mortgage modification

More Burdensome to Pay Rent Than to Be a Mortgage Deadbeat

by Hans Bader on November 28, 2010 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

Under government mortgage bailout/modification programs, the mortgage payments of many delinquent borrowers were cut to 31 percent of income, even for borrowers with high incomes and big houses. That cut was based on the false assumption that anything over that percentage was unaffordable (and perhaps even predatory lending). But people often pay far more than that in rent and mortgage payments, especially in prosperous regions like Washington, D.C. So mortgage deadbeats are sometimes getting their payments cut well below what their responsible neighbors have to pay — not merely getting relief from a bad deal.

“One in five renters and one in seven homeowners in the Washington area spend more than half their income on housing, according to census figures,” notes a recent Washington Post story.  Much of the population in the counties surrounding Washington, D.C. spent more than 30 percent: “In Fairfax County, for example, more than half the renters with household incomes of $50,000 to $75,000 spent more than 30 percent of their income last year to keep a roof over their heads,” as did “more than six out of 10 homeowners in that income bracket in Prince George’s and Prince William counties,” and “more than half” in Washington, D.C. itself.

Senior government officials, who mostly purchased their homes long ago, long before the housing bubble (and thus often have mortgage payments that are just a tiny fraction of their income), seem oblivious to this reality.

Many borrowers aren’t making any payments at all. They’re just defaulting on their mortgages, knowing that it will take years for the bank to evict them for non-payment: 492 days is the average number of days since the typical borrower in foreclosure last made a mortgage payment.  As law professor Glenn Reynolds notes, this all “seems calculated to make people who are struggling to make their payments feel like suckers.”

These mortgage bailout programs are harming the economy, say some economists and real estate experts.

I understated things a bit when I noted earlier that some mortgage deadbeats had their mortgage payments cut to just 31 percent of income. Actually, it’s lower than that. That 31 percent figure includes not just mortgage payments but also real estate taxes.  So if a delinquent borrower has a mortgage that’s 20 percent of income, and property taxes that are another 15 percent of income (for a total of 35 percent of income), that borrower could have gotten a reduction in mortgage payments under the 31 percent test, despite having a modest mortgage.

Mortgage Executive Kills Himself, After Obama Makes Mortgage Giant Freddie Mac Lose Money to Bail Out Irresponsible Borrowers

by Hans Bader on April 22, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

The chief financial officer of mortgage giant Freddie Mac committed suicide today in his basement. The Obama Administration forced Freddie Mac to run up billions of dollars in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, including irresponsible high-income households with modest mortgages.

Until last year, Freddie Mac was a GSE — a Government Sponsored Enterprise, an entity chartered and subsidized by the federal government, but owned by private shareholders. But the federal government seized direct control of Freddie Mac last year after it ran up big losses.

Ironically, although the government took over Freddie Mac in the name of reducing its risky mortgage practices, it ended up doing just the opposite. The government made Freddie run up even bigger losses buying risky loans in an effort to artificially stimulate lending. In conduct reminiscent of Enron, federal regulators tried to prevent Freddie from disclosing to the public and the SEC how Obama’s mortgage bailout was forcing it to lose even more money.

The Government’s politically-motivated mismanagement of Freddie Mac shows why recent proposals to effectively nationalize the banks are a bad idea. Why should we trust the Administration to turn around failing companies, when the Congressional Budget Office says that the Administration’s $800 billion stimulus package will actually shrink the economy in the long run?

In mortgage modifications, property rights of investors must be respected

by John Berlau on November 12, 2008 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual

Today, in addition to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s expected announcement of a major mortgage modification plan through the $700 billion TARP, Barney Frank’s House Financial Services Committee is holding a hearing entitled “Private Sector Cooperation with Mortgage Modification.” However, despite the word “cooperation” in its title, it’s clear from letters Frank and others sent out that the hearing will be confrontational rather than cooperative. Specifically, Frank and some fellow committee members seek to villify investors in mortgage-backed secuties who assert their property rights under contracts with banks servicing the mortgages.

The harsh tone was set in a letter that Frank and fellow committee Democrats, including Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Maxine Waters, D-Ca., sent to investor William Frey. The representative wrote that they were “outraged” the Frey was opposing their “voluntary efforts” to “achieve a dimuntion in foreclosures” through the Federal Housing Administration refinancing plan mortgage bailout passed this summer. They then urged him to “reverse his position of trying to obstruct the operation of the bill.” So much for “voluntary,” huh.

But all Frey was doing was asserting the basic American property right of having a contract upheld. Because of securitization, many mortgages are not the banks to modify. Instead they are owned by investors, including pension funds holding the savings of the very middle-class families Frank and others are trying to help. In my OpenMarket post a few months ago, “Abrogating Peter’s Contract to Pay Paul,” I noted that according to investment bank Credit Suisse, 14 percent of MBS are owned by pensions and mutual funds that serve middle-class savers. So a big bailout, I wrote, “not only ‘robs Peter to Pay Paul,’ through taxpayers’ bailout of bad loans by banks and borrowers. It can also be said to ‘abrogate Paul’s contract to Peter.’”

[click to continue…]