Resident-owned Communities USA, a new non-profit that will bring the New Hampshire model out to scale across the country, is hiring for two new positions.

These are not entry-level jobs.

ROC is seeking:

In its report on fourth quarter results, made on Feb. 12th, Pasadena-based thrift IndyMac canceled its dividend. IndyMac has a had a bad year. Its shares are at $8.20, off their 52 week high of $37.95. It reported a lost of $6.43 a share for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

IndyMac has about $1.8 million in manufactured housing loans that are either past due (30-89 days) or in non-accrual. They have $610 million and $704 million, respectively, in their entire portfolio of loans that are either past due or in non-accrual. That is a lot for a company whose current market valuation is $658 million.

IndyMac is a thrift whose loans volumes grew as more and more people were drawn to innovative financial products. It became one of the largest lenders by volume in the United States. It relied on alt-a loans, and it attempted to sell those loans on the secondary market to non-GSE buyers.

It was a leader in stated income loans. IndyMac didn’t just make stated income loans, though. As CEO Michael Perry states in his blog to shareholders, the company offered stated income loans on all kinds of “layered risks:” loans to investor-owners, negative amortizing adjustable-rate mortgages, loans to borrowers with low credit scores, and high loan-to-value products.

Perry says “I take full responsibility for the mistakes that we made” at IndyMac.

But…

Perry then proceeded to lay the blame for his company’s troubles on the goverment, on the ratings agencies, and on the regulations that he had to work through.

Here are some gems:

• We would not have been able to expect that stated-income high loan to value loans, piggy back seconds, and home equity loans would have performed so poorly, were it not for the overly optimistic ratings from S&P. (paraphrased)
• The government is to blame, for “over-stimulation of the housing market via monetary and tax policies (the capital gains tax break on home sales encouraged speculation.)”
• “consumer advocate groups who encouraged this lending via enforcement of CRA lending requirements.”

Gee, I don’t seem to remember IndyMac being upset about federal subsidies and guarantees for his business in the past. Hey, going forward, IndyMac plans on focusing mainly on the very government-subsidized markets (loans that the GSEs will buy) that he is criticizing.

And yes, that part about CRA lending is especially tricky. I think this is an interesting development. I wonder if more lenders are going to use the political attention devoted to the subprime fallout as a platform to lay blame upon CRA lending.

It is a specious argument, because CRA lending and the kind of loans that IndyMac is making could not be more different. CRA loans, which are meant to serve all communities with access to capital, should not be confused with strange hybrid products. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977, way before any of these products were developed.

Those advocates are clamoring for wealth-building financial tools, not negative amortization adjustable rate mortgages. Advocates want loans for homeowners, not for investors. Advocates want fixed rate products that adequately assess a borrower’s ability to repay a loan.

This is a miscommunication on Perry’s part, at best. Most likely, it’s a cynical bit of strategy aimed at finding a villain upon which to shift blame away from IndyMac’s own poor risk analysis.

Perry mentions that 220 mortgage companies are going out of business. The very banks that gave up market share to customers seeking the favorable terms of places like IndyMac are now the ones that are doing better.

Floyd Norris of the New York Times is having none of Perry’s nonsense. Neither did RBC Capital Markets, which downgraded IndyMac’s stock the next morning.

Many mobile home parks in California are managed under rent control. Now, a new voter referendum may mark the beginning of the end for those laws in the Golden State.

Proposition 98 would “prohibit rent control and other similar measures.” The proposition will be voted on June 3, 2008.

A commenter to MHR points out that the specifics of the proposal would eliminate the transferability of rent control from one tenant to another.  Existing lot renters in parks, for example, would keep their below-market pricing.  They would not be able to sell the home that sits on one of those lots, though, with the expectation that it would carry the rent subsidy to the next buyer.

The Proposition, if passed, would impact 1.2 million California residents who live in manufactured housing parks governed by rent control agreements in the state. The change would be most evident in Los Angeles County, where 626,000 residents live in parks with rent control. Hundreds of thousands of seniors live in parks in the approximately 110 California municipalities and counties that have rent control laws in place.

The rent control language is tucked inside a Proposition whose main substance pursues other measures. Most of the language in 98 focuses on the power held by the state to condemn private property for economic development.

Many people have been upset by state condemnation of public property for economic development since the Kelo v. City of New London decision. That decision affirmed the right of states to utilize the power of eminent domain for condemnation when the purpose was the economic good of the public.

New London wanted to expand its tax base by developing a section in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The land was near its ocean front and not far from a new Pfizer research center. In spite of those assets, the current use of the land as moderate income business and housing, did not generate taxes in a community that was low on ratables.

The Court said that such a purpose was valid under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In spite of that opinion, public response was strong and generally against the idea. It was generally seen as an aggressive expansion of state power. A Wisconsin Congressman proposed legislation against the use of eminent domain for this purpose.

One bank, BB&T, even went so far as to state that it would not finance any projects that came about through the powers enumerated through the decision.

Proposition 98 builds on that momentum. The energy against eminent domain is high. It is hard to imagine that support for rent control can be found to surmount it.

A story in the Los Angeles Times says that owners of parks have spent about $2 million in support of the bill.

More than a few people have come to the conclusion that rent control is a failed economic policy. Its critics contend that it limits the creation of new supply and thwarts the upkeep of existing units.

They point out that most of its benefits go to the generation of residents living in parks at the time of the passage of rent control. Newcomers inevitably pay a premium to buy homes on land governed by rent control.

Tenants rights advocates point out that eliminating rent control would give many low-income and retired residents no viable housing options.

Florida’s insurance market for manufactured housing is facing some unusual problems.

The insurance problem comes in the wake of 2004′s hurricanes. After the claims, there have been subsequent disruptions in the availability of insurance.

One report quotes a New Smyrna Beach, Florida RE/MAX realtor, Nina Schultz, as saying that owners of mobile homes may find themselves essentially left out when they seek insurance for their homes.

“I am presently working with a buyer who put an offer in on a mobile home. He was able to get financing, but he wasn’t able to get homeowner’s insurance, so they wouldn’t finance him,” Schultz said. “I called one local insurance company that used to issue insurance and they told me they aren’t insuring mobile homes yet. Another company told me that the mobile home was too old to insure. I have also noticed that the sales prices on mobile homes (with land) are inflated, because repairs were made with insurance money and the sellers are bailing out.”

Stewart goes on to quote the realtor as saying, “I wouldn’t be surprised, if we have more hurricanes, that mobile homes will be uninsurable in the whole state, or outlawed.”

One owner in Ormond Beach, Florida says that his insurance bill on his mobile home is going to jump from $700 to $2100. Many owners are getting non-renewal notices.

So what can be done?

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has a good report out that looks at seven options:

• universal, mandatory insurance: “the All-Perils Homeowners Insurance Policy”
• Federal Reinsurance for State Catastrophic Funds
• Federal Loans to State Catastrophic Funds
• Subsidies to Incentivize Private Reinsurers to Replenish Catastrophic Funds
• Homeowner Catastrophe Savings Accounts
• Favorable Tax Treatment for Catastrophe Bonds
• Property Tax Assessment for Private Insurance with Federal deductible Payment.

The short answer about the findings is that there is no solution that can be utilized without harming one of the stated goals of the reform — either the proposals raise costs for low-income residents, replace the demand currently met by a private company, pose a threat to the tax base of Florida, create an unfair competitive advantage for some insurers, or do not adequately limit costs before and after another catastrophe.