Saturday, June 19, 2010
New Mortgage Research
The following link goes to the latest HMDA research I conducted, this was for a presentation to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Publications
Below are links to several recent publications:
1. CFA Institute re: speculation
2. Scotsman's Guide re: self-storage
I'll have another one shortly re: the future of multi-family development.
1. CFA Institute re: speculation
2. Scotsman's Guide re: self-storage
I'll have another one shortly re: the future of multi-family development.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Freddie Mac
Below is a clip buried in Freddie Mac's 10-Q for the 2nd Quarter of 2009. Take a close look at the last line - if Freddie ends up selling its tax credit portfolio, the terms have the potential to change the affordable housing industry for a long time to come.
LIHTC Partnerships
We invest as a limited partner in LIHTC partnerships formed for the purpose of providing equity funding for affordable multifamily rental properties. The LIHTC partnerships invest as limited partners in lower-tier partnerships, which own and operate multifamily rental properties. These properties are rented to qualified low-income tenants, allowing the properties to be eligible for federal tax credits. Our investments in LIHTC partnerships totaled $3.9 billion and $4.1 billion as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. Although these partnerships generate operating losses, we realize a return on our investment through reductions in income tax expense that result from tax credits. Our exposure is limited to the amount of our investment; however, the potential exists that we may not be able to utilize some previously taken or future tax credits. In consultation with our Conservator, we are considering potential transactions to realize the value of these interests, if market conditions are appropriate.
LIHTC Partnerships
We invest as a limited partner in LIHTC partnerships formed for the purpose of providing equity funding for affordable multifamily rental properties. The LIHTC partnerships invest as limited partners in lower-tier partnerships, which own and operate multifamily rental properties. These properties are rented to qualified low-income tenants, allowing the properties to be eligible for federal tax credits. Our investments in LIHTC partnerships totaled $3.9 billion and $4.1 billion as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. Although these partnerships generate operating losses, we realize a return on our investment through reductions in income tax expense that result from tax credits. Our exposure is limited to the amount of our investment; however, the potential exists that we may not be able to utilize some previously taken or future tax credits. In consultation with our Conservator, we are considering potential transactions to realize the value of these interests, if market conditions are appropriate.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Long Two Months
Just finished two books on the subjects of cities, complexity, chaos theory, etc. The first was "The Self-Organizing Economy" by Paul Krugman. This book frustrated me for about 10 years, but I've finally made my way through it. The topic is fascinating, the writing less so. But, all in all, worth paying attention to (the guy won a Nobel Prize for his work in this area).
The second was "Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos" by M. Mitchell Waldrop. More like a history/story re: how the study of complexity began to take shape. The tough thing about this book is that it combines technical issues without much background info so while it is sort of interesting the lay person can/should skim various sections (if you are like me, you'll know when you get there because your eyes will glaze over).
Plus, I've since knocked down a couple of articles on the subject as well.
And, I found an interesting website on the topic: http://blog.casa.ucl.ac.uk/
Still lots more to learn and understand before getting back to some serious writing.
The second was "Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos" by M. Mitchell Waldrop. More like a history/story re: how the study of complexity began to take shape. The tough thing about this book is that it combines technical issues without much background info so while it is sort of interesting the lay person can/should skim various sections (if you are like me, you'll know when you get there because your eyes will glaze over).
Plus, I've since knocked down a couple of articles on the subject as well.
And, I found an interesting website on the topic: http://blog.casa.ucl.ac.uk/
Still lots more to learn and understand before getting back to some serious writing.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Micro or Macro?
For the last month I've been toying around with an idea that is both old and new for me - how the behavior/actions of individuals leads to contradictory outcomes for the group/whole. For example, I carry a gun for security, but then so does my neighbor, until we are all carrying guns - do we end up with more or less shootings both individually and as a whole? Or, I leave for work at 7:30 to get to work on time (i.e. I've allowed a little extra time in my current commute), but my neighbor does the same and so do a lot of other neighbors - yes, we may all get to work on time, but have we increased both individual commutes from 10 minutes to 20 minutes due to bottlenecks in traffic that would not occur if the departure times were coordinated?
Of course, once you think about it, you start to see this issue in a lot of things, but the first place I recall really thinking about it was working on my thesis regarding housing and school desegregation. As part of my research, I came across Thomas Schelling's book, Micromotives and Macrobehavior (). About that same time, A Beautiful Mind (the movie) was released and addressed similar topics regarding game theory (i.e. generally, the idea the behavior of a given agent results in/is affected by/and affects the behavior of others, which then affects the behavior decision making of the original agent, etc.). Since then, this issue has rattled around in the back of my head a lot but in vague ways.
The issue has some new aspects for me too. The more I've looked into it, the more I realize it has been under serious study for the last 40 years. Threads of this issue are found in Chaos Theory, Complexity, the Sante Fe Institute, etc. My particular interest is in the combination of geography and microbehavior (i.e. how/what we can learn from spatial data and the decisions of households that ultimately drives the formation and change of regions, cities, and neighborhoods). I think this bottom/up approach may shed serious light on policies aimed at desegregation, urban growth and decline, regionalism, and similar topics, perhaps much more than the traditional top/down approach (i.e. we have a city, how/why does it look the way it does).
So, expect to see more on this site as I dig deeper. Right now, I am in the middle of 20 articles, two books, and some serious math refreshing on the subject. If I survive that, maybe I have a new interest. If not, well, there's always gardening.
Of course, once you think about it, you start to see this issue in a lot of things, but the first place I recall really thinking about it was working on my thesis regarding housing and school desegregation. As part of my research, I came across Thomas Schelling's book, Micromotives and Macrobehavior (). About that same time, A Beautiful Mind (the movie) was released and addressed similar topics regarding game theory (i.e. generally, the idea the behavior of a given agent results in/is affected by/and affects the behavior of others, which then affects the behavior decision making of the original agent, etc.). Since then, this issue has rattled around in the back of my head a lot but in vague ways.
The issue has some new aspects for me too. The more I've looked into it, the more I realize it has been under serious study for the last 40 years. Threads of this issue are found in Chaos Theory, Complexity, the Sante Fe Institute, etc. My particular interest is in the combination of geography and microbehavior (i.e. how/what we can learn from spatial data and the decisions of households that ultimately drives the formation and change of regions, cities, and neighborhoods). I think this bottom/up approach may shed serious light on policies aimed at desegregation, urban growth and decline, regionalism, and similar topics, perhaps much more than the traditional top/down approach (i.e. we have a city, how/why does it look the way it does).
So, expect to see more on this site as I dig deeper. Right now, I am in the middle of 20 articles, two books, and some serious math refreshing on the subject. If I survive that, maybe I have a new interest. If not, well, there's always gardening.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Off the Beaten Path
I recently attended a Sagamore Institute for Policy Research (www.sipr.org) event with John Watkins (American Chamber of Commerce in China). I also just started Zakaria's "The Post-American World". Both of which have me thinking - is our relationship with China fundamentally different than all previous superpower relationships?
I think the answer is mostly yes because this relationship and/or conflict is primarily economic and cultural, not ideological, religious, or militaristic in nature (other than to protect economic interests). What ideology is China pushing? Communism? It doesn't seem that even China suggests communism as a viable form of government. What religion is China promoting? Buddhism (can a string be pushed)?
Some would argue that all superpower contests are economic in nature, perhaps so, but I would argue that they are often due to other causes and the economics become one form of weapon/defense. What happens when such a conflict is economic in nature? Here are some ideas:
1. military power is important but not omnipotent. It is important relative to a power's ability to protect its economic interests, but the interests themselves can be purchased rather than won by conflict.
2. the rule of law across countries (i.e. multi-jurisdictional arrangements) becomes more important than the rule of law within countries (i.e. a police force, a domestic judiciary, etc.).
3. transportation options (e.g. sea routes, pipelines, etc.), communication channels (e.g. satellites, a multinational presence, etc.), and economic blocs are more important than military alliances.
4. economic forms of organizations (e.g. partnerships, corporations, etc.) become more powerful than political forms of organization (e.g. city, states, nations, etc.).
I think the answer is mostly yes because this relationship and/or conflict is primarily economic and cultural, not ideological, religious, or militaristic in nature (other than to protect economic interests). What ideology is China pushing? Communism? It doesn't seem that even China suggests communism as a viable form of government. What religion is China promoting? Buddhism (can a string be pushed)?
Some would argue that all superpower contests are economic in nature, perhaps so, but I would argue that they are often due to other causes and the economics become one form of weapon/defense. What happens when such a conflict is economic in nature? Here are some ideas:
1. military power is important but not omnipotent. It is important relative to a power's ability to protect its economic interests, but the interests themselves can be purchased rather than won by conflict.
2. the rule of law across countries (i.e. multi-jurisdictional arrangements) becomes more important than the rule of law within countries (i.e. a police force, a domestic judiciary, etc.).
3. transportation options (e.g. sea routes, pipelines, etc.), communication channels (e.g. satellites, a multinational presence, etc.), and economic blocs are more important than military alliances.
4. economic forms of organizations (e.g. partnerships, corporations, etc.) become more powerful than political forms of organization (e.g. city, states, nations, etc.).
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Soloist
Linda and I attended a screening of The Soloist tonight - new film about a reporter that writes a story about a homeless man, befriends him, and ultimately struggles with his relationship to the homeless man/his ex-wife/etc. Stop reading if you like to see the movie before knowing the ending.
A couple of things I am sure of and a couple of things I am not. I am sure this movie accurately represents the difficulty many people face when engaging with the homeless. First, there is the frustration of getting plugged in to the "system". Seems like it would be easy - just volunteer/show up/be there - but it rarely is, at least on anything more than a one-time basis. Second, the issue of homelessness is often intertwined with other complicated problems like mental illness (see comments below). Third, once you get involved, you find that it is not necessarily a problem that wants a solution, or at least that wants a solution that you want (if this doesn't make sense, go see the movie). It is this last issue that I think discourages most volunteers - volunteers want solutions/fixes that make them feel good whereas most issues like this are in want of relationships (hey, could it be that liberals and conservatives can find something in common here??).
I am not sure this movie appropriately represents the homeless population at large. It focuses a lot on mental illness. This is certainly one issue closely tied to some homeless persons. It does not address many other correlated issues (e.g. substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.). And it does not reflect "economic" homelessness (i.e. homeless issues caused primarily by households that cannot afford a subsistence level of housing). This is the part that concerns me about a movie intended for the general public - does it create a perception that all homelessness is untreated mental illness?
Overall, the movie is well written, has some some great music (if you like classical cello), etc. It is great to see a full length pop movie intended for a general audience that addresses homelessness and won't be in the documentary category. But, homeless advocates will have to guard carefully against reviews that simply conclude homelessness and mental illness are one and the same.
A couple of things I am sure of and a couple of things I am not. I am sure this movie accurately represents the difficulty many people face when engaging with the homeless. First, there is the frustration of getting plugged in to the "system". Seems like it would be easy - just volunteer/show up/be there - but it rarely is, at least on anything more than a one-time basis. Second, the issue of homelessness is often intertwined with other complicated problems like mental illness (see comments below). Third, once you get involved, you find that it is not necessarily a problem that wants a solution, or at least that wants a solution that you want (if this doesn't make sense, go see the movie). It is this last issue that I think discourages most volunteers - volunteers want solutions/fixes that make them feel good whereas most issues like this are in want of relationships (hey, could it be that liberals and conservatives can find something in common here??).
I am not sure this movie appropriately represents the homeless population at large. It focuses a lot on mental illness. This is certainly one issue closely tied to some homeless persons. It does not address many other correlated issues (e.g. substance abuse, domestic violence, etc.). And it does not reflect "economic" homelessness (i.e. homeless issues caused primarily by households that cannot afford a subsistence level of housing). This is the part that concerns me about a movie intended for the general public - does it create a perception that all homelessness is untreated mental illness?
Overall, the movie is well written, has some some great music (if you like classical cello), etc. It is great to see a full length pop movie intended for a general audience that addresses homelessness and won't be in the documentary category. But, homeless advocates will have to guard carefully against reviews that simply conclude homelessness and mental illness are one and the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
