The home mortgage buy-up has already been approved; Update: McCain camp confirms no additional fund request
posted at 11:05 am on October 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Last night, conservatives groaned in unison when John McCain launched his “new” initiative to renegotiate the principal on home mortgages with owners approaching bankruptcy. Some called this a “second bailout”, and others predicted a massive hit on home values nationwide. In fact, this is nothing terribly new nor innovative, and it has as much chance of preserving home values as it does of eroding them.
First, lenders already have begun modifiying mortgages, including principal, and for very good reason. Foreclosures create massive losses for lenders, and they’re better off keeping owners in their homes and making payments — even if they take a 10-20% loss on the principal, on paper. The result will be lower profit than originally expected, but it’s still profit, and right now that looks a lot better than a potential 50-75% loss through foreclosure.
Now that Treasury will buy hundreds of billions in mortgage-backed securities, they in effect have become the lender. They will own the papers on these homes, and must act in the long-term best interest in managing them. That will mean negotiating with homeowners just as private lenders have already done, trying to keep people in their homes and preventing as many defaults as possible. Note that this comes as a result of the legislation Congress already passed, and not any new initiative. What McCain proposes is a specific strategy of managing the paper to prevent as many homes from foreclosure as possible. In the end, that strategy could result in considerable long-term profit rather than a taxpayer bath.
Renegotiating the principal on these loans will not directly impact home values, for two reasons. The action will keep these homes off the market, while home values depend on the sale prices of homes in the immediate vicinity. Second, home values are already dropping, thanks to the deflation of the housing bubble, excess inventory through overbuilding of new homes, and the anticipated addition of tens of thousands of foreclosures. Lenders are also not writing too many mortgages these days, making it impossible to buy or sell. If these foreclosures hit the market, it will not only drastically lower the prices in neighborhoods across America, it will eat into the ability of lenders to grant mortgages in the future — and they won’t have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backstopping them any longer.
This proposal doesn’t go any farther than Congress has already gone in injecting the government into private lending markets in order to undo their disastrous interventions over the past decade. It does offer a management strategy for the portfolios that Treasury will buy with that now-existing authority. The plan follows a fairly straightforward private-sector strategy in an attempt to keep as many people in their homes as possible. Without some sort of renegotiation on these loans, we’ll start seeing massive foreclosures and the rapid deflation of home values everywhere — which is what McCain said he wanted to prevent.
Update: Michelle strongly disagrees.
Update II: I’ve consulted an economist on this point, and he points out that the trouble with MBSs is that they consist of pieces of several loans. That’s what will make renegotiating terms through the private sector almost impossible — it will require hundreds of people to agree on each one. He thinks that McCain’s proposal will create a shortcut that will allow for quick renegotiation, which could keep many of these mortgages from going into default.
The McCain campaign confirmed with me that the $300 billion McCain referenced was part of the existing bailout, not an additional outlay. He wants it redirected into this effort. I’ve asked for a link, and I’ll add it when I get it.
Update III: Marc Ambinder has this report from a Team McCain conference call this morning:
On a conference call with reporters, McCain policy chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin spelled out how McCain would pay for his plan for the government to buy troubled mortgages and replace when with more favorable fixed-rate mortgages at minimal direct cost to the homeowners. The government could use some of the $700 billion authorized for the bailout and tap other accounts, although the campaign estimates that, owing to negative equity — the government can’t magically turn bad mortgages into good ones without taking a hit — would be $300 billion. The McCain team hopes that by buying mortgages directly, the government wouldn’t have to buy as many distressed assets from big banks, thus reducing the net cost. McCain claims this idea as his own, although the bailout/rescue bill already gives the government the authority to deal directly with homeowners, and Obama has suggested that the government do the same — although McCain’s certainly being more aggressive here.
As I said, the authority to do this was in the plan all along. It’s not an additional $300 billion — it’s using $300 billion of the $700 billion already authorized to hit more directly on mortgages rather than rescuing investors from their derivatives. It transfers at least some of the pain back to the people who speculated on mortgages, but in effect gives the derivatives more value through the support of the mortgages on which they’re based.
Update IV: The Hope for Homeowners program, within the plan passed by Congress a week ago, already has this mechanism within it:
HOPE for Homeowners (H4H) is a program designed to assist borrowers at risk of default or foreclosure in refinancing to an affordable 30-year fixed rate FHA loan. The program is effective October 1, 2008 and will conclude on September 30, 2011. …
The loan amount may not exceed a nationwide maximum of $550,440.
The new mortgage will be no more than 90% of the new appraised value including any financed UFMIP with the lender essentially writing down the current mortgage to that amount.
Upfront MIP is 3% and the monthly MIP is 1.5%
The holders of existing mortgage liens must waive all prepayment penalties and late payment fees.
The existing first mortgage must accept the proceeds of the H4H loan as full settlement of all outstanding indebtedness.
Existing subordinate lenders must release their outstanding mortgage liens.
Update V: King Banaian looks at the McCain proposal:
There’s a glut of homes on the market. A glut is reduced either by decreasing supply or increasing demand. Lee Ohanian tries to sell an increased in skilled immigrants as a way to increase demand. The McCain Resurgence Plan, at its base, tries to reduce supply by not forcing the sale of homes through foreclosures. It might be, might be, cheaper to throw a few dollars into homes directly than to support the banks through the purchase of MBSs. …
The relief of negative equity means that the banks would receive from the government the difference between the principal on the original mortgage and the mortgage “at terms manageable for the homeowner.” I still need some flesh on that. I would want to know if the 31% payment-to-income ratio is the definition of manageable. I’d want to know if the government can be certain the initial purchase price on the home was not set in order to qualify someone for a shady mortgage. Those details aren’t there, and don’t look in Marty Feldstein’s pitch from last Friday (which is not exactly the same proposal anyway, but a close cousin.)
Be sure to read all of King’s post.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
You’re rose colored glass are getting in the way of reality, Ed.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I predict that within six months the ACLU will file suit alleging that all the restrictions in the proposal are racist and that the “victims” should just get the damn house free and clear.
PattyJ on October 8, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Brilliant plan by Mccain!
Thank you for dominating this issue and taking back this election Mac!
SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM
If the management can prevent fraud and people are paying their debts, I’m all for it.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Ben Stein through this idea out there last week, because one big thing it would do is keep these Credit Default Swap contracts from turning into Trillions in losses.
its unconstitutional of course, but oh well. maybe it gets McCain elected
jp on October 8, 2008 at 11:11 AM
So now it’s ok, because Congress already passed it? Are you kidding?
+1 (and a tiny spelling edit – couldn’t help myself!)
fourstringfuror on October 8, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I keep wondering when the McCain camp will wise up and hire the services of folks like Ed to help with McCain’s messaging. I find myself groaning during every debate when McCain misses opportunities to explain his plans in clear, uncertain terms. The response would have been very different last night had McCain sold it as better management of legislation already passed where the alternative is the Democrats idea of letting courts fiddle with bankruptcy laws.
kgs_mvs on October 8, 2008 at 11:11 AM
John McCain: We are all
GeorgiansSocialists now.Seriously, which is now the most socialist, China or the U.S.A. ?
MB4 on October 8, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Jeez, do I feel like a fool, taking out a mortgage that I could afford, paying principle, interest, taxes and insurance. Does my mortgage get renegotiated down too?
rbj on October 8, 2008 at 11:12 AM
McCain needs to spell this out in the final debate. Also, he desperately needs Mitt and other surrogates (Rudy, Fred, et. al.) to actively work on GOTV events explaining it, too.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 8, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I think I should seriously stop paying my mortgage. I need a piece of this.
tshell on October 8, 2008 at 11:13 AM
In the long-term best interest of whom? Not me. Must be some fellow behind the tree.
MB4 on October 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I agree with Ed on this. I can’t cite where I heard this discussion last week (maybe Cavuto’s show?), but part of the bailout (I mean *rescue* plan) is supposed to address what McCain brought up last night.
Short of reading the 451 page bill, I would like some more specifics on this bill and how it will be implemented…but I suppose that’s all up to Mr. Hank Paulson *gag*!
ConMom on October 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I think he wanted to make it sound like he was proposing something new.
Mark1971 on October 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I oppose this McCain monstrosity.
Michelle on October 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Your full of bovine excrement as usual, Ed. This is add on money, pure and simple. The 700B has already been spent on investment bank bailouts (and even that is not nearly enough for their problems). Spin it.
Fletch54 on October 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Thanks for posting this – I was having a hard time convincing my friends that this was the case. BTW, big win for McCain on this, with Barry scratching his head.
Vashta.Nerada on October 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Brilliant plan by Mccain!
Thank you for dominating this issue and taking back this election Mac!
How can a conservative like this idea, no matter where it came from? I hate this.
RWLA on October 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Thank you, Ed. I tried to make this case last night but people had their fingers in their ears.
I do not think most people understand the scale of this housing disaster. Even the housing and mortgage industry did not understand it until very recently. Everyone has been in denial for many months. Default rates are approaching 25% for subprime mortgages now. I think McCain deserves some credit for recognizing it and at least offering a plan to do something about it.
People also need to understand that the mortgage industry has already been effectively nationalized with the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are the sole sources of capital for mortgages right now other than bank deposits. Nobody is making loans now that cannot be sold to Fannie or Freddie or Ginnie Mae (Ginnie is a government agency that buys FHA- and VA-guaranteed loans and sells bonds to cover them.)
rockmom on October 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
McCain is reduced to offering mortgage relief bribes to voters.
Fletch54 on October 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM
I think the collective groan was because there wasn’t time for McCain to verbalize a clear, concise explanation like you have just given, Ed.
Absolutely it is better to renegotiate terms so people can stay in their homes – it does noone any good to have foreclosed homes on the market (or in your neighborhood).
I am speaking of my own situation – fortunately, *knocks wood* we haven’t any foreclosures in our area, but someday we will want to sell this house and try to get the most out of it as possible!
tru2tx on October 8, 2008 at 11:17 AM
You and a few hundred million voters!
fourstringfuror on October 8, 2008 at 11:17 AM
MommaEd always explained things so I could understand them……Question: What about the mass quantity of people who are still unqualified homeowners, (thanks to this grand social experiment), and even with government assistance, still DO NOT have the means to make their payments?
Rovin on October 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Getting credit is not a constitutional right. Preserving home ownership should not be a government imperative to be pursued at all costs. Neither should foreclosure prevention at all costs.
Michelle on October 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Neither is health care.
Neither is a college education.
fourstringfuror on October 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM
I just took the kids to school, and the CBS news anchor dude said the take-home, water-cooler moment from last night’s debate was McCain’s answer to an alt energy question. They played the answer (about his voting against the porkfest energy bill that was put out by the Bush-Cheney administration). The reason the anchor dude thought it was such a big deal was that “people” (he, himself, and him?) thought it was belittling and disrespectful for McCain to “attack” Obama like that.
Um, if that is the liberal talking point, I think last night may actually have been a slam dunk for McCain. They will play this answer that has him criticizing Bush/Cheney, hitting hard on pork spending, and tying Obama to Bush/Cheney and pork spending….and then whine that McCain is being too mean to Obama.
EPIC WIN for McCain. Liberal newsweenies are kinda dumb.
funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM
you are obviously a racist who has no idea what minorities go through!….oh wait
ok you are obviously a racist who has no idea what minorities other than your people go through!
YellowDawg on October 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM
These are all band-aids. We’re heading for a depression, no way around it.
lodge on October 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM
…with taxpayers’ money. Socialism. Who is the conservative candidate for reform and change again? McCain is Obama’s equal in giving sheeple what they want instead of what they need (and nothing more).
Fletch54 on October 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Well, that goes without saying…..
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 8, 2008 at 11:21 AM
What McCain should have said was that it was better to use the $700 gazillion to buy the at-risk mortgages rather than the bundles of good/bad mortgages. This would go to the heart of the default problem and stop triggering the insurance calls, which is where the real heavy losses are.
The problem, of course, is that the US gets put on the hook for the life of the mortgage, or until foreclosure/resale, and no one really believes that the government will be able to make those outlays every single year, on and on and on …
The most important part, however, is that without those who were irresponsible with taking on mortgages suffering some serious penalties and public rebuke, the system will carry its problems further down the road. Even something as simple as marking those houses (painted orange, or something like that) where irresponsible people have fallen back on their mortgage obligations this “program” will do nothing but encourage decent people to stop paying, themselves.
In the end, all who contributed to this mess must be held publicly accountable, and that certainly includes the poor idiots who signed papers that they had no idea about.
Also, I think that anyone who benefits from this government bailout (however it goes) should LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE for something like 10 years. Now, that is a start to accountability.
progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 11:22 AM
And thus the root of our current problems – the government has thrown the Constitution aside and now tries to be all things to all people. How many Americans, thanks to public schools, even know that there are limits on what the Fed is allowed to do?
If Obama wins more states need to follow Oklahoma’s 10th amendment lead.
DerKrieger on October 8, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I like this explanation. I needed McCain to articulate that. What McCain lacked yesterday in the debate is articulation and detail. He is lucky that this debate is forgettable. He has one more chance next week to make his points clear and understandable to the American public. As well as the rest of the week to tell us what his proposal means.
jencab on October 8, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Let’s wake up and smell the coffee. Let’s fast forward.
The borrowers on the [Federally] modified mortgage homes still don’t fulfill the terms of the new agreement. Is the Democratically controlled congress really going to give the boot these people? Close your eyes and think of the press coverage. What if Barrack “ACORN” Obama is Prez?
No my friends, this will be another GIANT welfare program where the taxpayers take it in the shorts.
toliver on October 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM
This is all madness. People talk free markets and capitalism but only when things go up. When the time comes for the market to correct the excesses of the past everybody wants intervention.
It is this intervention that prevents the body politic from learning very important econ 101 lessons that prevent future bubbles.
From that fateful day on Tuesday Oct 20, 1987 when Greenspan intervened establishing the infamous “Greenspan put” we have been putting off this day of reckoning. Every time we try to manage the unmanageable we set up an even bigger collapse such as we are facing now.
Leave the market alone no matter how painful the interveners say it will be. I told you when Paulson brought his plan forward it would not work. All these “plans” do is get in the way and create panic as they each inevitably fail.
Sadly, when some wild ass suggestion is followed when the market is already bottoming the crowds will cheer when it appears to work, much like the rooster who thinks he brings up the sun each day. Worse still it leads people to try all kinds of stupid things when the crisis hits.
I could bore you with many examples including the Chrysler loans, but I won’t. What I will tell you is that years from now market historians will review everything and come to the same conclusions they have about the 1930’s–all the claptrap they tried just made it worse.
patrick neid on October 8, 2008 at 11:26 AM
tru2tx on October 8, 2008 at 11:26 AM
You’re right, but would you rather have a couple of million voters who were expecting to be evicted voting for the greater of two evils, or a temporary withdrawal to regroup with those same voters on your side (the lesser of two evils)?
Vashta.Nerada on October 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
There are hundreds of thousands of homeowners right now who ar caught with rising payments on adjustable loans that seemed perfectly affordable at the time they took them, and thought they would either be making more money when the adjustment came or be able to refinance. Refinances are impossible for most of them now because they do not have 20% equity in the homes anymore. This is not their fault, it was a collective mania that took over and lots of people bought into a bubble at its peak.
The vast majority of these people are concentrated in a few markets that got overheated, such as southern California, Las Vegas, Atlanta, and southwest Florida. Most of them have jobs and can afford to make the original payments on the loans, just not the higher ones after the rates adjust (many of these loans went from 4% to 8%, with payments rising by more than $500 a month. Not many people can afford that.)
Lenders are hugely at fault here for making these loans and convincing people they were safe. They pushed people to push their limit of affordability, and people did because prices were going up so fast that they feared getting left out of the market entirely. Speculators and flippers also got loans on the same terms, which was stupid. Mortgage brokers got paid more to do riskier loans, so they did. Fraud was tolerated. Loan officers with 8th grade educations and criminal records were allowed to originate loans and advise people on their safety.
The system was a house of cards and it has collapsed. There is no free market solution to this problem, except to allow house prices to go into a free fall and half of all homeowners go bankrupt. If you think that is a good idea, you are crazy.
rockmom on October 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Alice in Wonderland come to life.
It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.
- Alice
Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.
- The Mock Turtle
But I don’t want to go among mad people.
- Alice
MB4 on October 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM
The markets become like goats at the petting zoo hanging around the coin operated feeding machine waiting for some kid to put in a quarter. When there aren’t any kids around the animals eat grass rather than starve.
DerKrieger on October 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Dammit. Thanks for that. I cannot believe I did that. I’m retarded.
I’m still furious this morning.
McCain and Obama murdered the free market last night.
And here we have a conservative blogger saying, “It’s cool. Congress already authorized it.”
What happened to my party?
Small government. Hello?
Personal responsibility. Hello?
Free market. Hello?
Capitalism. Hello?
Ed. What you need to do is give us, you know, republicans a reason to vote for McCain. McCain clearly believes that the government is the solution to (and not the cause of) all our problems.
Can you do it? It’s a challenge I hope you’ll undertake.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Vashta.Nerada on October 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Well, now that’s another way to look at it!! ;-)
tru2tx on October 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I think we need to consider whether McCain was playing the press last night. We all know that they are waiting to pounce on any and every instance of McCain’s “angry” personality….think about the only two times he showed real passion last night
–when he got to tie Obama to Bush/Cheney porkfest “energy policy”
–subprime mess
Obviously the MSM isn’t going to use McCain’s anger over the subprime mess to try to paint him as loony. Everybody but Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Raines, Johnson, Gorelick, and Obama are angry about that.
So McCain sets up the perfect soundbite for them–dissed Obama, Bush/Cheney, and pork spending all at once.
funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I am being punished for making sacrifices and paying my bills. Now I have a greatly diminished retirement account to look forward too.
Somebody better go to jail.
Elizabetty on October 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Michelle. Can you please consider getting a free market blogger on this site? Republican acquiescence to these big government ideas is killing this party.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Malkin wants McCain to lose.
funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 11:31 AM
If I remember correctly, Reagan had announced numerous people who would be in his cabinet along with great policy advisors BEFORE his first election victory. It sure would make sense if McCain (at least) hinted who he would be surrounded by in his administration including some that you mentioned above Doc. Why wait to show strength after the “fight” is over?
Rovin on October 8, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Unfortunately, our poor choices for congressional representation over the years has led to government intervention to the tune of half our mortgage market, and the cause of this mess. While I am in complete sympathy with your views, I also must admit that the ‘we broke it – we fix it’ aphorism applies here. In the end, I would like to see all federal intervention in the housing market eliminated as my price for forking over my tax dollars.
Vashta.Nerada on October 8, 2008 at 11:31 AM
No witch hunts!
As Ed might say, “Congress didn’t authorize it.”
Government: If you think the problems we create are bad. Wait till you see our solutions.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Indeed they are. It comes of never having to counter opposing ideas.
I’d love to see that answer be the take-home message from the debate.
I’d also like to see Lieberman out there hammering Obama on Israel. He was asked if he’d protect Israel if Iran invades — he voted Present.
ClintACK on October 8, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Good point toliver ;-)
I’d like to add the fact that borrowers that currently not in foreclosure may very well join the ranks of the deadbeats if they think they can negotiate a better deal out of the Feds than they could a private mortgage holder.
In other words, why keep paying if you can score a lower principal and interest rate by falling behind for a little while? And think of all the other things that could be done with that mortgage payment for several months. FAT CITY.
Will the Feds even report delinquent and non-payments to the credit agencies?
toliver on October 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM
The only solution to government created problems is even more government. Gotta love that train of thought.
Where did my party go?
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I think too many in Congress get elected not for their economic knowledge and policy perspectives but on thier social stances and cultural parity with the voters in their districts. Imagine if Barney Frank had to run nationally.
In these modern times understanding of economics should be required.
DerKrieger on October 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
rockmom, I almost always agree with you (and I agree with the bulk of this post of yours) but this is where I have to split. People sign their own contracts. If they are unable to understand what they are signing, then they are not adults and should not be voting.
Once we relieve people from the responsibility of their signatures, there is NOTHING left, no matter the home prices or unemployment or any of it.
I can understand an argument for the government making up the differences in those behind payments (to stop triggering the defaults and the secondary problems) but those who signed contracts must be held to them and suffer for their decisions, since the rest of us are suffering even more than they are.
A free-fall and huge unemployment is better than the total destruction of our contract system. In the long run, things will get better, but only if people can trust that contracts bind both parties. There is nothing else, really.
progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Excellent analysis, Ed. People don’t seem to realize that home and asset deflation will hurt everyone, especially responible people who have saved and invested their money. Another wave of foreclosures is going to depress the value of your home even if you own it outright or have a fixed rate mortgage. The shock it will have on the economy could be even worse. Moral hazard isn’t a good thing, but dragging everyone into a depression if one can be avoided is worse.
phronesis on October 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
There are hundreds of thousands of gamblers right now who are caught with gambling loses on bets they made in Las Vegas that seemed perfectly affordable at the time they made them, and thought they would either be winning at the roulette wheel or make more money at the slots.
MB4 on October 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
The federal government is the only one who can step up to the plate and buy these defaulting loans and renegotiate them i.e. keep a flood of millions of houses from being sold at 50%-75% of their value and therefore keep the credit markets flowing.
Private corporations will not do the job now because of two reasons…
A. They will wait years if necessary for them to become cheaper and until we hit bottom
B. Multi national corporations DO NOT have the best interests of the USA at heart
Argue all you want but it is the ONLY way we can avoid a massive depression and years and years of market sliding, widespread unemployment and bankruptcy.
Really what do you think it does to the value of YOUR home if five houses in your neighborhood sell for 75% of their value?
SaintOlaf on October 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Mav’s plan is what the bailout bill already does. I was laughing when I heard him say it last night. If you hold the paper, you hold the loan. Treasury has been instructed that is “shall” renegotiate terms of the loans.
David in ATL on October 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM
While I doubt very much that you are going to lose if you keep your house for ten years I put this to you. What of the millions of people who made the same large investment in stocks in their 401k’s, should they be made whole after suffering 30-70% losses?
I thought not. Why then is it the responsibility of other people to guaranttee your investment but not others?
The market needs to be left alone.
patrick neid on October 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM
McCain is a socialist dressed as a republican. He deserves to lose.
Fletch54 on October 8, 2008 at 11:35 AM
How can they sell at 75% of their value? Their value is what they sell for in the market place. I think that you followed Alice down the rabbit hole.
MB4 on October 8, 2008 at 11:37 AM
So Ed, who’s going to cover the loan originators for the CRA’s they still are forced to make so as not to redline?
The last I heard the banks are still forced to do is.
Psst… lorien, That’s what Ed is doing with this post! :)
Are you asking him to work even harder? :)
That just might be above his pay grade!!!
Mcguyver on October 8, 2008 at 11:37 AM
No Mav’s plan is ongoing. Above and beyond the bailout. The bailout, as I understood it, was a one time gesture. This creates a new system whereas the government – in perpetuity – renegotiates mortgages and generally meddles in the free market.
Where did my party go?
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Once again, this program will reward bad behaviour.
Banks will get bailed out for making investments in bad loans.
The people who took these loans will get the benefit of the loan, without paying the “price”…
While I, who diligently pay my taxes, and still have more equity in my home than I owe, will pay for their poor judgements with my tax dollar.
Equal Protection my A$$.
Romeo13 on October 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
lorien, just curious, but what do you think will happen to you if 8 out of 10 of your neighbors’ homes end up in foreclosure? Do you know that all the equity you have in your house will be gone? Do you know that you will not be able to get a home equity loan to build that addition you wanted, even though you have an 800 credit score and a great job? Do you have $50,000 in cash that you can spend on that addition?
Do you know what happens to your property taxes when everyone else stops paying theirs because they have been foreclosed? Do you think your free market principles will help you when the burglar is at the door and there is nobody answering that 911 call because your town could not afford to pay them anymore? Will your kids get a decent education when the schools have to go to a 4-day week?
These are largely Republican Sun Belt areas that have been hit in this housing collapse. If we don’t help them we can forget about winning Florida and even Georgia and Nevada in the next 50 years. How will this help your free market principles?
rockmom on October 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I disagree. Yes, people are supposed to understand what it is they are getting into but a large percentage of our population simply don’t understand economics, interest rates, and the gobbledygook that makes up 80% of a mortgage contract and probably never will. I’ve long advocated a serious Econ class for high schoolers.
It should be a moral and legal oblilgation of a lender to make sure customers understand fully what it is that are getting into and I think if it weren’t so easy for the banks to offload their bad loans to Fan and Fred then they would have made sure because the risk would have been the banks risk.
Since the banks knew they could offload the risk they were less than forthcoming with unsavvy customers.
DerKrieger on October 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
CountrySocialism first!- John McCain
MB4 on October 8, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I’m sorry. I thought he was giving reasons for socialists to vote for him. I got confused there.
I pay my bills. I pay my mortgage. I pay my taxes. Because of that, McCain wants to punish me.
That’s not republican.
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
“we’ll start seeing massive foreclosures and the rapid deflation of home values everywhere”
And this is bad how, exactly?
Why should I have to pay inflated prices to buy a new home, to prop up a bubble?
For people to stay in houses they should have known they couldn’t afford?
And here in Arlington, Virginia some people have sold their homes for five times what they paid for them.
So I have to prop these millionaires up, because their houses are now only worth four times what they paid for them? Boohoo?
NoDonkey on October 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
We took the bus to Mexico in the primaries.
Just wait until McCain starts touting his path-to-citizenship for illegals as a new method to spur economic growth. You’ll love that one.
progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Socialism is Socialism is Socialism. I don’t care how you package it.
America lost last night- except for those begging for scraps from the political tables.
Virginia Shanahan on October 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
To everyone complaining about McCain being socialistic, I say: yes, he is too far to the left of the map. And, if you look really far to the left, you can just see Obama on the edge of the scale. Take your pick.
Vashta.Nerada on October 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM
He may deserve to lose, but we don’t deserve the consequences of his loss.
ClintACK on October 8, 2008 at 11:42 AM
McCain’s economic advisor, (Nancy ???) just now on Fox explained Ed’s post here to perfection! Some on has to find the video. I mean it was excellent!
Rovin on October 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Shush. Don’t ruin their MDS circle jerk with facts.
funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Thompson needs to tell school McCain what to say.
When Obama brings up that McCain hates regulation meme, McCain needs to fire back something along the lines of
” Yes, we do need more regulation when Democrats are running the show. It was Dodd, Frank, Waters and others who brought you the financial crisis we now face. Yes, Bush was in the White House, but it was under Democrat leadership that Fanny May and Freedie Mac was turned into a frat house.”
That stuff rings true with people. I have used that very analogy with people at work and I have seen the lights go on. I ask them if it is really making their point that more regulation is the answer when democrats are running the show? Are they admitting that they can’t be trusted when in power so more regulation is needed to keep them in check?
SOB, I figured out this talking point all on my own, and McCain can’t?
Oh GOD I miss Fred.
RobertInAustin on October 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Not everyone bought a house they could not afford. I purchased my first home 5 years ago. After two years in and a building boom in my community my wife and I planned on building a new home (that we could afford) so we took out a three year ARM for a better interest rate and planned on staring construction the second year in. Unfortunately that coincided with the housing melt down. Now my ARM has adjusted higher and will do so again in 6 months. The value of my home has plummeted due to so many foreclosures in my area. So tell me….am I a dead beat for trying to get a resonable interest rate (below 8%) from the bank so I can keep my home?
VinnieV on October 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
That’s all that needs to be said now.
I am certainly not saying I like this option, but it seems like the only thing that can be done to keep everyone else from losing their a$$ on their home.
tru2tx on October 8, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Yeah. Given that I live in FL, I have no idea what’s going on here.
Most of the foreclosed houses in this area are investment houses and investment properties. No one actually lived in these things. They were built and bought purely to get the gain in market value over time.
I’m sorry. I don’t think my tax dollars should go to people who screwed up their investment portfolio. I apologize. Really. Ugh.
Good point. I should rely on the state to defend my property. I shouldn’t do this myself. I should expect someone else to defend me and my family. Excellent.
I have equity in my home. And I have a HELOC as well. So yes. I do have that money. I thought ahead. Amazing concept, isn’t it? And I try not to live off my credit. I like to, you know, pay for things that I can afford. Again. Stunning concepts.
I’d buy up my neighbors home for 10 cents on the dollar and cash in? Wait…you were asking a serious question?
What happened to my party?
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Um, the really high end real estate isn’t really the problem. Millionaires can sit on those homes until the market turns around.
funky chicken on October 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
If people are so stupid that their signatures mean nothing, then their signatures ought to REALLY mean nothing. How can I sign a contract with anyone if I know that the terms can be changed because of their stupidity?
If someoone argues that he’s too stupid to be held to a contract he signed, why should his signature be valid in the voting booth?
Buyers have their own lawyers, and if they don’t understand what they are signing they are not adults and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in our markets as if they were adults. I just don’t see any argument around this.
It’s the singers responsibility to know what they sign. I’m sorry to be a broken record, but the stability of contracts is the absolute basis of our society. Without that, we are really sunk, worse than any depression.
progressoverpeace on October 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I read this last night, it’s the first time I can think of that Michelle has ever been wrong.
Dorvillian on October 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I’m a little confused. By what standards will the loan principals be adjusted? By the homeowners ability to pay? If someone bought a $400m dollar home but could really only qualify (under normal ratio standards) for a $250M home, will their principal drop to $250M?
If the market values are in the $400M range, can the party who just recieved a huge bit of unearned equity in his home turn around and sell it at market value?
Will people benefit from lying on their 1003 loan applications (signed under penalty of perjury), or will fraudulent loan applications be weeded out?
nyrofan on October 8, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I agree with you both. However, we will never see the gov’t get out of the social engineering business. It is what so many people want the gov’t for. So much of this bailout remedy is to try and preserve/recreate a system that didn’t work.
Ed, why wouldn’t someone who isn’t in danger of default simply threaten it at this time of national forgiveness, and re-negotiate their principal downward?
hy is one bank customer more equal than another? And don’t think I mean the more creditworthy one. That would only happen in the American our betters dismantled. I’d just like to know how the least creditworthy ones are the bank’s/gov’t favorite customers these days.
Economies don’t survive like this, in case any of you didn’t know.
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Fairness.
The only -legitimate- principle that exists.
Doncha know?
lorien1973 on October 8, 2008 at 11:50 AM
If McCain wins it is very bad for the Republican party.
If Obama wins it is very bad for the United States of America.
Elizabetty on October 8, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Yes, we have a liberal republican running against an inexperienced marxist, but we knew this in May. The skirmishes are over, and the battle is about to be joined.
Think of the folks who foolishly got into ARMs on overvalued houses as mercenaries, preparing to join our side. That’s our cost to defeat the worse of two evils.
Vashta.Nerada on October 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Rents have increased in the past 15 years.
When will Uncle Same lower them?
corona on October 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM
If it is any consolation, once this mess gets cleaned up you can be assured that nobody will get a mortgage again in this country without having sterling credit and putting 20% down. A bank with deposits to lend will be the only place you will get a mortgage. There will be pages and pages of disclosures they will have to sign, and criminal penalties for lenders and borrowers that commit or abet fraud. Loans on investment properties will be very hard to get. This will mean substantially lower growth for a long time. It will mean that if you bought your house after 2004, you will probably never sell it at a profit.
Many, many people have already paid the price for this orgy of bad lending and government intervention. Over a half-million people in the industry have lost their jobs and most will never work in a mortgage business again. Almost 300 companies have gone under, and hundreds of small mortgage brokerages have closed.
rockmom on October 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I am resigned to a McCain vote, but not one cast out of fear alone.
Obama must not be let in the Oval Office and given a platform for his kook brigade to use as a bse of operations for their own nefarious purposes.
In 2 and 4 years , we hold General Elections, those who wish to go a new direction shall have another chance to exercise their right to vote.
We may not like McCain and I for one will fight his tangential efforts that go against principles and a brand of conservatism that held up well for the Republicans for years.
Until then, we remain very much a socialist beast as a nation as we wittingly or otherwise ask gubamint to be all things to all people.
The 20th Century is full of policies that made us so.
Policy that is decidedly liberal and socialist supported.
and Remember to Re-elect incumbents .. It’s worked so well for us the last 50 years or so. (/sarc)
An informed populace is a dangerous one at the polls. The media knows that and so does the united incumbents party.
normsrevenge on October 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Your house is not an ATM, to use equity to buy things. It is shelter. I tell people near retirement that they need assets which will produce x thousands/mo.,plus a paid off home.
If home prices plunge, relatively speaking your cost of shelter hasn’t changed. If you want to move up, or down, the cost of those other houses changed as well. Our housing market is domestic, and local only. It has little to do with the purchasing power of the dollar (as does our energy costs.) We can, and have, taken a significant hit to housing values, and other than those who bit off more than they could chew (banks and buyers), that fall in housing prices doesn’t immediately, or even ever, affect most people– except of course to lower prices for others who SAVED their money to move in.
JiangxiDad on October 8, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Please cite what part of the constitution you are refering to.
snaggletoothie on October 8, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I hope so, but fear springs eternal.
I do feel for the people who worked in the industry, and also for car dealerships, furniture stores, and all the others who will pay for this mess, without having contributed to it.
Vashta.Nerada on October 8, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Obama is a stalinist dressed as a socialist. He deserves to lose.
ex-Democrat on October 8, 2008 at 12:01 PM
There is still a mortgage note in place on all of these loans. Most are owned by someone other than the originator, and they sign investor agreements that also dictate the terms of any loan modification. The modification must be the “best possible outcome” for the investor. If you are making your payments and have a good appraisal on the home and your debt to income ratio is good, you will not get a loan modification. You can try, but the servicer will not do it, and you will ruin your credit rating and get foreclosed.
Some people recently have tried to scam lenders by buying a second house at a foreclosure or short sale and using “rental income” on the first house to qualify. Then they walk away from the first house. Lenders have caught on to this and stopped it.
rockmom on October 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
1. We may be transferred because of my husband’s job – can’t say I’ll be in this house 10 years.
2. People who have lost money in the stock market will regain the investment – it always turns around. If they are retiring now or soon, they should have already moved their investments into less risky mutual funds or other long term investments because that is what all advisers of any cred would have told them to do. Diversify and lower the risk.
tru2tx on October 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
So say I bought my house for $500,000 and have been making my mortgage payment on time each month. But now the house has a market value of $300,000 or less.
Knowing the government is going to back this type mortgage bailout program as described above, why wouldn’t I, who has been making my mortgage payments, want to STOP making my mortgage payments?
Why wouldn’t I default on my mortgage and hold out that the government will let me re-purchase my house at $300,000 or less? Wouldn’t this type of program just encourage people to default on the mortgage payments (as long as the house value is now less than what one bought it for)?
albill on October 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
What people failed to realize is house inflation was worse. Worse than even the dubious assertions that we face a depression.
Conveniently forgotten in this mess, as we imagined ourselves instant millionaires through no real effort on our parts with house going up 10-15 per annun, was the degenerate feedback loop it created in our consumer habits. The giant atm in the sky fostered a serious misallocation of capital funds in things and places it should never have gone. It is easy to forget that fully 25% of homes in the last three years were bought by speculators.
But putting that aside there is nothing wrong with deflation. It is part of the natural cycle in capitalism. While your house may return to mean value by dropping 50% that is where it should have been all along. The fact that you may have bought your house in 2004 is your problem just like it is mine that I own Intel at 25.
What needs to be broken in this country is the false mantra that houses only go up. It leads to false economics and very dangerous thinking as we are seeing today. If housing had been thought to possess some risk, illiquid and costly–upkeep, insurance etc we would not have put trillions into the bubble.
There are and cannot be risk less investments. That we engendered this kind of thinking is why we are possibly on the brink of a bone crunching recession–which is what it will take to purge the excesses.
patrick neid on October 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »