Harvard Business Review’s “Daily Stat”reported on a study that shows that homeowners give less when their home equity
is down. They are more affected by loss of home equity than loss of other
sources of wealth, such as stocks and bonds.
Households increase their gifts to charity by nearly 1% for every 10% increase in home equity. That’s about 10 times the effect of increase in other types of wealth, such as stocks and bonds, says Chau Do and Irina Paley of the U.S. Treasure. The finding may be ominous for charities: A long-lasting 20% decline in U.S. home equity would mean a $52-per-homeowner decrease in donations, or about $3.8 billion less for charities nationwide, the researchers say.
The idea that people know what their home equity is -- and
know whether their house value is declining, stable, or rising -- doesn’t
surprise me at all. “What’s my house
worth?” is a frequently asked question in my personal and professional life. Those same people have only a vague idea of
how their paper investments (stocks, bonds…) are faring.
What is curious to me is that people feel much more
financially secure or insecure based on their home equity. A house is an odd investment.
Most investment vehicles do not have utility while they are declining or
rising. Real property has the value of putting a roof over your head or
generating rental income while it puts a roof over someone else’s head. The
cost of housing, once purchased, is fairly stable. Mortgages are stable, or
maybe even going down based on refinancing. The variation is in taxes and
repair costs.
Your stocks, bonds, or other paper investments mean nothing
until you cash them in for goods and services. And they are easier to cash in. Paper
investments take a phone call or a couple of clicks on the computer to
liquidate. Yet real property is much harder to liquidate for cash, were you in
a pinch. Housing is notoriously slow to sell. So, owning a house is not a quick
way out of financial trouble.
Why is it that people feel “rich” or “poor” based on their
home equity. Shouldn’t they be counting their paper investments first? Are you a homeowner-Scrooge? If so, why?
3 comments:
The market value of your investments and property is irrelevant unless you are ready to sell.
People foolishly believe they are richer when the stock/bond market rises -- yet they own the same securities that they did before the rise. Moreover, an inflated stock market means that their ongoing retirement contributions are worth LESS. When the market rises, it is harder for a mid-career investor to achieve her investment goals. When the market falls, it is easier to achieve them. You are only wealthier when the underlying assets improve, and that doesn't change nearly as fast as the trading markets.
An inflated market does give you the opportunity to rotate into other assets, but most people don't have the sophistication to do this successfully, and it is hard to imagine how one would rotate out of housing. (Live in a box?) People would be better off if they focused on their earnings and savings rather than on the market value of their investments.
TFF, I agree that perception (feeling richer) is not the same as being richer. But, do you have an explanation for why housing equity has such a strong effect on charitable giving? I find the data on that interesting because it is more irrational than the stock and bond perceptions.
Do you think charity-givers react more strongly to housing equity drops because housing is expected to be a less volatile asset than paper assets?
Rona, I am suspicious of a false correlation.
More than stock and bond prices, housing prices are sensitive to the general economic well-being of the middle class. When people are doing well, housing prices rise. When people are doing poorly, housing prices fall.
Likely that housing equity is an indicator variable, not the relevant causal variable.
Post a Comment