Archive for the 'Legislation' Category

Stop the Housing Bailout

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

A new web site (and organization) has launched to help spread awareness about (and their disdain for) the state-sponsored bail out of the housing and mortgage industries currently underway.  Stop the Housing Bailout is encouraging citizens to contact their congressmen and women to urge them to cease using public funds to prop up the housing asset bubble and institutions that helped get us to this point (see Bear Stearns, et al.)

From the Stop the Housing Bailout Web site:

This site is dedicated to stopping the government’s planned bailout of the housing market.   A bailout requires responsible Americans to pay for the acts of greedy bankers, mortgage brokers, flippers, and over-extended homeowners. In other words, the government wants you to pay for the blunders of others who knew, or should have known, better.

The group asks the unanswered question: Why should responsible Americans be forced to pay for the mistakes of others?

It’s a great question to be asking.  I’d especially be asking it of the Bush administration and the Obama and Clinton camps who keep proposing multi-billion dollar bail out schemes.  They are both wrong for completely different reasons.  Bush keeps pumping cash at Wall Street, who already made a killing, and Obama and Clinton want to foist cash on the homeowners which will certainly come at the expense of higher taxes, reduced public funds for things like health care and education (you know, stuff that everyone needs).

So head on over and write your congress-person.  Ask them the unanswered question - and DEMAND answers now and at election-time.  Your future is riding on their decisions.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.

Bush Doesn’t Want Bankruptcy Law Changed

President Bush urged Congress to reject a new bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of home loans included in bankruptcy cases.  From the Market Watch story on the bankruptcy bill to change mortgage terms:

President Bush urged Congress to reject a Senate bill that would change bankruptcy laws by allowing judges to modify the terms of a mortgage as part of the restructuring of a debt. Instead, Bush said at a White House press conference, lawmakers should approve reforms to mortgage-buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The president has a point here.  While the government clearly isn’t done bailing out folks this change seems extremely dangerous to the stability of the secondary market.  If investors are worried that judges are modifying loans pell mell they are going to be extremely reluctant to purchase securities made up of individual mortgages.  Investor interest has to be protected in this process.  Remember - they are the ones with the money!  The government sure doesn’t have it, consumers sure don’t have it - it’s the investors.

If the investors take their money off the table, or, more likely, put greater costs associated with borrowing it, it hurts everyone.  We need investor confidence to return money to the system.  The secondary market only works when investors have confidence in it.  Letting judges make changes as they see fit is a quick way to send investors running.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.

Schwarzenegger to offest housing slump by…building more houses?

The Govenator, Arnold Schwarzenegger unvelied a rather extensive plan to help “offset the housing slump” in California and by building new affordable housing and assistance retraining the 8,400 employees of former mortgage companies to help them corrupt move in to other industries such as health care and biotech. (Remind me to read the labels of any new medicines closely.)

The plan includes a bunch of worker retraining for those laid off by the industry. (As an aside we all know that the 8,400 is a joke, since many of the job losses were suffered by 1099 contractors in small shops who wouldn’t be reported as laid off.) Most surprisingly the plan calls for the building of new “affordable” housing. Which is where things start to get hazy for me. But first a recap of the plan.

From Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan to reduce the housing slump’s impact on California’s economy:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today awarded $73 million for 40 housing projects in 26 cities across the state, helping 1,611 California families rent or purchase affordable housing.

The Governor also announced that the federal government today awarded up to $5.6 million to help mortgage and banking industry workers laid off as a result of the subprime crisis make career transitions to high-demand jobs in other industries. “We applied for this grant because we want to help displaced workers transition to new jobs and the money will go to the counties with the greatest need. We are not just sitting by and waiting for the economy to pick back up. We are taking all the action we can to keep people working and rebuilding California,” said Governor Schwarzenegger.

“Many of these laid-off workers have skills that are transferable to jobs in high-growth, high-demand industries, such as healthcare and biotech. We want to do whatever is possible to help them make this transition,” said Labor and Workforce Development Agency Secretary Victoria Bradshaw.

The grant from the U.S. Department of Labor will focus on 12 areas with the highest needs located in the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Sonoma and Stanislaus. One-Stop Centers in these counties have been providing rapid response services to the affected mortgage and finance workers and employers. These rapid response services, conducted with Workforce Investment Act funds, include information on the availability of unemployment insurance benefits and other employment services.

More Housing?

So let me get this straight? We’re going to pump another $100 million in to government sponsored building of new homes? What are they smoking up in Sacramento, and can a brother get some love? I mean I get helping displaced workers, and providing homeowner awareness and pushing for higher loan limits; but building affordable housing seems like a tremendous waste of money.

My thinking: if they just sit tight long enough pretty much everything inside of California (save the coast) will be affordable again. More housing cannot be the answer to an economic crash caused by? A GLUT OF HOUSING!

And to add insult to injury, wasn’t this whole mess precipitated by trying to get non-traditional homeowners in to homes? People bought homes they couldn’t afford, who didn’t have the credit stability to maintain the payments. Does anyone in Sacramento remember this? Wowsers. I’m truly baffled.

Counties that Need Help the Most

I love seeing Orange County on the list of counties that will receive the most worker retraining aid. Can you see the parking lot at the government offices during a training session? Unemployed loan officers in 525 BMW’s learning how to transition to biotech. I get giggly just thinking about the irony of it all.

Schwarzenegger Hard at Work

This is not the first package put together by the California government in an attempt to relieve some of the effects of the crashing California housing market. Here are a few others:

Of course Schwarzenegger has been campaigning hard for the conforming loan limit increase from the outset of the meltdown. Passed in the recent federal stimulus package, it now seems the loan limit increases will have a decidedly smaller impact than originally hoped for.
You Can’t Stop them from Trying

So while we’re all worried about a federal government bail out the legislators up in Sacramento have been busy printing money and spreading the love with an assortment of bond and other debt measures to ensure that I won’t be seeing a state tax break any time this millennium.

When Will They Realize?

When will the realization hit that they cannot control the crashing housing market? They cannot control the overbuilding that has been done. They can’t undue the rampant fraud that was perpetuated at all levels of the California real estate and mortgage pyramid. They can’t make Riverside a more desirable place to live. They can’t make everyone who was 100% financed equity positive.

They can do a little, and it will help a little - but no matter what this state is going to hurt bad for some time to come.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.

McCain’s Mum on Mortgage Reform

john mccainJohn McCain is a bit of an enigma when it comes to mortgage reform. While candidates Obama and Clinton are making subprime mortgage lending and mortgage reform a big part of their stumping; McCain has been relatively quiet with his thoughts on the issue. It’s easy to see just by looking at the candidates web sites. Both Obama and Clinton have sections devoted to their thoughts on mortgage reform. McCain doesn’t address it at all.

Google searches on Obama and mortgage and Clinton and mortgage return copious results replete with speeches, policy initiatives and detailed reform plans. The information on McCain’s mortgage reform plans are spartan at best. This seems to make some sense, however; as Democrats are more-than-willing to wield the power of government in the private sector while Republicans (maybe save George W.) are typically less inclined. But with that said lets look at where McCain lies on the issue of mortgage reform.

John McCain on Mortgage Disclosure Reform

McCain appears to be for a simplified disclosure process with more common-sense disclosures that are easier to understand and acknowledge. He hasn’t announced any plans on how such a mortgage loan disclosure reform program would work. Mr. McCain seems happy with aphorisms that punctuate his stump speeches without providing much substance.

From a Baltimore Sun article covering the differences between the candidates and their policies towards the mortgage crisis:

Republican John McCain … encourages lenders to work with homeowners. But McCain’s main mortgage palliatives are better disclosure for borrowers and fiscal stimulus that will help middle- and lower-class Americans whether they have mortgage problems or not.

“A mortgage should be one page and there should be big letters at the bottom that say, ‘I understand this document,’” he said a week ago.

This is a universal reform that legislators on both sides of the aisle have called for and one that makes sense to me. Easier disclosures that clearly articulate the key areas of mortgage loans: loan amount, amortization, payments, rate, fees and whether your rate is adjustable or fixed are an important step to improving mortgage literacy amongst the American public. Either that or let the lenders pay for a third-party counseling session similar to the reverse mortgage counseling requirements.

McCain on Fiscal Stimulus

As the above quote alludes Mr. McCain is also in favor of a fiscal stimulus package that would help kick-start the economy and improve consumer confidence. Whether the stimulus package is enough is certainly up for debate. But one has to wonder (as they did over at Minyanville) how much is $300 going to help the average American debtor? The conforming loan limit increases are of questionable value, although they should certainly help to a greater extent.

Bailout May be Necessity

McCain is also on the record as rather pragmatic about a mortgage crisis fueled bailout:

“You don’t want to reward speculators. You’d like to take each individual case on its own, but there’s no time to do that. What’s important is to stop the bleeding.”
» The New York Times, Dec. 5, 2007.

But above and beyond this quote there is little of McCain on the record about the details of any type of further bailout.

Asleep at the Wheel?

Is Mr. McCain asleep at the wheel?  His lack of opinion on what may perhaps be the defining economic event of our generation is disturbing.  I’m a McCain supporter, but I must admit that my inability to find much about his thoughts on reviving the economy and reforming some of the wrongs in the existing mortgage industry structure are a bit alarming.

There is hands off and then there is avoidance.  It is critical that Mr. McCain address some fundamental problems in the current mortgage industry that must be fixed.  The free marketplace needs some structure or more Americans will continue to be hurt by unscrupulous brokers and banks.

My Next Move

I have chosen to write the McCain campaign for their position on the mortgage mess and credit crunch to get their opinion on what type of mortgage reform they feel is necessary and what Mr. McCain’s policies are to ensure that the recent past is not repeated.  I’ll let you know what I hear and help close the book on Mr. McCain.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.

Senate Passes $150 Billion Stimulus Package - Conforming Limits Going Up

Updated below with conforming loan limit increase information.

The Senate passed a $150 billion stimulus package in an attempt to avert a mortgage-crash fueled recession. The bill now goes to the President for signing. He is expected to pass the Republican-favored bill quickly.

From the Market Watch story on the stimulus package:

The plan would give tax rebates of up to $1,200 for households, with $300 more for each child. The full rebates would be sent to individuals with incomes under $75,000 and to families with incomes under $150,000, including seniors and disabled veterans. The rebate would be phased out for those earning more.

The bill also has provisions to prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving tax rebates.

The plan would also cut business investment taxes by $44 billion for one year. It would raise the caps on mortgages issued by the Federal Housing Administration or purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

No mention of the final increase in the conforming loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but as soon as I can dig it out of the news I’ll have it here.

Update: A big thanks to reader Don for the info from Bloomberg on increasing conforming loan limits as part of the stimulus package:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance companies, will be allowed to buy loans worth as much as $729,750 for loans made between July 31, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2008, an increase over the current $417,000 loan limit. The move may help struggling homeowners refinance large mortgages at a lower interest rate. It will also allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure loans as high as $729,750 in expensive markets.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.

Hillary Clinton’s One-Sided Mortgage Reform Plans

We’re picking up speed in the Presidential campaign and with the California primaries fast approaching I thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at how some of the candidates stack up when it comes to mortgage reform and their position on the mortgage mess.

We’ll look at all of the front-runners: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Guliani and Paul. If we lose any of them before I get to them we’ll thin accordingly. I’m already looking at the list wondering what I got myself in to with this idea.

Let me just disclose nice and early on that I am a Republican who is probably going to vote for Mccain; but know that I’ll do my best to keep plain “politics” out of this analysis.

Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton and Mortgage Reform

Clinton has made several high-profile mortgage reform speeches and has proposed a comprehensive plan to deal with abusive lending practices relating to subprime lending.

From her web site and plan to reign in abusive mortgage lending:

  • Require mortgage brokers to disclose to borrowers that their compensation rises when borrowers’ mortgage rates and mortgage fees are high.
  • Work with states to develop strong licensing standards and require federal registration for mortgage brokers.
  • Eliminate prepayment penalties on mortgage products.
  • Require mortgage lenders to include the cost of taxes and insurance in the underwriting assessment of higher-risk mortgages.
  • Establish a $1 billion fund to assist state programs that help at-risk borrowers avoid foreclosure.
  • Expand Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Foreclosure Prevention Efforts.
  • Establish a $1 billion fund to provide federal support to housing trust funds established by state, county, and municipal governments.
  • Expanding access to independent face-to-face counseling; restricting prepayment penalties for subprime mortgages; requiring “plain-talk, no-fine-print disclosure”; promoting “foreclosure timeout” in which at-risk borrowers and lenders work out alternatives to foreclosure; and strengthening the Federal Housing Administration so that it could provide more homebuyers with an alternative to the subprime market.

An Analysis of Clinton’s Mortgage Plans

Looking at Clinton’s high-level plan for mortgage reform and reducing abusive lending standards it is clear that Clinton has focused hard in on brokers as the main source of predatory lending and abusive practices that have caused much of the pain in the U.S. housing market.

Clinton - It’s the Mortgage Brokers’ Fault

Clinton is a clear advocate of pinning the mortgage mess firmly on the back’s of mortgage brokers. Deal points in her mortgage reform plan only address additional regulation and licensing of mortgage brokers; with little reform directed at lenders.

A direct quote from her Web site reads:

Unscrupulous brokers have steered people into high cost mortgages, qualified them for loans they could not afford, and attached fees unnecessarily. These brokers are responsible for many of the lending abuses that occurred in recent years, but there is no single, national source for information about individual brokers. Hillary will establish national registration for brokers so that prospective borrowers can easily look up a broker’s employment history, violations, complaints, and other information. As President, she will also work with the states to develop strong licensing standards to ensure that mortgage brokers are qualified and properly screened.

I don’t think the lines can be drawn any clearer than that. Hillary clearly pins the problems of the housing market on mortgage brokers and will be heavy-handed in handing down new legislation to regulate and manage their existence.

An Overly Simplistic Point of View

This view of the market is overly-simplified and stinks of election-year hot-topic politicking without an in-depth examination of core issues. Hillary seems to forget some of the biggest cases of fraud and malfeasance in the mortgage arena come from the likes of Ameriquest, Countrywide and Washington Mutual. While brokers are a problem, and a national registry is a great step in the right direction; it is inappropriate to focus all of the attention on brokers as the primary source of the problems with predatory lending. Lenders are clearly culpable and deserve a closer look to ensure that their excesses are not forgiven strictly due to their size, legal teams and donation checks.

Pulling for the Big Banks

Clinton’s legislative plan would clearly be a boon to the large federal banks that would be unencumbered with the costs and requirements that are surely to be attached to the mortgage broker regulations. As smaller, under-capitalized mortgage brokers get caught up in red tape it will be business as usual for the large banks. This clearly creates an uneven playing field with a huge advantage to the large oligopoly that are the major banking interests.

What Clinton Should Push for is a Level Lending Ground and Universal Standard

Instead of pinning the blame on mortgage brokers; taking the easy fall guy and winning cheap votes, she should look to normalize the lending laws between state and federally chartered institutions. By moving the lending industry towards a level playing ground she will necessarily push the mortgage brokers towards oversight in line with the banking industry while not creating unfair advantages for federally-chartered institutions.

Making Money More Expensive By Eliminating Pre-Payment Penalties

Clinton’s goal of greatly reducing prepayment penalties is a noble one; but one that may result in higher borrowing costs as banks look to replace lost revenue with a larger interest rate spread across all loan products. I believe that access to private money should not be overly regulated with the terms of the agreements signed by two private parties (as in a subprime mortgage) as to the options that borrowers have to choose a lower monthly payment. Without pre-payment penalties borrowers are often looking at interest rates 75 basis points (.75%) higher in interest rate. This definitely causes a material impact on the cost of borrowing.

While I do agree that FHA should be modernized and expanded to accommodate more borrowers looking for loans with better terms; those that are unable to qualify under conforming or government assistance should have access to funds where costs are mitigated by choosing features such as a prepayment penalty to make out-of-the-box financing more affordable.

A Reversal in Belief?

In 2001 then Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to reform personal bankruptcy law to make it harder for individuals to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy - putting the burden of debt back on to the borrower. Barack Obama has criticized Clinton for the vote pointing to that vote as a vote in favor of large banks and credit card companies over the American public.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001 that Sen. Clinton voted for eventually died in Congress, but a similar measure became law in 2005. Sen. Clinton has said she would have opposed the 2005 bill, but she missed the vote because she was with her husband during surgery.

The 2001 bill “had some things I agreed with and other things I didn’t agree with, and I was happy that it never became law,” Sen. Clinton said at a Jan. 15 debate in Las Vegas.

The 2005 law made it more difficult for people to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which lets individuals pay creditors a portion of the debt they owe. Instead, the new law directed more people toward Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which requires repayment plans.

“Reform is needed,” Sen. Clinton said in 2001, according to a news release still on her Senate office’s Web site. “The right kind of reform is necessary. We’re on our way toward that goal, and I hope we can achieve final passage of a good bankruptcy reform bill this year.”

The credit-card and banking industries spent millions of dollars lobbying for the law, arguing it was necessary to prevent people from abusing the bankruptcy system and unfairly escaping debt. But liberal and consumer groups countered that the law traps consumers struggling with their finances.

Both the 2001 and 2005 bills “were bad ideas because they were pushed by the credit-card companies, they were pushed by the mortgage companies and they put the interests of those banks and financial institutions ahead of the interests of the American people,” Sen. Obama said at the Las Vegas debate. “And this is typical.”

Siding with Big Banks?

One has to wonder with Clinton’s backing of the 2001 Bankruptcy reform bill and the blatant bias against mortgage brokers in her mortgage reform plan how deep in the pocket she is with big banks? Will she continue to ignore the role of big banks in our current mortgage crisis and put in bank-friendly legislation like she attempted to do with the 2001 vote?

Mortgage Brokers Be Afraid

If you are a mortgage broker planning on voting for Hillary Clinton it is definitely worth a look at her policy stance on your profession. While I’m sure she’d gladly take your vote and your money she isn’t looking to make your life any easier in the coming years.

What do you think?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.

Bad Builder’s Bill

I just got the following e-mailed to me from one of the local title companies…..

Governor Granholm Signs Bipartisan Professionalism Package

Without any fanfare, Governor Granholm has signed the bipartisan Professionalism package (also know as “the bad builders bills) into law. Senate bills 450, 451, 452, and 453 (now Public Acts 155, 156, 157 and 158 of 2007) were sponsored by State Senators Nancy Cassis (R-Novi) and Ray Basham (D-Taylor). A similar package passed at the end of the 2006-2007 session was vetoed by the governor last year because of technical problems.

While most of the changes found in this package will not take effect until June 1, 2008 unlicensed individuals acting in the capacity of a residential builder or a residential maintenance and alteration contractor will immediately face stronger penalties.

A first offense will be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $5,000.00 or more than $25,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. A second or subsequent offense will be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $5,000.00 or more than $25,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both. An offense that causes death or serious injury, a felony punishable by a fine of not less than $5,000.00 or more than $25,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than 4 years, or both.

Here are the major changes in the Occupational Code made by Public Acts 155-158 of 2007. These changes take effect June 1, 2008.

Requires the successful completion of a 60-hour prelicensure course of study by applicants for an initial residential builder or contractor license prior to licensing.

Establishes continuing competency requirements for licensed builders and
contractors.
Requires all licensees to have a current copy of the Michigan Residential Code.
Allows a licensed builder or contractor to apply for inactive status.
Allows a prosecuting attorney and the attorney general to bring a civil action
against a person not licensed under Article 24 for practicing without a license; and
require the court to order a fine payable to the prosecuting attorney or the attorney
general.
Requires the Department of Labor and Economic Growth (DLEG) to issue three year residential builder and contractor licenses.

Requires a licensed residential builder, as part of a contract, to provide information
relating to his or her individual license and any qualifying officer license.
Prohibits a person not licensed under Article 24 from imposing a lien on real
property.
Increases the per-year license fee for a builder or contractor from $40 to $60 for
one license cycle, and prescribes a $50 fee for subsequent years.
Creates the “Builder Enforcement Fund” and requires it to be used for the
enforcement of Article 24 of the Occupation Code regarding unlicensed activity,
and the prosecution of unlicensed practice.
What do you think it’s going to mean to the industry?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.

Struggling in Quicksand - Why the Government Continues to Exacerbate the Problem

We’ve all heard the general guidance about what to do that mythical day when we suddenly find ourselves ankle-deep in quicksand (and climbing quickly): relax, don’t panic, don’t make frantic movements, and work slowly and methodically to get out of the quagmire - or risk drowning. Technically speaking, there is little more to the advice of surviving quicksand and metaphorically speaking little more to surviving the housing market implosion. Unfortunately, our government is eschewing methodical work in favor of frantic movements - the results to date have been disastrous.

Look, I understand the need for politicians and elected officials to do something. We all know what happens when they do nothing. Even if that something is the wrong thing; action beats inaction at the polls 10 times out of 10. There’s always a constituency that appreciates the effort. But these gyrations are, without a doubt, making the mortgage and housing markets less and less certain everyday; and this uncertainty is killing any chance of near-term recovery (no matter how far out that idealized near-term could be).

We’re in the classic Catch-22; but with some thoughtful non-action we could be through the woods in a much faster and in-the end, less destructive way. Let’s look at some of the recent government decisions to see how we’re sinking deeper and deeper in to the quicksand with each panicked move. Before we do that though let’s reset the basic truth of the mortgage and housing market:

The housing and mortgage markets were both at ridiculous, unsustainable levels - levels supported by poor decision-making, complicity and massive, systemic fraud.

The above statement is not an opinion - it is fact. As long as we keep this fact clear in our heads the answers and solutions to extracting ourselves become much clearer than they currently appear now. It is the politicians, policy makers and other interested parties unwillingness to come to grips with this fact that is causing the pain we are facing right now. The desire to take a step back doesn’t mesh with the market realities. We can’t take just one step back; because we came so far down a path of fraud and criminal malfeasance that we need to go back up the path. That is where we’ll find the answers.

W’s FHASecure Program

While Bernanke was still touting the banking system’s stability and the containment theory; George W. rolled out the FHASecure program to “help” subprime borrowers who were getting hammered by adjustable rate mortgages. While the FHASecure program had limited scope (helping maybe 125,000 mortgage holders) it caused immediate damage in the mortgage industry. The FHA loan flood gates opened. Ambiguously qualified borrowers, directed by uninformed loan officers and hamstrung by uneducated and understaffed FHA underwriting “departments” (if you can call the one underwriter who used to do FHA a department) caused a logjam in bank pipelines. These people watched as months slipped by, hoping erroneously that they qualified for this magic FHASecure bullet.

FHASecure cost people millions in home equity and opportunity as the market continued to implode around them as they waited in line for a hand out that would never come. Who knows how many homes could have been saved with clearer direction, a better public outreach and education about the program AND an honest assessment of the actual effectiveness and reach of the program? Had loan officers not rushed to cram every loan in to the FHA pipeline - and instead taken advantage of expanded Fannie and Freddie approvals, portfolio lenders, and niche high-LTV programs could homes have been saved? Were people that waited for the FHASecure train aced out of other financing as home values dropped and programs evaporated?

Barney Frank’s Mortgage Reform Legislation

While W’s effort was more of a publicity stunt, the first major knee-jerk in response to the housing meltdown was Barney Frank’s mortgage reform legislation. The legislation in its original form hoped to outlaw stated income loans and yield spread premiums from common lending practices. It also attempted to place liability on assignees - holding Wall Street’s feet to the fire for the securitization of predatory loans. The legislation got through the house with less teeth, notably the assignee liability was eliminated, but it is in the Senate right now and should become law in one form or the other in the near future.

This law was the shot across the bow of Wall Street, investors and banks everywhere. With loans going sour at an ever-quickening pace; the specter of assignee liability was too much to handle. Investors who were bleeding cash left and right, wanted to make no further bets in an uncertain legal environment. This move effectively locked up the secondary market - as if it needed any more locking up - and put investors on notice that future bets may be laden with risks far beyond that of simple dollars and cents.

This lack of investor confidence was further exacerbated by the ne’er-do-well judges who started throwing banks and trustees out of court citing a lack of proper documentation as the interested parties in a foreclosure. This added further to the legal uncertainty for investors and ensured that the secondary market remained iced-over as investors flocked for the hills. As PJ at Housing Wire wrote - the judges’ decisions were less important than the media hyped them to be; but they were enough for an already shell-shocked investment market to keep any early money on the sidelines.

Rating Agency Fraudsters Escape

The ratings agencies were finally exposed as the paid frauds they truly are; taking money for ratings in one of the biggest scams this side of the monopolies of the early 1900’s. They took crap, turned it in to pure gold and helped their paying customers make a fortune. Unfortunately, as things quickly unraveled the ratings agencies reacted much too slowly. Fearing legal and business ramifications they have been slow to recategorize assets and lower ratings on myriad debt issuances. This has continued to haunt the institutions that holds the debt - playing more in to uncertainty than anything else. This isn’t an orderly mark down; this is covering your ass by leaking out downgrades. It has done more than any other single factor to keep uncertainty in the market place. When no one knows what the junk they hold is worth (compared to everyone else’s junk) the market can’t put a price on the outstanding debt.

The government and regulatory bodies have done little to address the ratings debacle and continue to let the ratings agencies set their own rules with little accountability. Until these agencies are compelled to act there will be little in the way of transparency on the value of debt issuances.

Super SIVs and Other Shell Games

The Fed has been unable to ease the credit crunch by lowering interest rates because banks still are uncertain where the true risk lies in the mortgage and housing market. This unknown keeps inter-bank interest rates high because no one wants to be left holding the bag. No one knows who is likely to be with out a chair when the music stops; so they horde the cash to themselves to make sure it isn’t them with out the seat. Paulson, in all his brilliance exacerbated this hording by trying to jimmy a super conduit together from banks that were willing to pony up cash to keep their SIVs and other off-balance sheet liabilities off the balance sheet.

Paulson’s thinking was that this SIV would keep banks from recognizing massive losses on their balance sheets which may have made some banks insolvent. What it did instead was to keep things in the dark. Investors, the market and shareholders couldn’t turn the lights on. If banks brought these items back on to the balance sheet the lights would be turned on. Week banks would get crushed, strong ones would survive, and inter-bank interest rates would come down for the remaining players.

State and Local Governments

State and local governments have added to this miasma by doing what they do best - pandering to their constituencies. First we have the judges of Ohio whom we’ve already touched on; then we have the Governator himself working out rate freeze agreements with major lenders and politicking for loan limit increases in the Golden State. We also have the fine folks of Minnesota outlawing stated income loans and most recently Colorado enacted emergency legislation to limit prepayment penalties.

I get it - these elected hometown officials have to do something; and so they go pell-mell down whatever rabbit hole seems to be the most promising in their own backyard. There is no incentive to think of the big picture - because the big picture doesn’t matter to Jim Brown of Highlands Colorado - Jim Brown is all that matters.

These state-based gyrations (which are loudest in the most “questionable” areas - CA, FL, CO, OH, MI, etc.) continue to keep investors on the sidelines - and add massive amounts of the real culprit in our current fiasco - uncertainty.

The Rub

So here’s the rub - all of these “do gooders” are making the situation exponentially worse. Their rash actions are actually making it HARDER to get financing. Witness the spreads in jumbo vs. conforming loan amounts. Witness the restriction of loan programs. Witness the increase in underwriting stipulations. Witness the interbank rates compared to the Fed. The fact is that all of these bail out programs (which they all are in one form or another) have added MORE uncertainty to the system. They have not improved the psyche of the people with the money. And those are the people that count right now. If the people who hold the cash don’t want to lend it because their return is unclear we’ll never see the calming of the mortgage market.

The idea is not to make Fannie and Freddie buy everything in sight; the idea is to make the mortgage market a transparent and friendly investing environment so that cash returns to the secondary markets (and debt markets in general). Will that take time to work out? Absolutely. Are any of these rash knee-jerk reactions improving the situation? Not at all. We shouldn’t be worrying about how to bail out responsible people. We should be looking at how to fix the credit and debt markets to provide transparency for investors. Transparency builds credibility. Credibility builds confidence. Confidence drives investment. Investment drives down costs of borrowing, increases program expansion and makes markets healthy.

Until we start fixing what is really wrong we’ll continue to struggle in quicksand.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.

H.R. 3915 Goes to Vote in the House

The Mortgage Reform Act of 2007 goes to vote on the House floor Edit: Thursday (thanks PJ) today. It has bi-partisan support and is expected to pass in one form or another. We’ll keep an eye on its progress and note any significant changes or amendments as it comes to a vote.

From Market Watch:

Passed by the House Financial Services Committee on Nov. 6, the bill includes minimum standards for approving loans and some new liabilities on those who securitize risky mortgages. It would also prohibit lenders or brokers from “steering” borrowers into some loans.

Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the panel’s chairman, say there is a national crisis to which lawmakers must respond.

More than 2 million subprime mortgages are expected to reset to higher interest rates in the next 18 months. The Bush administration says current trends suggest there will be just over 1 million foreclosures this year, with 620,000 of those in the subprime market.

Do you think it will go through as it came out of committee, or with some major changes?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.

For all of those politicians considering a bail out

For all of those election-year power-hungry politicians that are kowtowing to the proletariat with visions of mortgage loan forgiveness and impossible low-rate fixed forever mortgages I recommend reading this article in the New York Times: Homeowners Feel the Pinch of Lost Equity.  It sheds light on what has been behind the massive run-up in mortgage debt; and why a large number of people who cashed-out at the top (via a cash out refinance) really have no business demanding bail out assistance.

Being stupid with your money just doesn’t cut it as a good excuse.

Mr. Whittey once seemed an unlikely member of that cohort. A sales manager at a flooring and tile company, he exudes the unflappable air of someone raised amid the easy money of the casino world. Until recently, he and his wife regularly embarked on shopping sprees of $1,000 and up.

He bought a 21-foot boat and two flat-screen televisions for their home. He sold his old truck and bought a new one, he said, “just ’cause I didn’t like the color.” Mr. Whittey could live in such fashion because his company was making good money and his house was appreciating.

But today, the value of his own home, which reached $500,000, has fallen and a separate investment property he bought seems likely to fetch far less than the $580,000 he owes the bank. His commissions have diminished, so his income is down. His neighbor recently fell behind on house payments, prompting the bank to foreclose. Anxiety reigns.

“We used to go out to eat three or four nights a week,” Mr. Whittey said. “Now, we don’t go out at all.”

Is Mr. Whittey a good bail out candidate?  I would like  a new truck; my Toyota 4Runner in silver is growing ever so boring! Maybe one with blacked out rims and a nice sound system would do the trick.  I can get an appraiser to inflate my value allowing me to cash out and get my fix truck. Why shouldn’t I?  You guys will be there to bail me out, right?
For every poor old lady and single mom who were duped there is at least 1 Mr. Whittey.  Probably more.  According to the article mortgage equity withdrawal hit almost a trillion dollars last year alone; with more than a third of it ending up in consumer spending.  So it seems that there are far more Mr. Whittey’s than there are of the truly duped.

I hope that when politicians talk of bail out they remember that Mr. Whittey didn’t need a new truck - he wanted one.  Heck, I wanted one.  I didn’t finance my house to the hilt to get one; he did.  He shouldn’t win because he wanted more than he could afford.  Unfortunately I think that argument makes too much sense for politicians - there are too many Mr. Whittey’s and not enough of the rest of us to keep them from pushing through some kind of expensive bail out scheme (whether at the state or federal level) or both that lets you, me and everyone else pay for Mr. Whittey’s truck.

Hey Whittey - I hope you enjoyed it.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS Feed. Or join our email list for premium content.




Close
E-mail It