent of people responded with "Not enough." Most Democrats say police are using too much force, while half of Republicans say they are not using enough force. Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Trump is handling immigration enforcement, including deportations? Approve 37% Unsure 12% Disapprove 52% The poll finds the public rating Trump's immigration policy — including deportations — negatively by a 15 percentage-point margin, 52 percent to 37 percent, an issue that was a strong point for him a few months ago. Approve Unsure Disapprove Voted for Trump 75% In the "undefined" group, 75 percent of people responded with "Approve." 13 In the "undefined" group, 13 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 12 In the "undefined" group, 12 percent of people responded with "Disapprove." Voted for Harris 5 In the "undefined" group, 5 percent of people responded with "Approve." 4 In the "undefined" group, 4 percent of people responded with "Unsure." 90 In the "undefined" group, 90 percent of people responded with "Disapprove." Three-quarters of Americans who voted for Trump approve of the president's immigration policy, while 9 in 10 of those who voted for Kamala Harris disapprove.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Zip Codes and Credit Scores: Why Your Address and FICO Score May Be Driving Up Your Car Insurance
New data reveals that your ZIP code can increase car insurance costs by 20–40%, while a poor credit score may lead to a shocking 60% increase; learn how to fight back and save money by understanding these hidden factors and shopping smart. LOS ANGELES, June 11, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- A new analysis from reveals that where you live and how you manage your credit may significantly affect what you pay for car insurance even more than your driving history. The findings are part of a broader education initiative tied to the company's latest report, How Often Should You Get a Car Insurance Quote?, which encourages drivers to regularly reassess their policies as insurers weigh unexpected factors in premium pricing. Key insights from the report and supporting data include: Your ZIP Code Can Add Hundreds to Your Annual Premium : According to analysis in Does Your Zip Code Impact Your Car Insurance Rates? , urban residents in high-density or high-claim areas can pay 20–40% more than drivers in neighboring ZIP codes—even when all other factors are equal. Theft rates, accident frequency, and even weather events can all play a role. Credit Score is Quietly One of the Biggest Factors in Pricing : Many drivers don't realize that their credit score can be as impactful as their driving record when it comes to setting rates. In The Role of Credit Score in Determining Insurance Rates , found that drivers with poor credit may pay up to 60% more than those with excellent credit even if they have a clean driving record. 2 in 3 Drivers Don't Know These Rules Exist : Consumer sentiment is one of confusion and frustration. According to internal surveys, fewer than 1 in 3 drivers are aware that non-driving factors like ZIP code and credit can impact their rates. The result? Many overpay without realizing they're being penalized for something unrelated to their behavior behind the wheel. Americans can get the best deal by checking their quote every 6-12 months : The article emphasizes the power of regular comparison shopping. With rates shifting due to economic and underwriting trends, checking quotes every 6–12 months is one of the most effective ways to save especially for those who've recently improved their credit or moved to a lower-risk area. "Drivers are often told that safe driving saves money. But too often, your ZIP code or FICO score does more to shape your premium than your time behind the wheel," said Fausto Bucheli, Founder & President at "We're committed to helping drivers take back control by understanding how the system works—and how to beat it." The Bottom Line: Knowledge is Savings offers a growing suite of tools and resources to help consumers better understand what's behind their rates and how to reduce them. From location-based quote comparisons to guidance on improving insurability, the platform helps drivers optimize their coverage without compromising protection. Explore the Full Report Visit to read How Often Should You Get a Car Insurance Quote? and access comparison tools, savings tips, and expert advice. About Founded in 1974, is a trusted insurance solutions broker dedicated to helping individuals and families across the United States find affordable, high-quality insurance coverage. With nearly five decades of experience, the company partners with top-rated national insurers to offer a wide array of products, including auto, SR-22, motorcycle, home, renters, life, health, RV, and boat insurance. simplifies the insurance shopping process through its user-friendly online platform, providing instant quotes tailored to each customer's unique needs. By combining unbeatable affordability with reliable coverage options, the company ensures that customers can secure the protection they need without compromising on quality. Headquartered in Chino Hills, California, is committed to delivering exceptional service and value to its clients nationwide. For more information, visit or contact info@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
This move by Trump could be ‘disastrous' for the mortgage market and drive up costs for home buyers even more
The housing market is facing a big development that could potentially shake up interest rates on home loans at a time when would-be buyers have been waiting for rates to drop. President Donald Trump has said he wants to change the way the government handles two giants in the real-estate world, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are presently under government conservatorship. Why Goldman Sachs says high-flying tech stocks may be headed for a tough stretch 'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell? U.S. debt-limit deadlock is making this favorite asset more scarce My friend, 83, wants to add me to his bank account to pay his bills. What could go wrong? 'I prepaid our mom's rent for a year': My sister is a millionaire and never helps our mother. How do I cut her out of her will? The two government-sponsored enterprises have a significant impact on Americans' daily lives. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each back one in four home mortgages in America today. When lenders originate conventional home loans to home buyers, Fannie and Freddie repackage those loans and sell them on the secondary market to investors. Fannie and Freddie also offer a guarantee that those loans will be repaid in full should they go bad. This system ensures that investors get paid and that home loans are widely available. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't always under the government's thumb. They initially traded on the public markets. Fannie Mae became a privately-held company in 1968, trading under the ticker FNMA on the New York Stock Exchange. But that changed during the subprime mortgage crisis. The two housing-finance giants collapsed in 2008 and were brought under the federal government's control. They were delisted in 2010, but they still trade over the counter. Many Republicans have advocated for releasing them from the government's conservatorship. In his first term, Trump tried to privatize the companies, but didn't, and he now appears to be trying again. Arguments for privatization include the potential to reduce taxpayer risk and cut the federal government's costs, as well as to introduce competition to the two giants. Democrats recently called on Trump to halt the re-privatization efforts. In a June 6 letter to the Trump administration, a group of Senate Democrats led by Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts expressed concern that making changes to the way the current housing-finance system operates would benefit investors while harming everyday Americans. 'Economists have warned that reprivatizing the enterprises could have disastrous effects on the mortgage market, driving up costs for homebuyers even further,' the senators wrote. 'For example, some experts have estimated that mortgage rates could increase by up to 1% in the first year of privatization alone.' The main issue is that it is unclear exactly how Fannie and Freddie would be privatized. Unsettled questions include: Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going to be relisted on the stock market? Are they still going to be rescued should they fail — meaning, will the government give the financial markets a guarantee should that happen? Will investors believe that the government will save them if they fail? Will Congress come up with a plan to provide an explicit guarantee to the two companies, which themselves guarantee trillions of dollars in mortgages? 'There are a lot of questions here,' Jim Parrott, a housing-finance analyst, told MarketWatch. Parrott was an economic advisor in President Barack Obama's administration. In response to MarketWatch, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said that the Trump administration is 'committed to strengthening the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to advance the president's mission of restoring the dream of homeownership for all Americans.' He added that 'any actions under consideration will be carefully evaluated in a safe and sound manner.' Depending on how the government proceeds, the average home buyer could be impacted. Here's how. Depending on what path the Trump administration takes, there are several factors that would determine whether mortgage rates would go up as a result, Parrott said. Mortgage rates are already high and have been a barrier to many people's plans to buy a home. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 6.95% as of June 9, according to Mortgage News Daily, and has remained close to 7% over the past few years. On the same date five years earlier, when Trump was last president, the average 30-year rate was 3.09%. One key variable is whether the financial markets expect the federal government to rescue Fannie and Freddie if they collapse again. Investors are worried about the 'extent and depth of the government's guarantee,' Parrott said, and that could impact how they view mortgage-backed securities that Fannie and Freddie create. If investors feel uncertain about the guarantee, they could demand a higher risk premium on such securities, and if they do that, that could flow to the average borrower in the form of higher mortgage rates, he explained. 'While both [government-sponsored enterprises] are now better capitalized and highly profitable, any release without clear terms around a government guarantee could drive up mortgage rates and destabilize the housing market,' said Alanna McCargo, former president of Ginnie Mae, which like Fannie and Freddie, also backs mortgages. Ginne Mae backs mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fannie and Freddie back conventional mortgages. Mat Ishbia, president and chief executive of United Wholesale Mortgage UWMC, one of the country's biggest mortgage lenders, said he shares that sentiment, broadly speaking. 'Rates going up would be tied to the implicit versus explicit backing of the federal government,' Ishbia told MarketWatch. 'This could cause interest rates to rise, which we hope doesn't happen.' Trump has tried to reassure the market that the government could provide an 'implicit guarantee' to bail out the companies if needed. That could assuage some fears among investors, Parrott said, but there is no certainty that future presidents would do the same. Trump 'can't give them any assurance that the next president would make the same decision,' Parrott continued, 'so until Congress weighs in with an explicit guarantee, there will always be this little bit of uncertainty for investors.' Borrowers with lower credit scores could also see higher mortgage rates than they do today, Parrott said. The current housing-finance system is set up to charge lower-risk borrowers more and higher-risk borrowers less, to increase the number of people who can afford a mortgage. The principal beneficiaries of this cross-subsidy have been home buyers with 'modest incomes,' those who have lower credit scores and those with higher loan-to-value ratios, meaning those whose down payments are smaller, according to a report by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. 'They keep mortgage rates lower than they would otherwise be for [borrowers with] somewhat higher credit risk,' Parrott said. If the Trump administration pushes for 'more risk-based pricing … [and] they're not providing that cross subsidy, then you would see those with higher credit risk seeing their mortgage rates go up even further,' he said. The wrinkle in this issue is that the Trump administration wants lower mortgage rates. The mortgage industry and real-estate agents also want lower rates, because home sales have stalled. Housing affordability has worsened significantly over the past few years as home buyers have been priced out by high interest rates and record-high home prices. For that reason, the administration may not even proceed with the privatization plan, UWM's Ishbia said. 'If rates go up because of this change, or this change happens and rates go up, that would be bad for everyone,' Ishbia said in a video last week. Ishbia praised actions that Federal Housing Finance Administrator Bill Pulte has taken at Fannie and Freddie recently, and suggested the enterprises could remain under conservatorship. 'Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac acting more private, but still being in conservatorship might be the best of both worlds,' he said in the video. 'We'll see what happens, but … if rates go up because of it, that's a negative, and I don't think that's going to happen.' The Trump administration has acknowledged concerns about privatization potentially pushing up mortgage rates. In a May interview with Bloomberg, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Treasury Department is 'doing a great deal of studying' of privatizing the GSEs, 'because the one requirement… for this privatization is that they are privatized in such a way that mortgage spreads — they do not widen,' Bessent said, referring to the difference between the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and the 10-year Treasury rate. One other outcome of the privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be higher fees for mortgage lenders, which could then get baked into mortgage rates, Parrott said. If the Trump administration wants Fannie and Freddie to earn a higher return — either to make it easier to bring them out of conservatorship or to make more money for the government — one way to do that would be to increase fees charged to lenders. Fannie and Freddie guarantee the payment of principal and interest on the mortgage-backed securities and they also charge lenders a fee for that. And that in turn could be passed on to the average borrower in the form of higher mortgage rates, Parrott said. But if the two entities remain under the government's control, it's unclear whether Fannie and Freddie will charge higher so-called guarantee fees, or g-fees, or keep them at their current levels. Ultimately, the question of whether to bring Fannie and Freddie out of conservatorship isn't controversial. 'The current administration is right to reopen this conversation after 17 years of conservatorship,' McCargo, the former Biden official, said. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac start acting like private companies, people may see 'more products, more options and more affordability across the board,' UWM's Isbhia said, 'which is a win for consumers.' But how the government handles the process is important, McCargo added. 'I think both the Treasury secretary and the FHFA director understand the stakes and the importance of pursuing any reform in a way that safeguards the housing market — an essential sector of the economy that makes up nearly 18% of U.S. GDP,' McCargo said. 'This is a big deal and must be approached with caution, careful deliberation, and purpose.' What personal-finance issues would you like to see covered in MarketWatch? We would like to hear from readers about their financial decisions and money-related questions. You can fill out or write to us at . A reporter may be in touch to learn more. MarketWatch will not attribute your answers to you by name without your permission. 'The situation is extreme': I'm 65 and leaving my estate to only one grandchild. Can the others contest my will? I bought my mother-in-law a condo — and she took out a $30,000 car loan. Now she refuses to get a roommate. How do I make sure my son-in-law doesn't get his hands on my daughter's inheritance? My life partner is 18 years my senior. He wants to leave his $4.5 million fortune to me — not his two kids. Do we tell them? Value investing is finally excelling again in 2025 — but there is one catch for Americans Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
