We evaluate financial assets with payoffs linked to individual labor income, as conceived by Shiller (2003) and others. Using a realistically calibrated life-cycle model, we find that such assets can generate nontrivial welfare benefits, depending on the precise structure of the instrument. However, the assets we consider can only eliminate a relatively small fraction of the welfare costs of labor income risk over the life cycle. We highlight the fact that although the purpose of such assets is to smooth consumption across states of nature, one must also consider the assets' effects on households' ability to smooth consumption over time.

This paper uses new data from the PSID to quantify the relative importance of negative equity versus ability to pay, in driving mortgage defaults between 2009 and 2013. These data allow us to construct household budgets sets that provide better measures of ability to pay. Changes in ability to pay have large estimated effects. Job loss has an equivalent effect on the propensity to default as a 35% decline in equity. Strategic motives are also found to be quantitatively important, as we estimate more than 38% of households in default could make their mortgage payments without reducing consumption.

In this paper, we use two comprehensive micro-data sets to study how the distribution of mortgage debt evolved during the 2000s housing boom. We show that the allocation of mortgage debt across the income distribution remained stable, as did the allocation of real estate assets. Any theory of the boom must replicate these facts, and a general equilibrium model shows that doing so requires two elements: (1) an exogenous shock that increases expected house price growth or, alternatively, reduces interest rates and (2) financial markets that endogenously relax borrowing constraints in response to the shock. Empirically, the endogenous relaxation of constraints was largely accomplished with subprime lending, which allowed the mortgage debt of low-income households to increase at the same rate as that of high-income households.

We introduce a new measure of the price charged by financial intermediaries for connecting mortgage borrowers with capital market investors. Based on administrative lender pricing data, we document that the price of intermediation reacts strongly to variation in demand, reflecting capacity constraints of mortgage originators. This positive comovement of price with quantity reduced the pass‐through of quantitative easing. We also find a notable upward trend in this price between 2008 and 2014, likely due to increased legal and regulatory burden in the mortgage market. The trend led to an implicit cost to borrowers of nearly $100 billion over this period.

We develop a technique to assess the impact of changes in mortgage markets on households, exploiting an implication of the permanent income hypothesis: The higher a household's expected future income, the higher its desired consumption, ceteris paribus. With perfect credit markets, desired consumption matches actual consumption and current spending forecasts future income. Because credit market imperfections mute this effect, the extent to which house spending predicts future income measures the “imperfectness” of mortgage markets. Using micro‐data, we find that since the early 1980s, mortgage markets have become less imperfect in this sense, and securitization has played an important role.

Black and Hispanic homeowners pay significantly higher mortgage interest rates than white and Asian homeowners. We show that the main reason is that white and Asian borrowers are much more likely to exploit periods of falling interest rates by refinancing their mortgages or moving. Black and Hispanic borrowers face challenges refinancing because, on average, they have lower credit scores, equity and income. But even holding those factors constant, Black and Hispanic borrowers refinance less, suggesting that other factors are at play. Because they are more likely to exploit lower interest rates, white borrowers benefit more from monetary expansions. Policies that reduce barriers to refinancing for minority borrowers and alternative mortgage contract designs can reduce racial mortgage pricing inequality.

This paper uses new data from the PSID to quantify the relative importance of negative equity versus ability to pay, in driving mortgage defaults between 2009 and 2013. These data allow us to construct household budgets sets that provide better measures of ability to pay. Changes in ability to pay have large estimated effects. Job loss has an equivalent effect on the propensity to default as a 35% decline in equity. Strategic motives are also found to be quantitatively important, as we estimate more than 38% of households in default could make their mortgage payments without reducing consumption.