Clinton or Trump: Who’s better for housing?

by Ryan Smith03 Nov 2016
There are a lot of issues at stake in the coming election, but of course there’s one that will affect the mortgage industry directly – housing.

So which candidate is better for the housing industry? It depends largely on one’s point of view, since the candidates have espoused different priorities when it comes to the housing market, a real estate expert said.

“What we’ve really got is a more directional conversation: One party talking about affordable housing, the other party talking about deregulating a financial market that seems to have largely seized up,” Rick Sharga, executive vice president of real estate marketplace Ten-X, told CNBC. “It would be nice to see a more holistic view that talks about issues.”

While both issues are important, Jaret Seiberg, managing director at the Cowan Group, told CNBC that homes need to be more affordable and accessible to jumpstart the market.

“I think that means lowering FHA premiums, cutting GSE guarantee fees, doing things to make mortgages cheaper,” he said. “It also means eliminating the perception out there that people can’t qualify for credit.”

While Trump hasn’t said as much about housing as Clinton, his anti-regulation stance could bode well for the industry in one way: the easing of Dodd-Frank regulations.

“…Clearly his whole campaign is about growing the economy and smashing through regulations, so I think you could see real upside with Trump, provided the economy and the other parts of his agenda don’t derail it,”Seiberg told CNBC.

Clinton, meanwhile, has articulated proposals to boost homeownership, which is currently near record lows. Specifically, she favors down-payment assistance to underserved communities. But researchers at Capital Economics expressed doubts that the plan would supercharge homebuying, CNBC reported.

“Specifically, the plan would match up to $10,000 in savings for households who earn less than area median income to put towards a down payment on a first home,” they said. “On the plus side, that will encourage some households to save more. But we doubt it will be a game changer in terms of getting more people onto the housing ladder.”

According to Capital Economics, Clinton’s focus on down payments doesn’t address the fact that many Americans are prevented from buying not for lack of money, but because of onerous credit requirements.

“And even if the proposals do help more people to buy, the eventual outcome will be higher house process, benefiting existing rather than potential homeowners,” the researchers said.

Photo: Rich Girard


  • by OldHoopsJunkie | 11/3/2016 4:59:00 PM

    Make mortgages cheaper? Young man, did you just arrive from a distant galaxy? I've been an adult watching the mortgage market for 50 years now, and we are in the era of cheapest mortgages EVER. Mortgage rates are as low as, or lower than, in the 1950s, when I was a single-digits-age small child. In fact, they are VASTLY lower, because then, a very large percentage of the population was excluded from the mortgage market by one discriminatory means or another.

    Yes, I know ... Your job is to flack for the lenders who want to whine, like the oil industry, about all that government regulation.

    But the fact is that they and you are liars. Paid liars. You know it. I know it. And maybe one day, you'll find the integrity to write honestly. But not today.

  • by Rikard Kilgaren | 11/3/2016 5:31:40 PM

    I agree with OldHoopsjunkie. In 1981, I received a mortgage with an interest rate of 16.75% and was just happy that I could GET A HOME LOAN!

    Mr. Trump will be better for ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS! Art least we can believe what he says! Not like Crooked Hillary and Lying Obama - you know, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Mortgage Professionals (the publication) should stay out of the political arena.

    Further, without the false support from the Fed with respect to rates - right now, there would be no mortgage market. Why? Because when the rates increase, there will be billions - if not trillions - of dollars diverted from the money supply (real and notional) to support the Debt Service on the National Debt. We actually may see a return to the late 1970s and early 1980s when rates hit 16% and more - IF YOU CAN GET ANYONE TO LEND! Cost of funds will be atmospheric! Do not forget, the Prime Rate has been 21.5% in the past. It can happen again.

  • by Captain America | 11/4/2016 10:30:29 AM

    Well said OldHoops! But Richard's comments about Obama and Hillary are getting old and tired.....they are straight out of the old FOX playbook and obviously bereft of any research or regard for history! The sitting POTUS (and I realize not on his own) has presided over an economic recovery that well exceeds Mitt Romney's campaign predictions. And AGAIN, before you attack this administration for AT LEAST trying to reign in a tyrannical Health Care industry, maybe you can remind me of what the GOP was offering as solutions....yep, Bubkus! If you really want to nail down on true and utter corruption, I have a few words for you, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and so forth...this country will paying for their behavior long after we are dead and buried.
    Now, back to Dodd-Frank and the CFPB, there is no crying in Retail Lending. Suck it up and work harder. And if Trump were ever to get elected, you would soon learn that he has NO PLAN for anything...he is a carnival barker and you are all lined up to give him your money.


Should CFPB have more supervision over credit agencies?