We've spent a lot of time talking about what went wrong, now it's time to start talking about how to fix things. Since the current financial crisis was sparked by the meltdown of mortgages (the so-called subprime crisis, though it extends far past subprime) lets see what a liberal government would do to fix the problem.
Right now what's happening is Ben is taking the distressed mortgages, along with various other toxic waste paper, and lending the banks and brokerages treasuries in exchange. This is a government bailout by another name, but it's one where the government is paying essentially full price for the mortgages even though most of them are worth far, far less than that and one that provides no relief at all to homeowners. It keeps the banks in business, even if not solvent, but does nothing to put a floor underneath potential losses. All it does is transfer those losses from company spreadsheets to the Feds. Granted, the fed can always swap those back, but then most of those companies would wind up as insolvent.
What is needed is to provide a mark to market price. Right now you basically can't move mortgage backed securities, there is no market. When you think about it, that's awfully strange, after all, at the end of the day a mortgage is backed by a house and the property it sits on. In some cases, that house may be worthless, but in most cases it's worth something. Even in the most overheated areas of the country, I would expect housing prices to drop by no more than 50%. In most areas somewhere between 20% to 40% should occur. To put it another way, one can reasonably expect that the correction will take back most of what the bubble gave, and a simple way to figure out a baseline is to look at the median price increase in a particular county since 2001. It may fall to slightly less than that, or slightly more, but it makes a decent baseline.
So here's what a liberal government does. It provides real market clearing to the market by offering to buy mortgages, only in blocks, at a discount. Not to lend, as the Fed has been, but buy. It sets the price at approximately what the land would have been worth in 2001. It converts each and every mortgage it buys into a simple fixed rate mortgage with a nominal value for the property equal to what it bought the mortgage for plus ten percent and it lets the property owner choose a 10, 20, 30 or 50 year term for the mortgage as long as the monthly payments are no more than 1/3 of the owner's income. If you can't afford the payment on 1/3rd of your household income the duration of your mortgage gets kicked up until you can. No other loans can be taken against the house until the mortgage is paid off and no lump payments are allowed so that finance companies can't come in later and offer to pay of mortgages so folks can do foolish things. (If you get involved in this program you obviously did foolish things and you give up the right to control a certain part of your own finances. Don't like it? We'll let you opt out and deal with the bank yourself.)
You allow only mortgages on primary occupancies residences to get into this program. Some arrangements will have to be made for situation with multiple mortgages and so on, but those details can be worked out. The mortgage will be transferable in event of a sale. For the first half of the mortgage duration, if there the house is sold for more than the value of the original mortgage (the 2001 price) then the government gets half the upside.
What are the advantages of this program?
-
It sets a floor under mortgage prices and creates a market for them. They are now worth X. That allows banks, hedge funds, brokerage houses and others to actually put a mark to market value on them and have a good idea of how much debt they're carrying due to those securities.
-
The government makes a profit over the life of the mortgages. This is important. If the government is going to bail out people, there's no reason why the government shouldn't come out ahead in the long run. This is only fair to taxpayers, who will take on a burden from the original payments but will see a benefit from it in the future.
-
Lenders take a loss. They should. Moral hazard must apply to lenders who lend more than their borrowers can repay. The government should not be expected to be the banks leg-breakers beyond a certain point and that point is far gone when you're getting into liars loans, balloon mortgages and a business model that assumed that housing prices would never drop so they was no risk. There was risk, the lenders made a bad bet, they should lose money.
-
Property owners take a substantial loss in property price and they give up half the upside of any price increases for some time. Again, people who have acted foolishly should not be bailed out without any cost and moral hazard applies to individuals as well as companies.
There are a couple disadvantages as well. US monetary stock is based, to a large degree, on the value of the US's housing stock. This will fast forward deflationary pressures, doing in a couple years what would have taken 5 or 6 to play out normally. However, given that there are strong inflationary pressures at the current time, and because it sets a floor under property deflation, the risk is probably worth it. Nonetheless, it is a risk.
In addition, this will shock property taxes, hard and fast. The Federal government will need to provide some monetary support to municipalities for a few years. This can be paid for out of the income from mortgage payments. And really, municipalities were in a pile of pain anyway. If the offsetting payments are sufficient, they could actually come out ahead.
Those risks are worth the candle. The current Fed bailout does nothing to help property holders, does nothing to create a real market clearing price and puts taxpayers completely on the hook for uncertain amounts of massive losses. This plan creates a market, spread the pain but helps both investors and property owners and it will, odds on, actually wind up earning the government a profit.
But note something important; it's the sort of plan that can only be done by Congress, with the President signing it into law. It can't be done by the Fed alone. And that means that for sensible, simple solutions like this to be enacted we probably need both a new President, and a new Congress.
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Aloha, Ian!
Hey, Ian. Dude.
I was thinking that I just adore that graphic you’ve used lately…..spiraling….
But, then now I have to put all of those spiraling elements together with Simple Solutions aspect.
You tricking me into thinking?
Good one.
It worked.
I would add to these regulation of hedge funds and the derivatives market.
#
It sets a floor under mortgage prices and creates a market for them. They are now worth X. That allows banks, hedge funds, brokerage houses and others to actually put a mark to market value on them and have a good idea of how much debt they’re carrying due to those securities.
#
But if the banks and hedgefunds were lying about their holdings getting a REAL value for their mortgage loans would be the last thing they want.
What if the Mortgage problem is as big as we feared with real numbers Bear Stearns would likely not be the only financial company in trouble.
I’m for your plan but with Bush in the White House I don’t see anything that hurts the banks passing in Congress.
Yuh, agreed. One solution at a time though.:)
Very nice set up, Ian! It would provide a much needed safety net!
The plan makes sense so it will never happen.
What are the consequences of Ben’s current bailout plan besides more bailouts in the future the banks might be saved but with no buyers for mortgage paper but the fed how does that effect the economy?
Ian, I so appreciate your weekly columns here. I am learning SO much. Thank you.
Great ideas Ian as usual.
How do “we” deal with the derivatives out there which based on real estate products?
It seems much of the financial mess is that money is created from thin air by bets and hedges and so forth/ Can these be cancelled and declared unlawful so that neither party is hurt?
OT Kelly O’Donnell on NBC News tonight mentioned McCain’s statement about al Qaeda and Iran but then played McCain saying “But I corrected that immediately.” In fact, he didn’t but later in the press conference and O’Donnell didn’t point out that McCain had repeated his statement multiple times. So how exactly did he correct it immediately? O’Donnell was speaking with the Eiffel Tower in the background. Wouldn’t you like to have her job? Travel the world, never have to worry about getting anything right, have an inflated view of your place in the world and your knowledge of it. The only thing would be you would have to park you integrity at the door.
I just took on a new job that pays low.
It’s a great atmosphere though, lotsa giving back to the community and has great benefits.
Means less taxes for the government to spend on the war, but more giving back to the community.
Drum Jam at Lunch is the cherry.
The logical extension of the Ian system is for the federal gov to provide all mortgages at fixed rates and this would cool the real estate bubble (and toss a lot of creeps out of the business).
How about second and third mortgages and so forth? How are those handled?
Ian,
I always enjoy your posts and explanations of how things in the economy work, or could work. But it makes me wonder: what do you do for a living?
It seems like your very sensible advice –while entertaining and informative–would be more useful among those formulating policy and trying to right the listing ship.
I guess I mean preaching to the choir doesn’t help much. I read lots of blog sites and it seems there are a lot of quite reasonable people out there listening, the the very important ones ( our representatives, our leaders, and the army of character actors we call “pundits” ) don’t seem to be blog-readers.
As that article points out, action is needed asap…
Bernanke and Paulson have proposed no structural changes to keep bubbles like the mortgage crisis from happening again. They are hoping that they can put bandaids on it until it goes away or in Paulson’s case he is out of office. What they have done so far is consistent with the maxim: That profit is privatized (the upside of the bubble) and loss is socialized (the downside). This downside they want the government (with bailouts) and ordinary Americans (inflation) to pay for.
What are the significant differences between your proposal and the Frank/Dodd plan? I quibble about the ban you put on accelerated payments, or payments directly against principal - this is a virtuous thing in the long run, if made by the homeowner, and reduces overall amortization periods.
SanderO, Ian, wrote…
I took the job so I could contribute my portion to the loan on the house.
I can only speak of my part in this whole debacle.
You people are Way Smarter than me on these complicated issues.
I’m just glad that I have a reasonable mortgage and when things Go Further South, I’ll still be okay.
Who takes on a loan they can’t afford?
My dear old dad told me there’s No Free Lunch.
I took him at his word.
Did you notice the Google Ads under Ian’s post for low mortgage rates?
Moved to California in 1996. Could not afford a modest home at that time on my income.
Today, still cannot afford a home. I have basically been priced out of the home market.
This is a ridiculous situation to be in. I should have moved away from here a long time ago.
This bullshit market screwed over a lot of potential buyers for a decade - to the point where people took huge risks to be able to buy a home.
I’d be in the same situation if I hadn’t refused to go along with an insane inflationary market.
I hope it gets to the point where I can think about buying, but I’m not holding my breath.
Cali is a really big state. Lottsa different communities, for sure.
What part of California did you move to?
Can someone help me out here? I’m normally the last person to be “Google impaired”, but I’m having an off day. But I’ve been trying to find out the answer to this question re the Rev. Jeremiah Wright YouTube videos
Obviously, I have some strong suspicions regarding the purpose, but are there articles anywhere about who first drew attention to these videos–and anything else about the timeline and main players in developing this stoyr?
you’re fucked if you’re paying a mortgage on property you bought during the housing boom years, coz now you’re stuck paying a mortgage on property that has devalued considerably since you bought it.
So you’re better off not paying a mortgage but rent..or not paying a mortgage because you paid cash for the loft you own…the latter is my situation…
Finally, a sensible plan I could get behind! I do have some question, though. The main question for me is what about brand new homes that were purchased with ARMs that will increase payments to way more than people will be able to pay even if they get hefty raises before the first change in interest rate. Also, what if the house were purchased with an interest only loan?
Likely, even new home values will be affected by the decrease in home prices in their market, but these may be homes that the home owner had every intention of renegotiating into a fixed mortgage with a reasonable rate before the first change raised their interest rate out of the homeowners ability to pay, but they were unable to do so before the market made money for new loans dry up due to a prepayment penalty? I ask because my son is in this very real situation, and I doubt that he fully realizes yet how much peril he’s in. This is his first time home purchase.
First S.F. Then L.A.
I’ll have to think on it, honestly. Unilaterally giving a market price to securities 20% or 30% lower than face will cause huge losses on some derivatives. Otoh, those loses might have occured anyway. You could perhaps simply cancel them, or you could say that they have to be paid out at a pro-rated decrease - so if the duration was one year, assume that normal declines would have only chopped off one fifth of the amount you’re discounting the mortgage at inone year.
Stranger things have happened with a Dem President and more than 60 Dem Senators. Hate to say it, but if we have to give up one house of Congress, I’m hoping that it will be the House of Representatives. We need Senators, and we need them to be more than DINOS. That’s why I keep asking, what do Democrats stand for?
No 2nd and third mortgages. They need to be unwound, or perhaps piled into a single mortgage. Once you’ve got a government backed mortgages, no new second or third mortgages can be piled onto it, at the very least until the period in which the government benefits from property appreciation is done. We need to get people out of the habit of using primary residences as ATMs.
LA’s expensive. Certainly.
I’m fortunate to have found something nice and affordable.
Let’s see how things go.
I wish you best of luck.
I write, I do some consulting. Blogs like FDL are actually clipped for politicians now, same as the rest of the press. Now whether they clip policy pieces like this one is another question. I’m honestly not sure, I suspect it varies by politician. In non-election times I would think that Clinton, for example, who is a wonk, probably does get these sort of clips. Probably not right now though.
S&P’s at least a year behind the curve.
Ian, please forgive the o/t but wanted to remind people about the following and there was no other place it would likely be seen in time for some who are TV dependent for these things:
8:00 p.m. EDT - C-Span 2
Top Secret: When Our Government Keeps Us in the Dark with author Geoffrey Stone
Ian and firedogs,
haven’t even finished the post yet but am dying to share a story with all of you esp Ian and the Econ wonks -
the daughter works for a boutique CRE offshoot of a hedge - she and I were talking one night and I was asking her a bunch of questions based on one of Ian’s posts and y’all’s comments
. . .cut to a few days later - the day Jim Cramer was telling the world to buy BSC - the big swingin’ dicks she works with worshipped his ass and started making buys AND cajoling her to come along and bring her grad school money
. . .remembering our previous conversation, the girl calls mom and based on mom’s new found rudimentary grasp of wtf is goin’ on, mom tells daughter hell no, house of cards, don’t go anywhere near BSC, etc.
. . . cut to that Monday where by noon they’re all threatening seppuku on the bloomberg and autographed pics of Cramer are flying out the windows
thank you all for edumacating me and saving my baby’s grad school cash !
p.s.
. . .they all wanted to know what inside info she was privy to - source at the Fed ?, insider at JPM ?? she loves pointing out to them they were bested by a waitress in Texas and teases them all that if they behave she may one day share her source ;)
Would your plan require a reversal of the bankruptcy law?
Mine is much more broad, essentially. I wouldn’t put much of a limit on how much the government would be willing to spend on this. The government would hold the loans directly, they wouldn’t be refinanced through mortgage companies and the government gets much more upside on this if there’s growth in the future. It also puts in much more controls to ensure people don’t get themselves back in debt.
I don’t believe so. The plan is voluntary on the part of banks (though you could make it mandatory). If they’d rather force their customers into bankruptcy they can do so (though do note, mortgages must be sold in blocks. No fine-grained cherry picking.)
Mind you, we should reform the bankruptcy laws, but that’s another matter.
what about present second and third mortgages?
For folks who are upside down, I would generally reccomend walking away from the property. There are now companies which are willing to get you all the paperwork and handhold you through it. It’s traumatic, but it’s better than paying a mortgage on a property that is worth less than the mortgage.
All loans, ARMS, etc… would be reset to a simple, fixed rate mortgage with fixed interest payments, a fixed duration, and a clause that does not allow you to take out any further loans agains the value of the house at least until half way through the mortgage (ie. when the government no longer benefits from house appreciation.)
For your son, I would reccomend talking to a financial advisor. In particular, if the house is upside down (the value is less than the mortgage) he should find out how to walk away. If he knows that a baloon payment is going to be more than he can afford, he should try and sell if he still can, if it’s upside down he should get out.
From a Canadian perspective, I have been railing against certain developments in our mortgage markets for years. For example, the banks in Canada convinced CMHC (the Canadian govt agency that guarantees mortgages) to guarantee debt reconsolidation mortgages up to 90% of home value, which essentially resulted in a govt guarantee of credit card, student loan, automobile and other loans that the banks “converted” into “mortgages” with a 100% govt guarantee, and then they were able to get the customers to run up their credit cards again. Bad, bad, policy.
But, doesn’t it matter just how upside down you are?
I mean, if rents are stable, not going down, as they are in LA…if you suck it up, if it’s just a coupla hundred dollars a month, wouldn’t it be better to keep going, in some cases?
Isn’t this the same as a prepayment penalty? What if you want to sell the house and buy something smaller, because you’ve learned your lesson or lost a higher paying job. There’s got to be a way to find a solution for exceptions. But I do agree that people with cash will come in and try to victimize folks without some controls.
Mods -
Double-double checked and that program IS on tonight. Please wipe that #38 off the face of the map! That way, only those already on the thread will have proof of my non-existent brain. *g* Thank you!
Ian thanks so much for really explaining what “privatizing profits and socializing losses” means.
When Goldman Sachs goes to the Fed’s Discount Window, I thought they had to take their equity back after thirty days.
Is there transparency built in so that we (the public) can see what the Fed is accepting? Related to that does the Fed have resources to reappraise
all the crapeverything shoved at the discount Window?Per what Hugh mentioned above, the credit rating agencies also have failed, just as they did with Enron.
Also, can Congress impeach Chris Cox and Hank Paulsen?
Any comment on lowering capital requirements for Freddie Mac and Fannie May?
I hang out on a college football blog with some guys who work on Wall Street and in the mortgage business. I doubt they’ll ever vote Democratic, but even they are aghast at the Bear Stearns failure. They understand what a collapse in book value means for 401(k)’s and pensions. They know they may have to choose between paying for their kid’s education or retiring or neither of the above. I also think the GOP is running a stall trying to stall the deflation until after January 2009, so they can blame it on Democrats.
Thanks so much for all your work.
The bubble heads loved the ATM idea of real estate because it fueled so much “growth”. Boy are they addicted to growth.
I suspect without rising incomes and significant disposable income and favorable consumer credit, retail and consumer spending will tank.
This will pull a lot of stock performances down also.
Don’t we need an economy which works without the need for some much growth? Isn’t that also a major problem. We are all addicted to “growth”.
LOL. Very well done. And I’ll tell you a secret - judgement is more important than knowledge. Those folks all know more than you, heck they know about stocks and markets than I do. But they have lousy judgement, and you don’t.
And I’m very glad that someone got some real use out of this. :)
Fascinating. I didn’t know they’d done that. I agree. Very unwise.
You can sell the house, and you can transfer the mortgage (in fact you must transfer the mortgage, the house can’t be sold without it.)
Ian, Do we have a window which will last until the next congress steps into the mix? How might we lobby for a plan such as yours with the most effect?
Seems like your plan needs to happen sooner rather than later, considering the current and immediate future rate of bailouts. Would you suggest your plan include a bit of retroactive application to folks like Bear Stearns/JP Morgan, who received early help?
My suspicion was that CMHC did it to hang onto market share with the banks, because GE Capital had become a major player in the Canadian mortgage insurance market at the time (about 7 years ago) and was promoting aggressive strategies like that to the banks.
GS can be forced to take their crap back in 30 days by the Fed. The Fed will even probably do that once the crisis is over. But if the crisis doesn’t “end”, then they can’t force it back, becuase that would precipitate a crisis in confidence. So the question is if you think the crisis will “end” short of, well, a real collapse. And that’s a gamble - Ben doesn’t know and neither do I, though I think probably deleveraging is now in a self reinforcing downard spiral, and he has to think otherwise.
Great story.
Are the mortgage insurers not having to pay off the defaulted mortgages? What IS mortgage insurance?
Most of the people could afford it when they took it out. They failed to understand the fine print, however, or what happens when that attractive ARM converts with a 9 point plus prime interest rate. They’ve been watching other people do this for years; they didn’t understand the nature of a bubble; they thought something else would come along, like a pay raise or a refi and that would solve the problem. What amazes me is that both my niece and my nephew have done this stuff themselves, and mostly gotten out of the situation due to pay raises or their mate took another job or they refi’d the loan to a better rate so that the change never hit them, yet they don’t understand this! They think the people being affected should have known better.!
Ian,
Do you have an answer for my question at 43?
Fortunately for me, even with the prices going down, I’m currently at about double what I paid, but I know people who are on the edge.
Just wondered about your advice to walk away, especially since another question is where does one go?
Can’t see Paulson et al being impeached. I believe it is possible, however. Freddie and Fannie are insolvent, their ratios should be lowered to 10:1 along with everyone else’s, but until there’s a full bailout lowering their leverage would just cause them to collapse.
These things play out slow. Sooner would be better, but such a plan will help even in 2009. Congress right now is unlikely to do anything very broad, unless things get /really/ ugly. I mean this is the Congress that wouldn’t even expand unemployment benefits and food stamps, something that the Republican Congress of 2001 did. They are, substantially, actually the most reactionary Congress of the past 60 odd years. Only the 05-06 congress might be more reactionary.
So I don’t have a lot of hope for now. They’re going to fiddle around the edges and pray the Fed will save them. If the Fed fails, then they may do something.
…you just walk away–a friend of mine is doing just that…let the bank will have it. Why be burdened with property you can’t afford–and will eventually sink you?
If it’s your primary residence and you can afford the mortgage and it’s not a baloon mortgage and you intend to live there for at least 10 years or so, hang on. This is not a good time to sell, but it is a better time to sell than it will be for about 5 or 6 years.
Note that I don’t know you or your situation - advice you get on the internet is usually worth what you pay for it.
…you move in with friends, relatives, or parents…
(you and I are on the outs right now, but then I feel for you if you’re in a bad situation…)
Fortunately, as I said before, it’s not advice for me. I’m not going anywhere. Again, well above the ratio and no seconds or balloons.
I’m asking about people who may be upside down on their loans, but, still are paying somewhat equal to what rents are…which are pretty high in LA.
Don’t worry, I’m not hanging my children’s inheritance on free advice on the internet…just responding with a question to what You said.
Thanks for your response, though.
I can’t see how the larger credit crisis will be solved by stabilizing the mortgage monster. There is still way too much leverage and people are wanting to go from high risk/high returns to low risk low returns and this is inevitably going to run the banks.
There is a lot of pump and dump going on and people are looking for ways to get out of the market. Why would anyone play in the market now?
That’s preposterous.
Not every one has people to move in on.
…glad to know that you’re not at risk…you’ve been there for me in the past…just trying to respond. (Not to worry: this is the last time I’ll respond to you directly in a thread…)
Gettin a bit touchy up in here.
i will not even respond to this one..you’ve been on the warpath with me..especially during the Christy thread Pull Up a Chair this morning, about Jane–
(RGB: you taking note? I’m trying to be on good behavior here…but it’s damn difficult…i have to tell you…)
yep–and I can tell you I’m not taking any prisoners!!! WTF is going on at FDL?
The ramifications on one’s credit are serious! Consider all that you need a “good” credit rating for many decent jobs, apartments, and don’t ever expect to get a credit card or finance a car again.
and hey, didn’t I see something Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac related from Bernanke - this week ?? can’t find it now, was wondering if it was more withdrawals from the $400B left
and in case ya missed it - this morning Prof DeLong sounds the alarm for proactive planning in the event of Fed Failure - hope it isn’t too o/t
Who services these loans then? Who pays the taxes and insurance? Will there be PMI?
My comment was said in the possible way…
Sorry if my question and response seemed touchy, Ian.
I still think it was a fair question.
Still sorry if it seemed that way however.
Same ol’ buncha whiney ass experts as always. Where’s Kiddo and Lahoma?
my comment was absolutely not directed at you at all…*G*
i still love you, demi, in spite of all…(as I said, you were there for me during my tribulations… fair is fair…) I want everyone at FDL to know it…
and now i’ll retire gracefully…
“Mark to market” would cause an uproar from sea to shining sea, because who wants to face the fact that their RE is worth only a fraction of what they thought?
If banks sold their REOs instead of holding on to them, the market would correct itself without any government.
Also, Ian, I am quite shocked that you think because if one is upside down, one should walk - just like that. There are a lot of people who have acted irresponsibly and criminally, have lied, have not read their contracts, have been greedy as well as stupid.
Sell them to whom? China…?
Probably you get Fannie or Freddie to administer them. Although there’s an argument for setting up a new agency. Taxes are paid as normal, even if it is one branch of the government paying another. Bring it in-house. Managing simple mortgages is really very easy. It only becomes complex if you make the mortgages complex.
Because we all can use a break sometimes, and, sometimes, it’s worth to give someone else a break, just ’cause…
(a gentle remedy for touchiness….)
I vote for a new agency named after Bush.
Bother. And I previewed. it’s worth IT, to …
Sounds like you are describing Bush supporters.
Who will buy it?
Psst… Hey buddy can ya spare a couple Trillion…? ;-)
I am not on the warpath with anyone here. I just comment as my small minds sees things. If something sounds dumb to me I say so. But I get the same from others. To me it’s nothing personal because I don’t have personal relationships with these “screen nicks”.
Laura!
Walking when upside down is a business decision. Businesses would do it in a second, I think people should too. And I’ve worked in an underwriting department. The contract allows them to walk, they should walk. Be sure the banks would cut them dead in a second if it was in their interest to.
As per usual, Hillary was on top of this and had concrete solutions for the problem. Media would rather focus on how much she is a bitch. And how inspiring Obama’s speeches are. It is hard to be inspired when you are losing your home and retirement. But the best solution for all of our problems is a great speech, delivered via teleprompter between 8 flags with a bright blue background. Thank god we can check off the race problem because Obama had the courage to speak about it. Isn’t he wonderful! We all love a parade and a good speech!
I see a lot of Chapter 7 cases because my law partner is a trustee. I assure that most of the people we see were doing their best in a bad situation. Your assumptions have little basis in fact.
I might add that if the bankruptcy code were amended to permit ordinary citizens to do what businesses and rich people do in Chapter 11, that is, to cut the secured claim to the value of the collateral, and pay cents on the dollar on the balance, and to adjust the interest rate to current market, and to adjust the length of the payment and get rid of floating rates, as the Democrats proposed, then a big piece of the problem would be fixed.
Yes they would.
But, the little guy cannot always absorb the loss that a business can.
If you can afford an upside down loan that’s still lower than rent, isn’t it good business sense to protect what equity you have?
Ian;
Fantastically important post, as always. Always appreciate your finely honed insights.
If you owe more than the property is worth, there IS no equity.
The sad part is that Hillary reanimates the Clinton Hate Machine. Nothing’s likely to get done because of all the noise. The Clintons have not dealt with the machine. Ignoring it will not work.
And Laura, always wonder to see you, especially, in action.
‘wonder-ful’!!!
Hello there, David. Good to see you, too.
Do you feel better now? Please direct your rants at the rightful sources of your angst, the MSM… It does get tiresome to see it here…!
The problem I see is that it is not the mortgages themselves that do not have a market but rather the strange financial securities that were cooked up by first breaking the mortgages into different income streams and then lumping like parts of hundreds of mortgages into things that were then used to back bonds which were issued to many institutions.
Just how would anyone be able to sell "blocks" of whole mortgages to the government as called for in the first step of this plan? And unless the government acquired the whole mortgage on each home it would not be able to restructure the mortgages in the way suggested.
It seems to me that the government would need to purchase every mortgage backed security that involved a particular home before it was in a position act in the way suggested.
But then the problem becomes pricing once again. How much does the government offer to pay the holders of these securities? Agreed that the price should be discounted in some way based upon a more realistic view of real-estate prices, but how much do you pay for the different income streams?
The solution offered would work if the problem were that banks had a lot of problem mortgages, but that is not what we are looking at. Most have been broken up and passed on. Those that have not been and not the things that have become impossible to liquidate because of uncertainty.
I think this suggestion has merit, but as described it skips over the hellish complexity of somehow extracting the individual mortgage eggs from the strange derivative omelet that the financial community has cooked up from them.
I see your point. And, now I understand what upside down means.
I missed that part.
Wish someone pointed that out before I embarrassed myself.
Lotsa frazzled nerves on the threads these days, t’would seem …
Did you see the NYT editorial comparing Dems to the Donner party this morning? Yum.
PLEASE! NO jokes about lady fingers!
Hey, what’s a little foot in mouth among friends… :})
Completely gratuitous and really unhelpful.
‘Something’ to munch on, Raven, I’d say.
Bill and Hillary Donner?
That problem is solved by amending the bankruptcy code. The holders of the mortgages in CDOs or SIVs or whatever get what they get the payments that the Judge decides, or that the parties negotiate.
In the same way, the government can by law refinance the homeowner’s note and mortgage, and the holders get whatever the government pays under the law and suck eggs for the rest.
While we stew in our own juices!
or Ral
That was a well-seasoned response.
I have to say that I hope whomever the next dem President chooses as economic adviser will have at least half the wit and grasp as has Ian.
dumb question.
When a mortgage holder receives notice of a reset on his mortgage and his mortgage has been sliced and diced and bundled and so forth. Who is actually making the reset? Who is he/she to pay? Does this entity not hold the mortgage? Or are they also a borrower and someone else owns their ass?
Can some explain this a bit.
I was wondering that myself, but was afraid to ask. I don’t understand why if someone doesn’t like what kiddo has to say (as much as I do, for instance) they can’t just ignore it. Skip over it. How hard is that? Why is EPU so seldom around? I know Zennurse claims to be ill, but I have a feeling she’s gone somewhere else. Madmommy, she’s around, but not around here. What’s happening to FDL? Not enough tolerance.
Ian I’ve got a friend who’s wife walked on him and left him holding the bag. He’s upside down in his house in W. Palm and needs to mail the keys to the bank. She’s not contributing her half anymore. Can you link some resources?
My humble $.02 - If you can afford your mortgage payments and you don’t have a baloon, even if you’re upside-down right now… It’s just like investing in the stock market. You need to think long term. The scales will eventually tip in your favor. Ian, Am I toopid?
I don’t get what the Kiddo thing was. He and Lahma seemed friendly enough and non confrontational? What happened?
Who cares what your house is worth… what matters is what it costs for shelter.
We need to disabuse our people about investing in their homes.
In fact the notion of wealth accumulation from investments is kinda dumb.
How about another paradigm?
I really wouldn’t worry too much. I doubt that Biodun was so sensitive to Kiddo’s feelings the other day when he totally criticized him. If you can dish it out, to my way of thinking, you ought to also be able to take it.
That’d be $.20 (twenty-cent… pair-a-dime, get it?)
;~P
IMO, Jane.
You may well be correct. The loss of thoughful people to the discussion is never without cost.
Kiddo may have been acutely obtuse at times, but math-minded folk often are. I am related to some, and treasure them mightily. Even non-math-minded folks
That anyone could, even jokingly, suggest that Lahoma was intolerant or disrespectful of others essential humanity, ever, is quite beyond my grasp.
This is a great post, Ian. I have been involved in the RE market for about 20 years.
I wonder about walking however. I understand walking and upside down, but OTOH, I was in a position to consider walking a few years back and decided to stick it out because I learned that the bank would take possession and sell at any price they could get, but I would still be stuck with the balance of the loan, etc.
It was more of a risk for me to walk than to stick it out, though I was losing. I recovered more or less, but I would still be paying that bad loan off now, if I had walked.
Bingo
(even non-math-minded folks) can be and are, obtuse.
Jeez!
Jane was pissed at Kiddo? Why? Did he dis her?
I have great respect for Jane’s work at FDL. I could care less about NBK which I found disgusting even though I normally appreciate Stone’s films.
On the other hand, FDL is nothing without the commenters is it?
Nationalizing mortgage paper might be the only answer but no matter how you slice it the losses are going to be taken by the home owners directly and all taxpayers indirectly. The thing is it’s already in the works. The already bankrupt GSE’s are going to be allowed to take on the bad paper and in a plan not yet ironed out be allowed to write new mortgages to replace the bad.
The only way any such plans can work is if home prices stabilize. That is a huge if. In the meantime the banks will be able to unload the paper at a non real market price. The foreign central banks holding a trillion of this crap are probably going to get screwed however. Lovely. Not that they don’t deserve it for attempting to keep the bubble afloat.
Anyway sooner or later the piper will have to be paid. The GSE’s with around $90 bil in capital are going to have to swallow a couple of trillion in losses.
The entire exercise is really just the endless search for a pony.
Liberals should have been screaming bloody murder for the last 6 years about this Government Sponsored inflation of home prices through the mechanism of unsound credit. More unsound credit and re inflated home ‘values’ are not the answer since that is what caused the problem. Instead not one national politician ever mentioned it. So we end up trying to fix the unfixable by socializing the losses while the pigmen, ie Wall Street, keeps their gains and ends up with a bigger percentage of the total pie even if the pie is a bit smaller.
Your plan sounds basically good, Ian.
A few quibbles … Mauldin points out the housing boom started well in 1998 and through 2001, average house prices went up by 50%. Then the easy credit and animal spirits kicked in. Most of the analysts I read expect a further 20-30% fall in median prices overall. Yikes.
The problem with buying ‘blocks of mortgages’ is finding them, and finding whole mortgages. The derivatives slicing and dicing even included CDOs sliced and diced, with the end result that untold numbers of mortgages are in pieces.
After all, five states now have knocked back foreclosure attempts on the basis that actual ownership of defaulters’ mortgages cannot be shown.
I wonder if now that the Fed has some of this toxic creativity paper in its paws if it would be possible to start unwinding the mess, one CDO at a time. Sell individual mortgages back to the originating bank, put the money in an escrow account on behalf of the fund, spreading the risk factors, going one step at a time.
No idea how many mortgages were sold on, obvious a great many since you cannt make mortgage-backed securities without mortgages! And probably a large number of responsible assets from the 90s.
You have the ability to put your finger right on ‘it’, whatever the ‘it’ might be. I appreciate that, SaunderO, very much.
It was within the past week. I was looking for the thread and can’t find it.
To be fair, the last incident that I saw, Kiddo baited Jane into it, but then Jane called in Pach to call him out. I keep thinking I remember that Egregious used to call Kiddo her cousin, and that he may be bipolar, although I can’t swear to it. But I still say, if you don’t like what he has to say, skip over it. I’ve been known to skip whole threads lately. Like the one on Richardson today, again. I can’t imagine anything more unproductive than a discussion on process, not substance, not policy. It’s not up to us to decide what Richardson does. My own Gov. had endorsed Obama before the primary. What should she do? Change to Hillary because that’s who won our primary? It was set up for the superdelegates to use their own judgement, so let him do whatever, who the hell cares and why does it matter. There are so many other things to do and to think about, that would be last on my list, so I just left when I saw what the writing was about, as I did yesterday when it finally hit me what a useless discussion it was. And on that note, I’ll say goodnight. Ian, I really like your posts, though, so don’t get me wrong.
It wqs not only walls street that was partying over these mortgages and the housing bubble… virtually the entire consumer market, from Ipods to SUVs were flying off the shelves with the refi cash from home equity borrowing.
Everyone on main street was partying.
Exactly how DO you slice a mortgage up and “sell” it in pieces?
The state of Massachusetts has an interesting approach. The sub prime mortgage holder must apply to the attorney general for permission to foreclose. They try to work out a plan where the homeowner remains in the house (they rewrite the terms of the mortgage) later on, if property values appreciate, they decide how to divide the profits. The judge granting the preliminary injunction against a foreclosure, wrote one of the most informative judicial opinions I’ve read. If anyone wants the citation, I can provide it, though I don’t know about a link. The beauty of this scheme is that the workout is on a case by case basis and doesn’t require federal intervention. In Connecticut mortgages foreclosures are equitable actions. Judges can fashion any remedy that does justice between the parties, so a mortgage could be rewritten on general equitable principles.
A properties value can only change when it is on the market. It’s not different from many other assets. How can you have an upside down mortgage unless you putting your property for sale and the bids are lower than what you paid?
I think it is fair to say that the mortgage crisis is just like Katrina. Everyone can see what needs to be done but we have an administration that has a different agenda. Each scenario had a goal of redistribtion of wealth up . There were obscene amounts of money to be made. They did not care how many or who drowned, in the water, or the financial cesspool. They don’t want to find a way to solve this problem or any problem. They only want to know how to make money from the problem. It really is disgusing. These people feel like they are not of this world. truly scary fools.
Yes, in that case it’s probably worth doing.
Yes, that’s true. You’d have to break the tranches up. It can be done.
if you expect to live in it for at least 10 years or so, yeah. If you know you’re going to have to move, you may wish to get out.
Yeah. I understand in many cases you don’t get stuck with the difference. But if you’ll wind up on the hook, yeah, might as well hang on. Which is why you always need to talk to an expert with your paperwork.
Yeah, 98 is the other year I considered as baseline, actually. But in a lot of places it didn’t really begin at that time. Still I totally see the argument for it.
How do you bundle a mortgage and loose its attributes? can you simply take 1000 6% fixed rate mortgages… add up their total value and sell THAT so that the mortgages themselves are “destroyed”. Who does the home owner make his payments to?
Maybe one can declare bankruptcy and get out that way. It was not an option for me, and the pain was going to be worse if I walked. So I sucked up my losses and went on. It was not devastating. Walking would have been much worse for me, no matter the short term mess.
Really, it’s not me. :)
I know it must have sounded like “I’ve got a friend who…”
I live in a manufactured home community. Bought this house four years ago with a big down, so I’m good.
But, I heard from neighbors that when there was a big quake here a lot of values went way south and a lot of people walked away.
So, they lost all the (not equity, I used the wrong word) money they had Put Down on their homes.
I guess I’m just afeared these days.
And, my sister sold her condo and rents and I’m just a little worried about the future.
But, thanks again for responding.
I remember reading a MSM paper, I forget, about a woman doing well for a number of years on her mortgage until she had a medical problem. The foreclosure notice arrived soon after, so she went to the bank to discuss.
“Nothing to do with us,” was the answer. Her lawyer then could not even pin down precisely who owned the mortgage. This sort of smoke & mirrors is almost incomprehensible. But a lot of reading since then, it looks like the paper trail in many cases was skipped as too hard, costly to assess assets, or ‘who cares?’
demi: IANAFG (Financial Guru) - However, I have always believed that owning is a far better option than renting whatever the situation. When you rent, you will NEVER have anything remotely resembling “equity”… rent is just GONE… GONE… Poof!
Again, I’m not a genius YMMV
Solution based discussion! Good. I have also thought that finding a way to keep people in the homes they bought, making their payment is solid economics. It stabilizes communities. The lenders will have an incentive to in fees to refi. When the the properties get re-evauated as many alreeady have to lower their taxes the mortgage can be adjusted and the payment will be made. Then all the paper will have a value instead of being worthless. Just is the only thing to do. Bailing out banks does not make sense.
(I just love your name. It’s almost like a contact high.)
I am pleased to rent. I assume it costs monthly less than owning. I don’t see the need for equity. I see housing as a monthly cost. I have no kids and will have no inheritance to worry about.
You make some very good points here. The following is not one of them:
Me? I got a mortgage, now listen very carefully here, on my house…my only asset which in normal times with a normal economy I could pay without too much stress. Still listening?
These are not normal time pal. Premium gas hit $4.00/gal last night here in CA. Work is hard to find and….
Guess what this is all part of the fascist regime’s plan. Bankrupt the nation which at one and the same time reduces the pushback from the citizenry, worked for Nixon, and opens up lots of opportunity for profit for Boosh cronies re: The Shock Doctrine.
You want to see a revoution on your hands just try telling all the folks who currently have 20-30-40% equity in their homes they’ve gotta give that up.
You will see you some change alright.
Folks are going to lose 20% to 40% anyway. They can lose some equity and keep your house; or lose the equity and their house and wind up on the street.
Right now the bailout is almost all going to the top, none to ordinary householders. This plan is a huge bailout of householders that allows most of them to keep thier property.
Ian your plan is the best that I have yet encountered, by far the best, and I can only hope that your words may reach the ears of those who must needs behave responsibly, both the future President and future Congress, with the emphasis on Congress,(and sooner rather that later) as you’ve already suggested.
Things are far more iffy than most, who should know better, have admitted.
Some, Ben amongst them, probably will never be able to actually ‘do’ the realization of what has been wrought, their jobs and sense of personal ‘worth’ depend upon avoidance of such ‘unpleasantness’.
Ben will either go down as one of the greatest of all Fed chairmen, or one of the worst. And he knows it.
I’m betting on “one of the worst”, but I could be wrong.
I would not bet against you. Possibly, given the conjunction of all the ’signs’, Ben may well come to roost at the ‘top’ of the worst’s pecking order. Greenspan will have a room towards the top. I suspect the view from way up there will be spectacular…
Upside down means you owe more than the property is worth.
Usually, the primary lender had a contract with the secondary market purchaser to “service the loan” meaning he does the accounting, billing, collection, etc. I am not sure about now, but at one time once the loan was sold, if for any reason the borrower defaulted within the first or sometimes second year, the primary lender had to buy the loan back. There has been so much fraud this last cycle, who knows what the rules are now. One thing is clear. A lot of lenders, mortgage brokers ought to be in jail for deceptive practices. There is going to a lot of hurt to go around this time. Even people that own their homes free and clear are seeing their assets dimenish. Reassessment of property taxes will also mean less revenue for schools, fire and police, etc.
What a good post and discussion, Ian, sorry I missed it live.
In response to SanderO, I notice you have several questions about the securitization and servicing processes. You might be interested in checking out some of the special “UberNerd” posts written by Tanta, a career mortgage professional, at Calculated Risk. The entries titled “MBS I” through III and “Mortgage Servicing” probably get to all your questions; since I haven’t reread them in a few months, I won’t even attempt the dangerous task of summarizing them.
Bon apetit!
First you must understand what “equity” is. Equity is the value you have in your real estate that is not liened. For most people, it the difference between their mortgage and the value of the property TODAY. What you paid for the property and any money that you put in it is irrelevant to the today’s market value.
Ian, as others mentioned, your government purchase proposal sounds a lot like the bill submitted recently by Rep. Barney Frank, a copy of which lies still unread on my desk at this moment. I believe Sen. Dodd has also submitted something equivalent in the Senate.
Also in Congress somewhere is at least one bankruptcy reform bill that would restore the cramdown authority to bankruptcy judges. Since the banks or investors have the first move under the purchase programs while the borrower has it under bankruptcy, there’s clearly room for both reforms.
Finally, there are these wise words on the value of banks and investors voluntarily writing down the value of loans and accepting the losses gracefully [my emphases]:
And the speaker goes on to suggest some ways in which federal agencies, with the help of enabling legislation from Congress perhaps, could make this process simpler for banks, investors, and loan servicers. Needless to say, the MSM have gone to great lengths to pretend that these remarks were never made. In fact the only way I know that the financial talking airheads actually heard them is because the next speech by Bernanke was greeted with a big, audible sigh of relief that “at least he’s not asking the banks to take losses again.”
Excuse me: Here’s the Frank proposal press release, with a link to the text of the bill.
I’ve read the bill. There both similarities and differences, as I noted above.
Ah yes. Must … catch … up [gasp]!
A Tale of Real Estate Predation and a fine example of blogger value-added of the sort we’ve become accustomed to around these precincts. One of the worst system overloads that I fear we’re in for is good advice. There are those who probably should look to walk, with or without bankruptcy discharge —my own cardinal example is a family with young children, or planning to have them soon. There’s just so much more they could do with their income over time than overpaying on a house, let alone the effect of all that interest, and they will be able to re-enter the credit market if they really need to before the kids leave home.
However, there are sharks out there at that end of the market, too, and it’s likely to get worse, since the borrower problems are maybe just beginning to accelerate.
Krugman alerts us to a couple of articles on the financial regulation horizon.
very good .. i had the same idea about the profit off any sales being split with the note underwriter .. the idea keeps the people in the houses .. keeps the houses off the market and thereby NOT fueling further market declines ..and glutting
and it makes the fat cats bear some of burden for their excess speculation and predatory prices having created the situation ..they should bear it all ..we’re idiots for letting them put us into the position of having to eat their bad judgement or suffer a collapse ..which indicates that regulation os required ..whether anyone likes it or not ..
but bummer .. the veto pen would strike it down .. we can’t have the fat cats losing any money .. it’s un-american .. here we socialize losses and privatize profit ..
what WERE you thinkin’ … lol
I agree that is the best way to help mortgagees, but of course that would do nothing to make the existing mortgage based bonds more certain in value. And of course if the Federal Reserve is to insure those things, as it seems it has to some degree, then any amendment to the code like that would probably be "scored" in congress as costing the taxpayers real money and the Republicans could say that it violated PAGO.
This whole thing was as predictable as the sunrise. Real estate and credit cycles are as old as the hills almost and they combined into a perfect bubble with a huge shove from Greenspan’s Fed, the pigmen and every politician in the land who just loved wealth creation by inflation of assets for the little guy.
That prices rose to record heights, by far, over median income seemed not to concern anyone but fuddy duddies like me. Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back together again. It will be several generations or maybe never hopefully, that insanely easy credit is allowed to inflate real estate again. At the heart of it were the GSE’s, Fannie Mae etc. bought up ever more dodgy mortgage paper with funds garnered at below market rates because of their implied government guarantee. Well at least until 3 years ago when it was realized what a mess they had. Thousand of green eyeshade guys have been now working for years trying to figure out their books and are only now getting a handle on it.
When they had to pull back and start reducing their holdings one of the most bizzare events in economic history occurred. Foreign central banks lead by China bought around $700 billion of it. Making matters more weird is that they got hardly any premium at all over Treasury paper. Just wait until the Chinese people learn that they have lost 50% on the principal and 25% on the currency translation on the deal.
So anyway then the GSE’s had to pull in their horns the ‘free market’ stepped into the breach for the last exciting years of the bubble. The fact is that the worst of the worst MBS’s are not GSE paper but Wall Street generated stuff which is a bit more difficult to get a fence around.
Again I will say it. Any plan to save homeowners or the banks is an exercise in pony searching. Somehow or other 2 or 4 trillion dollars is going to have to be written off. Enough of it is on the books of the commercial and investment banks that to take the losses would destroy them so every plan starts and ends with saving them. I doubt any plan will be highly successfull but they are going to try and that means you Joe and Jane citizen is going to pay.
But wouldn’t you have to buy them in order to do that? How would that set a market point for the things that are not purchased. It sounds like the idea is to set some formula to calculate a discounted value on such things based on certain assumptions about the future real-estate market and then the Fed offering to purchase them. Of course unless for a particular residence all the holder of bonds bases on parts of that mortgage happened to have sold to Fed there would be no way to give the mortgagee the relieve described. It would be an expensive way to help not that many people and would really just be a bailout for bond holders who were so cash strapped that they were forced to accept the Fed offer.
I like the idea of going at it from the other end of bankruptcy reform and letting the "free market" sort out the bond holders.
Is there a link? What was said?
And, having a degree in math, as does kiddo, i resemble that remark. (But not anywhere near enough to actually contemplate being insulted).
Sounds great Ian.
Support the market!
Distribute the losses with government taking the shock.
Save the homeowners.
Let speculators handle their own situations.
What about punishments or rehabilitation of law with regard to brokers, land speculators, mortgage lenders and other opportunists?
I wonder, is there any obvious change to government regulation/oversight which would’ve helped to head off this craziness?
And, I agree with one poster about exceptional situations: there has to be some way to deal with multiple mortgages where it’s not simple speculation and there has to be ways of handling any odd situation without just ignoring those and letting people sink in the quicksand. So, some kind of special “help” has to be available for those.
Of course, the Banking Modernization Act needs to be modernized!
The system, markets, lenders, speculators, banks, brokers, home owners, regulators and whom else needs to be looked at?
You have a good point, but there is a dynamic which occurs over time which investors should notice.
As the mortgage crisis causes some crashes here and there, there will also be stocks which are pretty sound made available for cheaper prices. Invest away!
The roller coaster ride will be rough for those most directly involved in the real estate business, but for others there has to be some buying points where investors can shift their dollars/euros/pesos/etc.
If they stay dynamic and shift resources then the market might not be hurt too bad. But, of course, the housing sector will take some time to get reorganized and fully recover.
Sucks don’t it? — an Edwards supporter
But, that’s Democracy. The majority, regardless of their attention span or sanity, rules (mostly). Let’s pray to the deity of our choice that his abilities are beyond his cult-like supporters mentality.
There is a hope that in a democratic system that not only will the desires of the majority be satisfied, but that somehow quantity becomes quality when a majority agree to something. Science has shown that’s not true, but we pretend to believe it with regard to politics. Let’s hope our majority know what they’re doing.
Another excellent point. I like the way you’re thinking outside of the box here.
Yes, the idea of investing in housing has come a cropper because it wasn’t left outside of the markets. If we can modernize the banking system to protect mortgages from this disaster, then maybe investing in housing can return as an idea.
But, for now, we do have to look at some basic ideas about cost of living and building costs and property taxes and real fundamentals.
This is one reason I was suggesting about a year ago that we need to find other ways for people to invest and grow rich without having cash in their pockets that always inspires price inflation. Where can one sequester their investments so that speculators won’t pump & dump it?
It’s important because we’d like everyone to grow more wealthy and share in the nation’s wealth, but if it’s just increased wages, then the retail industry will just increase their prices and take it all back.
The problem now is the large numbers of mortgages and lenders and borrowers. It’s huge. Can you imagine every state AG and courts trying to sort this out. No way.