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.’”

Read the full story

Arnold Kling:

Instead of thinking of the pending bailouts and financial regulation as a new era of government supervisions of markets, think of it as preserving the system in which a Harvard elite controls other people’s money. In fact, very little is likely to change. Reading the news stories about how Secretary Paulson plans to implement the bailout, it seems as though the same people will be in charge of the money. Print some new business cards, change the logo on the front from “Goldman Sachs” to “U.S. Treasury,” and everything else continues as it was. It’s just that it becomes a lot more difficult for ordinary people to opt out of using the elite’s money management services.

Indeed. Alexander Hamilton would be so happy.

And from across the pond, Eamonn Butler:

When the government is persuading the casino to hand out free chips and the regulators are standing drinks at the bar, you shouldn’t be surprised if the customers place a few risky bets.

There’s a Gamblers Anonymous and an Alcoholics Anonymous, but no-one has yet devised a 12 steps program to wean the world off government.

Oh, Happy Day! And it certainly is for all those who value freedom, responsibility and the true free market in which individuals are free to profit from their risks on the condition that they don’t stick the rest of us with their losses.

It’s not hyperbole to say the Republican and Democratic backbenchers who defied both parties’ leadership to defeat this $700 billion package of Wall Street socialism literally saved America. Whatever their reasons, this defeat (or rather victory for freedom), means that America is much less likely to turn into France, Venezuela, or the old Soviet Union, as this bailout/nationalization package would have set us on the road to becoming.

Several great speeches on the Right and Left were given. Democrats Brad Sherman of California and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon gave powerful speeches against corporate giveaways. And conservative leaders of the Republican Study Committee — such as Jeb Hensarling, Jeff Flake, Mike Pence, and of course Ron Paul — spoke about how government intervention was largely the cause of this predicament, but the bailout would doom arguments for the free market form here on out. The idea of the government making this kind of outlay to high-flying risk takers just didn’t jibe with members, and certainly not with the American people.

Read the full story

The House of Representatives just voted down the $700 billion corporate finance bailout, despite earlier urging from President Bush to push the measure through. Look for in depth analysis from our very own John Berlau and the rest of the policy team as the day progresses. Read CEI’s roundup of the continuing finance crisis (and sign up for email updates) here.

NEW: John Berlau responds (and speaks!) in reaction to today’s vote. Updated post and audio clip here.

Those of us (and CEI is among the “us”!) who oppose Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s $700 billion bailout of Wall Street have been challenged to come up with an alternative to stop the credit contagion. The Republican Study Comittee, a caucus of pro-market members of the GOP Congress, has just answered this challenge. They have presented such an alternative that would be much more effective at stopping the contagion than the Paulson bailout, and it would not cost taxpayers a dime.

The RSC plan is chock-full of measures to remove barriers to economic growth and market-distorting subsidies. It would suspend capital gains taxes to put trillions of dollars of capital in the economy, and set Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which as CEI has documented were at the root of this crisis, on the road to full privatization.

Most importantly for the crisis at hand, the RSC plan would make regulatory agencies suspend the mark-to-market accounting rules that a range of experts agree are spreading the contagion by forcing solvent banks’ to “write down” their assets, based on the last fire sale of a highly leveraged bank. As Gary Gorton, finance professor at Yale and member of the National Bureau of Economic Research has written, “With no liquidity and no market prices, the accounting practice of ‘marking-to-market’ became highly problematic and resulted in massive write-downs based on fire-sale prices and estimates.”

You can read more about mark-to-market regulations in my op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this weekend. My Open Market post early this week, as well as CEI’s new podcast, explains how the Paulson bailout may make things worse by forcing more paper losses that threaten healthy banks with “regulatory insolvency.” The problem is if the government pays pennies on the dollar, mark-to-market rules would make every other bank take this paper loss on its books. So there will be a tension between getting the best deal for the taxpayer and not spreading further systemic risk from massive writedown the government purchase could force. Even Ben Bernanke acknowledged this tension in his Congressional testimony Tuesday.

All the more reason to go with the RSC plan instead of the Paulson plan, which would throw $700 billion and the free market out the window and still not solve the crisis at hand.

Best short explanation of the mark-to-markets issue I have yet seen:

Imagine if you had a $200,000 mortgage on a $300,000 house that you planned on living in for 20 years. But a neighbor, because of very special circumstances had to sell his house for $150,000. Then, imagine if your banker said you had to mark to this “new market” and give the bank $80,000 in cash immediately (so that you would have 20% down), or lose your home. Would this reflect reality? Not at all. Would this create chaos? Absolutely.

More on this here (hat-tip Ramesh Ponnuru).