Thanks for stopping by. I am professor of economics at New York University and co-Director of the Center for Experimental Social Science. I serve also as Co-Editor of the Oxford University Press series “Methods of Modern Economics”, on the Steering Committee of the Health and Retirement Survey, and as a Fellow of the Econometric Society. As detailed on the relevant web pages, my research interests include economic theory, psychology and economics, and the economics of residential real estate finance. While much on these pages is somewhat dated, I am in the process of adding new material to summarize developments since 2004. In practical terms, the most dramatic advances have taken place in the area of real estate finance. In intellectual terms, I have taken the most significant strides forward in my research in economics and psychology and on survey methods.

Unlike most recent converts to the cause, I have been writing about defects in the U.S. residential real estate finance market for more than ten years, and have for some dozen years tried to galvanize interest in innovative shared equity mortgages. While there have been many frustrations, over the years I have found some wonderful partners with whom to develop and pursue these ideas. As a group, we are currently engaged in launching these markets in Australia, where they are seen in part as a tool to raise housing affordability and homeownership. In addition to raising affordability, rapid opening of these markets in the U.S. would significantly reduce the forthcoming wave of defaults. There are many cases in which lenders could recover more value using equity options than they can hope to recover by foreclosing on borrowers. I am currently working with Fred Pollock on a proposal in this regard under the sponsorship of the Hamilton Project. Given our experiences in Australia, it would take no more than six months of concerted effort to launch in the U.S., should there be the political will. Will the current crisis galvanize effective action? If one is to judge by precedent, the answer is likely to be in the negative given the many regulatory, legislative, and fiscal land-mines that currently prevent market development. Moreover, it is easier to ban than it is to build. But if a few individuals in positions to exert influence make the opposite determination, they might make a huge positive difference. Any takers?