Personal Finances

If you were one of the millions of Americans who took out subprime mortgages in the years between 2001 and 2005, you probably have some pressing financial problems. If you defaulted on your subprime ARM, you may have suffered foreclosure on your newly acquired asset, lost any equity that you'd built up in it, and taken a hit in your credit rating. (We'll assume that you're not one of the people whose eagerness to get on the subprime bandwagon caused fraudulent mortgage applications to go up by 300 percent between 2002 and 2006).

On the other hand, you've probably learned a few lessons about financial planning and strategy. Let's conclude with a survey of three lessons that you should have learned from your hypothetical adventure in the world of subprime mortgages.

Lesson 1: All mortgages are not created equal. Despite (or perhaps because of) the understandable enticement of home ownership, your judgment may have been faulty in this episode of your financial life cycle. Generally speaking, you're better off with a fixed-rate mortgage - one on which the interest rate remains the same regardless of changes in market interest rates - than with an ARM. As we've explained at length in this chapter, planning is one of the cornerstones of personal-finances management, and ARMs don't lend themselves to planning. How well can you plan for your future mortgage payments if you can't be sure what they're going to be?

In addition, though interest rates may go up or down, planning for them to go down and to take your mortgage payments with them doesn't make much sense. You can wait around to get lucky, and you can even try to get lucky (say, by buying a lottery ticket), but you certainly can't plan to get lucky. Unfortunately, the only thing you can really plan for is higher rates and higher payments. An ARM isn't a good idea if you don't know whether you can meet payments higher than your initial payment. In fact, if you have reason to believe that you can't meet the maximum payment entailed by an ARM, you probably shouldn't take it on.

Lesson 2: It's risky out there. You now know - if you hadn't suspected it already - that planning your personal finances would be a lot easier if you could do it in a predictable economic environment. But you can't, of course, and virtually constant instability in financial markets is simply one economic fact of life that you'll have to deal with as you make your way through the stages of your financial life cycle.

In other words, any foray into financial markets is risky. Basically, risk is the possibility that cash flows will be variable. Unfortunately, volatility in the overall economy is directly related to just one category of risks. There's a second category - risks related to the activities of various organizations involved in your financial transactions. You've already been introduced to the effects of these forms of financial risk, some of which have affected you directly, some of which have affected you indirectly, and some of which may affect you in the future:

• Management risk is the risk that poor management of an organization with which you're dealing may adversely affect the outcome of your personal-finances planning. If you couldn't pay the higher rate on your ARM, managers at your lender probably failed to look deeply enough into your employment status and income.
• Business risk is the risk associated with a product that you've chosen to buy. The fate of your mortgagor, who issued the original product - your subprime ARM - and that of everyone down the line who purchased it in some form (perhaps Freddy Mac and Merrill Lynch) bear witness to the pitfalls of business risk.
• Financial risk refers to the risk that comes from ill-considered indebtedness. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and several investment banks have felt the repercussions of investing too much money in financial instruments that were backed with shaky assets (namely, subprime mortgages).

In your own small way, of course, you, too, underestimated the pitfalls of all three of these forms of risk.

Lesson 3: Not all income is equally disposable. Figure 14.13 "Debt-Income Ratio" shows the increase in the ratio of debt to disposable income among American households between 1985 and 2007. As you can see, the increase was dramatic - from 80 percent in the early 1990s to about 130 percent in 2007". This rise was made possible by greater access to credit - people borrow money in order to spend it, whether on consumption or on investments, and the more they can borrow, the more they can spend.

In the United States, greater access to credit in the late 1990s and early 2000s was made possible by rising housing prices: the more valuable your biggest asset, the more lenders are willing to lend you, even if what you're buying with your loan - your house - is your biggest asset. As the borrower, your strategy is twofold: (1) Pay your mortgage out of your wage income, and (2) reap the financial benefits of an asset that appreciates in value. On top of everything else, you can count the increased value of your asset as savings: when you sell the house at retirement, the difference between your mortgage and the current value of your house is yours to support you in your golden years.

Figure 14.13 Debt-Income Ratio

As we know, however, housing prices had started to fall by the end of 2006. From a peak in mid-2006, they had fallen 8 percent by November 2007, and by April 2008 they were down from the 2006 peak by more than 19 percent - the worst rate of decline since the Great Depression. And most experts expected it to get worse before it gets better, and unfortunately they were right. Housing prices have declined by 33 percent from the mid-2006 peak to the end of 2010.

So where do you stand? As you know, your house is worth no more than what you can get for it on the open market; thus the asset that you were counting on to help provide for your retirement has depreciated substantially in little more than a decade. If you're one of the many Americans who tried to substitute equity in property for traditional forms of income savings, one financial specialist explains the unfortunate results pretty bluntly: your house "is a place to live, not a brokerage account". If it's any consolation, you're not alone: a recent study by the Security Industries Association reports that, for many Americans, nearly half their net worth is based on the value of their home. Analysts fear that many of these people - a significant proportion of the baby-boom generation - won't be able to retire with the same standard of living that they've been enjoying during their wage-earning years.