Connect with us

Business

The Hottest Thing in Real Estate Is a Loan From Two Years Ago

Published

on

The Hottest Thing in Real Estate Is a Loan From Two Years Ago

The only goal was to not lose money.

When Matthew Kilboy listed the Washington, D.C., condominium that he and his husband had bought in 2017, they accepted that higher interest rates and a soft market for condos meant any dollar over the $529,000 they had paid was a dollar they would thank their lucky stars for.

A similar two-bedroom and two-bath unit in the building had recently gone for just under half a million. The $549,000 price they listed in April was basically a wish.

A month later, the couple closed at $565,000 — thanks to a little-known amenity that has become increasingly popular as mortgage rates have risen. Their unit came with an assumable 30-year mortgage, with a 2.25 percent fixed rate that the couple had locked in after a November 2020 refinancing. By advertising that the buyer could inherit the mortgage, the couple, who have moved to Denver, got several over-asking-price bids that seemed like a relic from the warped real estate market during the Covid lockdown.

“It was the very first sentence of the listing,” said Mr. Kilboy, 39, a former Navy nurse whose loan, backed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, could be passed to the buyer. “No one could find an interest rate that low, so we were really pushing it.”

Advertisement

The Federal Reserve might have slowed interest rate increases, but monthly mortgage costs remain more than double their levels from 18 months ago. This has significantly lowered the supply of for-sale inventory by discouraging the millions of homeowners who locked in bargain rates during the pandemic from selling their home and incurring potentially hundreds of dollars a month in extra borrowing costs on a new one.

Because so little is for sale, home prices have remained stable, and even resumed their ascent, despite a huge increase in borrowing costs. The refrain among real estate agents and economists is that anyone who secured a mortgage rate of 3 percent or lower owns a valuable asset that they are loath to give up.

But every asset has a price. And now an emerging cadre of investors and real estate agents are trying to, in effect, sell mortgage rates from several years ago by transferring them to new buyers.

Redfin, the real estate brokerage, has seen a steep rise in listings like Mr. Kilboy’s that have comments like “beautiful home with assumable loan at 3.25 percent.” Facebook groups have popped up to find buyers for them, while new companies are pitching services to speed up the transfer.

“Homeowners with mortgages that are capable of being assumed have something valuable that many home buyers want and would be willing to pay for,” said Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin. “For people who bought when home prices were near the peak but mortgage rates were still low, it may be an attractive way to get out of a remorseful purchase.”

Advertisement

Investors are just as eager: The euphemistic “creative finance” has become a huge topic of conversation on sites like BiggerPockets, a forum where landlords trade tips on topics like operating short-term rentals and buying a first investment property. In books, seminars and YouTube videos, influencers peddle advice on how to find struggling homeowners willing to transfer a low-rate mortgage without their bank’s knowledge — a valuable but immensely risky strategy that title companies say they’ve seen more of.

“It’s just too appealing,” said Scott Trench, chief executive of Bigger Pockets, adding the disclaimer that many of these strategies frequently involve extra risks and paperwork that most people are unfamiliar with.

From the pedestrian to the dodgy, it all seems to underscore the manner in which the nation’s real estate market has been frozen by regret. Buyers are resentful that the low-cost mortgages are gone. Sellers are reluctant to lower their prices from the peaks of the pandemic. In lieu of acceptance, a determined few are trying to use imagination and fine print to build a portal to the cheap-money days of 2021.

Most U.S. mortgages are not directly assumable. However, a host of popular government-backed mortgages — such as those insured by the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Agriculture — typically are, said Michael Fratantoni, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association. These loans are frequently used by first-time buyers and account for roughly a quarter of outstanding mortgages, according to Black Knight, a mortgage technology and data provider.

In theory, any of the millions of homeowners holding a assumable low-rate mortgage have a valuable perk to sell with their home. Still, real estate agents say it can be hard in practice to transfer them. For instance, homeowners who transfer a V.A.-backed mortgage can lose their ability to get another similar loan unless they can find a V.A.-eligible buyer to take their original mortgage.

Advertisement

Or consider a homeowner who has a low-rate mortgage but has paid a chunk of it down: To assume the loan, a buyer would have to come up with a large down payment to account for the seller’s equity — something that very few people can do.

Craig O’Boyle is hoping to create a business making assumptions faster and easier. Mr. O’Boyle is a real estate agent who has been selling homes in Colorado for three decades, long enough that he remembers having to read through the door-stopper contracts that buyers and sellers now just click through on DocuSign. Reading over the lines about certain loans being assumable, he said, he had long thought that if rates ever spiked those owners would suddenly discover that their debts had value.

“And then here comes this shift in the interest rate market,” Mr. O’Boyle said.

Last year, he and a partner started Assumption Solutions, a consulting firm that, for a $1,100-per-deal processing fee, helps real estate agents navigate transferring mortgages between sellers and buyers. In his pitch to agents, Mr. O’Boyle argues that they push sub-3 percent rates as they do marble countertops or a view of the mountains.

“You market this, and let’s say you’re competing against the house next door, your house should sell either faster or for more money,” he said.

Advertisement

Even for the vast majority of people using a conventional mortgage that can’t be transferred, some sort of rate compensation is becoming the norm. While home prices have fallen from their all-time high last June, they haven’t come down nearly enough to make up for the increase in mortgage rates, and they’re rising again.

To stimulate new loans, mortgage companies have started marketing products in which borrowers can “buy down” rates by paying several thousand dollars for a year or two of significantly lower interest. One of the more popular products is a “2/1 buydown,” in which a borrower pays for an interest rate reduction of two percentage points during the first year and one percentage point in the second.

Put simply: “Most homes are unaffordable at today’s rates,” said Luis Solis, a real estate agent in Phoenix and Portland, Ore.

A majority of Mr. Solis’s recent deals have had some form of interest rate compensation that is a price cut in all but name, he said. Usually it’s a lump sum at closing that buyers use to buy temporarily lower rates. Sellers with a lot of equity can cut out the middleman and finance the buyer’s purchase below prevailing rates by acting as a lender — seller financing, it’s called.

Assuming mortgages, paying down rates: These are creative but straightforward solutions to rising borrowing costs. But on the margins, a rising number of investors looking to buy homes with minimal cash are trying a gray technique of finance — known as “Subject to” or “Subto” — in which they try to find people who have fallen behind on their debts and make a side agreement to take over their (low-interest) payments. (The deal is said to be “subject to” an existing loan.)

Advertisement

The strategy has obvious appeal when interest rates are high, but it comes with a huge asterisk: Once a home has changed hands, banks typically have the right to call the loan — that is, demand that the seller’s mortgage balance be paid in full immediately. Also, if the buyer falls behind on the payments, the property can be still foreclosed on — ruining the seller’s credit, for a home that he or she no longer owns.

Despite this, Bill McAfee, president of Empire Title, said he has seen an increase in customers looking to change their title under these terms, and has stock disclosures warning both sides what can go wrong.

“I’m not saying I agree with doing this, but it’s a way to get into property with very little money,” he said. “They have to figure out if it’s worth the risk.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Musk and Zuckerberg Reflect New Blows Against D.E.I. Policies

Published

on

Musk and Zuckerberg Reflect New Blows Against D.E.I. Policies

Even before Donald Trump won in November, the conservative backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion policies was going strong.

But new revelations about the next Trump administration’s efforts to constrain what’s commonly known as D.E.I. — and corporate titans’ willingness to put such programs aside — suggest just how strident the pushback will be.

Elon Musk’s cost-cutting initiative is eyeing big cuts to federal diversity programs, according to The Washington Post. The nongovernmental panel, the Department of Government Efficiency, is said to be considering a report by a right-wing civil rights group that claims to have identified more than $120 billion in potential cuts in D.E.I.-related programs.

Among them, according to The Post, are ending programs to benefit Black farmers and businesses, as well as a Biden-era executive order reserving 15 percent of federal contracts for minority-owned businesses. (Separately, the F.B.I. confirmed that it had closed its Office of Diversity and Inclusion, prompting Trump to express anger that it had existed at all.)

The Times shed more light on Mark Zuckerberg’s move to unwind D.E.I. at Meta. In a meeting with Stephen Miller, the influential Trump aide, Zuckerberg signaled that he would do nothing to obstruct the president-elect’s agenda of cracking down on corporate D.E.I. culture. The tech mogul said new guidelines were coming — and soon after announced a rollback of content moderation rules and an end to Meta’s D.E.I. efforts.

Advertisement

Moreover, Zuckerberg blamed Sheryl Sandberg, his former longtime lieutenant who was known for cultural advocacy programs like Lean In, for encouraging employee self-expression in the workplace, The Times adds. (The revelation stoked outrage online.)

The news underscores how defenses of D.E.I. are faltering. Many companies had already been rethinking their commitment to diversity programs before Trump’s victory, especially after the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action at universities. But several corporate giants, including Amazon and McDonald’s, have ended or scaled back such programs post-election.

For some corporations, work on diversity will still take place, using language that isn’t as politically charged. But as corporate leaders respond to pressure from ascendant right-wing activists and seek to get on Trump’s good side, the pressure on D.E.I. isn’t going away.

  • In related news: Meta’s chief technology officer said the company had mishandled how it rolled out changes to diversity policies and content moderation. And for some workers whose careers haven’t advanced how they like, diversity programs may have simply been an excuse to sugarcoat the real reason they were passed over, according to a Wall Street Journal column.

Israel’s security cabinet meets to approve the cease-fire deal. The vote is taking place after Israeli and Hamas negotiators resolved remaining disputes, with ministers expected to clear the agreement this weekend. If approved, Israel would withdraw eastward and both sides would release hostages or prisoners, potentially paving a path to ending the 15-month war.

China’s economy grows, but its population shrinks again. New data showed that the Chinese economy grew 5 percent last year, with increased exports and investment in manufacturing offsetting a slump in construction. But Beijing also disclosed that China’s population fell for a third straight year, despite an unexpected rise in births, portending a longer-term challenge to economic growth.

Advertisement

The Biden administration files a final flurry of regulatory actions. Regulators including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department struck settlements with companies including American Express, Block, General Motors and Toyota, and recommended charges against the parent of Snapchat. They’re a last burst of oversight actions before the Trump administration, which is expected to take a lighter hand in regulating business, takes office next week.

Bitcoin, stock futures and government bonds — all are rallying modestly on Friday, the final trading day of the Biden era.

Their fortunes appear to be buoyed by renewed bullishness for the next Trump administration, with investors feeling relieved about what they’ve heard from the president-elect’s Cabinet picks on how they intend to operate.

Markets were especially heartened by Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary pick, Scott Bessent. In his confirmation hearing on Thursday, Bessent played down the inflationary risks of Trump’s agenda.

Here are the highlights:

Advertisement
  • Bessent called for renewing and extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts to avert “economic calamity.” But while he said cutting fiscal spending was also important, he was noncommittal about repealing the country’s debt ceiling and said entitlement programs like Medicare would be safe.

  • He said tariffs should be imposed on select countries to fix trade imbalances or used as leverage to negotiate favorable trade deals. A new round directed at China seems inevitable. In response, China is zeroing in on American chipmakers.

  • Bessent said that Fed independence is key to American fiscal stability. But he warned that Trump, who has long grumbled about high interest rates, was still “going to make his views known.”

  • He demurred on the idea of the Fed creating a digital currency. Still, Bloomberg reports that Trump is expected to designate crypto as a national priority. Speculation is also growing that Trump will greenlight a federal Bitcoin reserve.

Other confirmation hearings raised questions about how the second Trump administration was shaping up. Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, the choice for interior secretary, criticized renewables as part of a wider national “electricity crisis.” The country needed to refocus on fossil fuels to maintain its global lead in energy-intensive sectors like artificial intelligence, he added.

But Lee Zeldin, Trump’s choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, dodged questions about Trump’s repeated vows to roll back or scrap the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature climate legislation.

And Scott Turner, the former N.F.L. player tapped to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development, offered little detail about how he would address a housing crunch. His lack of clarity came as new Freddie Mac data showed mortgage rates hitting an eight-month high.

The surge is pricing some prospective buyers out of the market — despite the Fed having lowered borrowing costs — in a trend that has alarmed some market watchers.


As TikTok nears a potential ban in the United States, elected officials are racing to find ways to delay a crisis that many of them helped stoke by backing the law behind the punishment.

Advertisement

Here’s where things stand.

President Biden is trying to make it Donald Trump’s problem. An administration official told NBC News that the White House was “exploring options” to forestall the app from going dark. Biden also does not plan to fine the companies that host the TikTok app, like Google and Apple, according to NBC News.

That would leave it up to Trump to enforce any punishments against TikTok and its partners. The president-elect has been weighing an executive order to let the app keep running until a U.S. buyer is found, though it is unclear how effective that would be.

Senate Democrats scrambled to arrange a delay. Lawmakers led by Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Cory Booker of New Jersey have sought to pass a bill giving TikTok more time to find a buyer. But Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, objected, citing concerns about dangers posed by the app.

A spokesperson for Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, told The Wall Street Journal that the minority leader spoke with Biden on Thursday about creating a delay.

Advertisement

TikTok’s C.E.O. is continuing to court Trump as well. In addition to sitting on the dais for the inauguration with top Cabinet picks and other tech moguls, Shou Chew is hosting a party for pro-Trump creators Sunday night, which will cost TikTok about $50,000 to throw.

Chew is also expected to attend a Trump victory rally on Sunday at the Capital One Arena, sitting in the suite of Raul Fernandez, a Trump donor and a partner at Monumental Sports and Entertainment, the sports team owner.


Elon Musk has famously and unapologetically clashed with regulators and heads of state. But he is coming up against opponents who appear to have touched a nerve: gamers who have questioned his claims to video game mastery.

A recap: Musk has boasted lately on X lately about his gaming prowess, including soaring to the top of the global leader boards in Diablo IV and Path of Exile 2. Such feats require skills, sure, but also a lot of screen time, leading skeptics to question how the C.E.O. of six companies and a key adviser to Donald Trump finds the time.

Online sleuths increasingly believe they have found the answer: They’ve accused Musk of paying others to use his accounts and put in the hours to boost his rankings.

Advertisement

A popular YouTube gaming personality named Asmongold in particular accused Musk of being disingenuous about his rapid rise to the top.

Musk has taken those charges personally. The billionaire has shared videos of himself in action as a way to prove he’s the real deal. Musk also fired back at Asmongold, saying of the YouTuber, “he is NOT good at video games.”

Others came to Asmongold’s defense, using X’s Community Notes feature to annotate Musk’s posts.

Given the level of discussion online, this spat feels like it’s far from over.

Deals

Advertisement
  • Rio Tinto and Glencore reportedly held talks last year about a deal, which would have combined two of the world’s biggest miners, though discussions aren’t currently active. (Bloomberg).

  • Junior investment bankers beware: Artificial intelligence tools can write 95 percent of an I.P.O. prospectus in minutes, according to David Solomon, Goldman Sachs’s C.E.O. (FT)

Politics, policy and regulation

  • Meet Ken Howery, the tech investor and friend of Elon Musk who will spearhead any deal talks with Denmark over Greenland. (NYT)

  • A group representing Capitol Hill staffers who work for progressive lawmakers is pushing for a 32-hour workweek. (Politico)

Best of the rest

  • A SpaceX rocket broke up on Thursday during a test flight, forcing the F.A.A. to divert several commercial flights to avoid the debris. (CNBC)

  • David Lynch, the director behind classic movies and TV shows including “Blue Velvet,” “Mulholland Drive” and “Twin Peaks,” has died. He was 78. (NYT)

We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com.

Continue Reading

Business

Column: A stem cell clinic tees up a Supreme Court challenge to rules protecting patients' health and safety

Published

on

Column: A stem cell clinic tees up a Supreme Court challenge to rules protecting patients' health and safety

For years, the Food and Drug Administration has taken up arms against clinics hawking unproven and ineffective stem cell treatments to desperate patients looking for cures of intractable diseases and conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and even erectile dysfunction.

As the FDA has repeatedly cautioned, there is no scientifically validated evidence that these treatments work. They’re typically not covered by insurance. For the clinics, however, they’re money-makers, with fees of $9,000 or more per treatment; the clinics often recommend multiple treatments.

But now the FDA’s campaign against these bogus therapies is facing serious headwinds on two fronts.

[The FDA is] likely to be subjected to enormous political pressure during Trump 2.0 to weaken oversight of cell and regenerative products.

— Paul S. Knoepfler, UC Davis

Advertisement

One is the Supreme Court. A California stem cell network that recently lost a lawsuit brought by the FDA has signaled that it intends to appeal to the Supreme Court. It’s far from certain that the court will take up the appeal, at this stage — but a majority of the justices have looked favorably on efforts to rein in administrative agencies such as the FDA.

“I think it’s highly unlikely … but not impossible” that the court will take up the stem cell case, says Henry T. Greely, an expert in the legal issues involving bioscientific technologies.

The case doesn’t have the customary hallmarks of cases that warrant Supreme Court action, Greely told me, such as disagreements among appellate circuits requiring resolution. But it may suit the ideological bent of four justices — the minimum number required to place a case on the Supreme Court docket.

“Some of these justices really hate administrative agency power,” Greely says.

Advertisement

In a landmark ruling last year, the Supreme Court struck down a 40-year-old precedent—the Chevron doctrine — that required courts to accept federal agencies’ interpretations of the laws they administer as long as their interpretations weren’t openly unreasonable. That sharply narrowed agency authority. The FDA has ranked high on the list of agencies that conservatives see as exercising excessive authority.

It may not take a Supreme Court decision to hamper the FDA’s campaign against bogus stem cell treatments.

“Just the possibility that [the Supreme Court] could take this case may have a chilling effect on FDA activity in the stem cell clinic space,” Paul S. Knoepfler, a UC Davis biologist who has assiduously tracked the industry, told me. Even without the case, he says, the FDA is “likely to be subjected to enormous political pressure during Trump 2.0 to weaken oversight of cell and regenerative products.”

That brings us to the second threat, coming from Donald Trump’s nominee as secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Even before his nomination, Kennedy made clear that he was girding to go to war against the FDA, which would come under his jurisdiction at HHS.

In an Oct. 25 tweet, he declared “FDA’s war on public health is about to end.” He specifically accused the agency of “aggressive suppression” of stem cells as well as “psychedelics, peptides, … raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine … and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Advertisement

Kennedy wasn’t clear what he meant by his reference to stem cells or whether he was referring to the unproven stem cell treatments marketed by the clinics facing FDA regulation.

Many of the other items in his litany have been shown to be ineffective for their marketed purposes — ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, for example, have been touted as treatments for COVID-19 even though scientific studies have shown them to be useless against the disease. I asked Kennedy to clarify his reference to stem cells but haven’t received a reply.

Here’s a brief primer on what these clinics are selling. Typically, their method involves removing fat cells from a customer via liposuction, treating the fat ostensibly to extract stem cells, and injecting those cells into the customer’s body.

For instance, Cell Surgical Network, a defendant in the FDA’s California case, boasts of offering “innovative solutions” for spine disease, knee problems and other orthopedic conditions; lupus, Crohn’s and other autoimmune diseases; ALS, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis; cardiac conditions; and glaucoma, among other issues. None of these claims has been supported by scientific research.

The only stem cell products the FDA has approved for use are stem cells extracted from umbilical cord blood, and then only for rare blood disorders.

Advertisement

Like other clinics, Cell Surgical has asserted that its products are exempt from oversight because, as reimplantations of a customer’s own tissue, they don’t meet the law’s definition of “drugs.”

They also claim the “same surgical procedure” exemption from FDA regulation, which the agency typically applies to procedures in which a patient’s tissue is given only minimal processing before being used, such as in skin grafting or coronary artery bypass surgery. The FDA holds that the stem cell clinics subject the tissues to significant processing and that the procedures are separate surgical events.

Before the FDA acted, both the Florida and California clinic networks had been operating for years. The Florida company had been operating since at least 2014, and Lander and Berman had founded their California Stem Cell Treatment Center in Rancho Mirage in 2010. By 2018, the FDA said in its lawsuit, Lander had claimed that affiliated clinics had administered the technique he and Berman developed to more than 6,000 patients.

Yet the FDA sometimes seems to be fighting a losing battle, or at least a whack-a-mole battle, against clinics offering dubious stem cell treatments. There are just too many — more than 1,000, by Knoepfler’s reckoning — making pitches to desperate customers seeking cures against intractable conditions.

That has left things up to state and local regulators, but the record there is spotty. A notable recent success can be chalked up to Georgia Atty. Gen. Chris Carr, who announced on Jan. 8 that in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission he had obtained judgments totaling more than $5.1 million from the operators of bogus stem cell clinics. The sum includes refunds of more than $3.3 million for 479 customers, most of whom were “older or disabled adults” who had been “sold expensive, unproven stem cell products.”

Advertisement

In June 2019, federal Judge Ursula Ungaro of Miami ordered U.S. Stem Cell of Florida effectively shut down, siding with the FDA in a lawsuit the agency had filed in May 2018.

The FDA’s case against California-based Cell Surgical Network and its affiliates took a somewhat different course. The agency filed suit in California federal court against the network and its physician-proprietors, Elliott B. Lander and the late Mark Berman, the same day it sued the Florida firm. But it lost at the trial stage in August 2022, when federal Judge Jesus Bernal of Riverside accepted the defendants’ claim that they were entitled to the “same surgical procedure” exemption from FDA oversight.

Bernal’s decision, however, was overturned last September by the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found in a 3-0 ruling that the FDA’s interpretation of the law “is the only interpretation that makes sense.” The appeals court sent the case back to Bernal with instructions to reconsider the case in light of its finding.

That’s where things stood until Jan. 6, when Cell Surgical Network and its affiliated defendants asked the appellate court to suspend its order to remand the case to Bernal, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The FDA opposed the motion, arguing that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up the case. The appellate court rejected the network’s motion Tuesday, but the network hasn’t indicated that it intends to drop the Supreme Court appeal. I asked its lawyers if their plans have changed but haven’t received a reply.

As I’ve written before, undermining the FDA’s authority has been a right-wing project for years. That’s because the agency’s duty is to stand in the way of businesses desiring to push unsafe and ineffective nostrums at unwary consumers, and also in the way of a perverse idea that personal freedom includes the freedom to be gulled by charlatans.

Advertisement

In 2018, then-President Trump signed a right-to-try law that purportedly gave victims of terminal diseases access to experimental treatments that might save them.

But despite claims that it was designed as a “compassionate measure” for terminal patient, the law was a scam perpetrated by the Koch network and its allies, aimed at undermining the FDA’s authority to make sure our drugs are safe and effective. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) ultimately gave the game away, informing then-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, a critic of the law, that its purpose was to “diminish the FDA’s power over people’s lives, not increase it.”

In 2023, GOP-appointed judges on the right wing-dominated 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FDA had exceeded its authority in advising against the use of ivermectin against COVID. “The FDA can inform,” the court said, “but it has identified no authority allowing it to recommend consumers ‘stop’ taking medicine.” (Emphasis in the original.)

There may not be much distance between that finding by the 5th Circuit and a decision by the current Supreme Court majority that the FDA overstepped its bounds in not only informing consumers of the dangers of taking unproven and even dangerous stem cell treatments, but blocking the treatments by seeking to put clinics that sell them.

“MAGA loves stem cell clinics,” Greely says. “Why? It gives people a chance to make a lot of money, and because it’s a change for people to say ‘no bureaucrat is going to tell me what to do.’”

Advertisement

If the trend continues along these lines, you can expect more providers collecting more dollars by pushing worthless therapies to desperate customers. The threat to Americans’ health will be very real indeed.

Continue Reading

Business

China’s Population Declines for 3rd Straight Year

Published

on

China’s Population Declines for 3rd Straight Year

To get its citizens to have more children and stop its population from shrinking, China has tried it all, even declaring having babies an act of patriotism. And yet, for the third year in a row, its population got smaller.

Not even a surprise uptick in the number of babies born, a first in seven years, could reverse the course of an aging and declining population.

China is staring down a longer term baby bust that is rippling through the economy. Hospitals are shutting their obstetrics units, and companies that sold baby formula are idling factories. Thousands of kindergartens have closed and more than 170,000 preschool teachers lost their jobs in 2023.

The country’s birthrate, as one former kindergarten in the southern city of Chongqing put it, “is falling off a cliff.” Enrollments in China’s kindergartens plummeted by more than five million in 2023, according to the most recently available data.

On Friday, the National Bureau of Statistics reported that 9.54 million babies were born last year, up slightly from 9.02 million in 2023. Taken together with the number of people who died over 2024 — 10.93 million — China’s population shrank for a third straight year.

Advertisement

The small bump in newborns, in part because it was the auspicious Year of the Dragon in the Chinese zodiac, didn’t change the broader trajectory, experts said. China’s childbearing population is declining and young people are reluctant to have children.

“In the medium and long term, the annual number of births in my country will continue to decline,” said Ren Yuan, a professor at Fudan University’s Institute of Population Studies.

The lack of babies is adding to China’s economic challenges. A shrinking working-age population is straining an underfunded pension system, and an aging society is leaning on a creaking health care system. China also reported on Friday that the economy grew by 5 percent in 2024, a number that was in line with expectations but that many experts said did not fully reflect a crisis of confidence among households reeling from a multiyear property crisis.

To encourage people to have more babies, the authorities are offering tax benefits, cheaper housing and cash. Cities are promising to cover the cost of in vitro fertilization. In some parts of the country, they are even promising to get rid of restrictions that penalize single mothers.

The government has called on local officials to put in place early-warning systems to monitor big changes in population at the village and town levels around the country. Some officials are even knocking on doors and calling women to inquire about their menstrual cycles.

Advertisement

Companies are also getting involved. In 2023, the travel site Trip.com started paying employees nearly $1,400 a year for each newborn until the age of 5. Last week, the founder of electric vehicle maker XPeng said he would give employees nearly $4,100 if they had a third child.

“We want our employees to have more kids,” said He Xiaopeng, the founder, in a video posted on social media. “I think the company should take care of the money, so employees can have children.”

The problem is not unique to China, which in 2023 was passed by India as the world’s most populous nation. Falling birthrates are often a measure of a country’s move up the economic ladder because fertility rates tend to fall as incomes and education levels go up. But China’s sudden decline in population arrived much sooner than the government had expected. Many families are earning more money than they were a decade ago, but have lost income because of the housing crisis.

Officials have long feared the day when there will not be enough workers to support retirees. Now the government has less time to prepare. More than 400 million people will be 60 or older in the next decade.

China is facing two challenges on this front. Its public pension system is severely underfunded and many young people are reluctant — or are unable — to contribute. A low retirement age has made things worse. After years of deliberation, the government decided on a 15-year plan to gradually increase the official age to 63 for men, 58 for women in office jobs and 55 for women who work in factories. The changes took effect this month.

Advertisement

The party only loosened birth restrictions in 2015 to allow families to have two children, an easing that created a sudden boom. Hospitals had to add beds in the corridors because there weren’t enough.

But the moment was short-lived. By 2017, births started declining every year until last year.

In 2021, panicked officials loosened China’s birth policy again, allowing couples to have three children. It was too late. The next year, so few babies were born that the population began to shrink for the first time since the Great Leap Forward, Mao Zedong’s failed experiment that resulted in widespread famine and death in the 1960s.

China has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, far below what demographers refer to as the replacement rate required for a population to grow. This threshold requires every couple, on average, to have two children.

Experts said the number of births would likely continue to fluctuate.

Advertisement

“For a country of 1.4 billion a half million more births is not much of a rebound at all,” Wang Feng, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine. “This is in comparison to the lowest year, in 2023 when the pandemic certainly put a pause on childbearing.”

Many young Chinese people are quick to rattle off reasons not to have children: the rising cost of education, growing burdens of taking care of their aging parents and a desire to live a lifestyle known as “Double Income, No Kids.”

For women, the sentiment is especially strong. Daughters who were the only children in their families received education and employment opportunities their parents often did not. They have grown up to become empowered women who see Mr. Xi’s appeals to them to do their patriotic duty and bear children as one step too far. Many of these women have said that deep-seated inequality and insufficient legal protections have made them reluctant to get married.

The steep drop in babies is having a drastic effect on health care, education and even the consumer market. Companies that once minted money selling baby formula to feed a baby boom are now making shakes with calcium and selenium for older adults with brittle bones.

Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, is shutting a factory for the China market that employs more than 500 people halfway across the world in Europe. The company will focus on selling premium baby products and expanding its offering in adult nutrition in China, a spokesman said.

Advertisement

The pressure on China’s health care system is even more pronounced. Dozens of hospitals and maternal health clinic chains have reported closing over the past two years.

On social media forums, nurses specializing in obstetrics have talked about low pay and lost jobs. One doctor told state media that being in obstetrics, once considered an “iron rice bowl” position with guaranteed job security, had become a “rusty iron rice bowl.”

And some smaller hospitals have stopped paying their staff, Han Zhonghou, a former official at a hospital in northern China, told a Chinese magazine.

“Life for maternal and child hospitals,” Mr. Han said, “is getting harder and harder by the year.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending