Robert Reich's Blog

Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.

My Photo
Name: Robert Reich

Latest book, "Supercapitalism," is now out in paperback. For copies of articles, books, and public radio commentaries, go to www.robertreich.org. This blog is available as an RSS feed. Public radio commentaries are now available as a podcast.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

A Housing Bill That's Better Than Nothing

The housing bill working its way through Congress is better than nothing, but not much. Already about one in twelve American families with mortgages owes more than their house is worth. And home values continue to slide – the Treasury Department estimates another 10 to 15 percent drop before hitting bottom.

At this rate, by next year nearly one in four families with mortgages will be under water. That’s about 12 million homeowners. Some will keep paying their mortgages. But four million are already behind on their payments, and that number is likely to grow as the economy slows. The betting is that eight to ten million who will default -- either because they can’t afford to the payments or because they figure it doesn’t make any sense to keep paying for a house worth less than what’s owed on it.

It’s a giant problem and not just for people losing their homes. It's a problem also for neighborhoods becoming ever more blighted by empty houses that reduce other property values, for towns and cities whose property-tax revenues are plummeting, and for the economy as a whole.

But because the original mortgage lenders resold the rights to collect on the mortgage loans, they no longer have any incentive or authority to refinance them on terms that allow people to stay in their homes and avoid these personal and social costs. Ideally, there'd be an auction system through which investors could buy up the loans at discounts that reflected their riskiness, and then do the refinancing. But there's no such system. The most efficient way of achieving the same objective is for the government to buy up the loans and do the refinancing itself. Given the social costs at stake, it makes perfect sense for government to take on these risks as long as the government gets a pro rata share of the profits, if any, when the house is resold.

This is essentially the current bill in Congress. But under pressure from Republicans and from the Treasury, its eligibility rules are drawn so narrowly as to make refinancing all but impossible for the millions of homeowners who owe more than their houses are worth -- the very people most in danger of defaulting. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the bill will lead to no more than 500,000 refinancings out of many millions needed.

And now it turns out the White House doesn’t even want to go this far. Bush is threatening a veto.

Message from earth to Washington: Wake up before the housing crisis makes the recession into a depression.

18 Comments:

Blogger Jim Driscoll said...

Sir -

I read this sentence:
"Ideally, there'd be an auction system through which investors could buy up the loans at discounts that reflected their riskiness, and then do the refinancing."

And thought to myself, "Wow, we're going to hear a really innovative solution next", but then, I next read:
"The most efficient way of achieving the same objective is for the government to buy up the loans and do the refinancing itself."

Respectfully, why not stick with the first sentence?

I've been waiting FOUR YEARS to buy a house. I could have been stupid and reckless and spent too much money back in 2004 or 2005, but I didn't.

You're now asking me, my wife and my child to pay for those who did.

And that's simply not fair.

Worse, what you're proposing is that I have to pay to help keep housing prices high - and thus out of reach for my family.

That's beyond unfair. That's "Vote for a Republican" unfair. Darn it, don't make me do it - I really don't want to, but I will if you make me.

Tuesday, 13 May, 2008  
Blogger Trader M.D. said...

I agree with Jim.

There are plenty of people who have gotten screwed by the greed of those who decided to buy what they couldn't afford. There's no way we should have to suffer along with those fools.

Basically, you want to tell Americans that it's OK to overspend like your federal government, and that there is no point to save. Yet you & the federal reserve wonder why the savings rate is negative in this country.

Of COURSE it will be. We have no incentive to be fiscally responsible or save with interest rates being so low.

Gotta love having an interest rate inflated economy.

Given the choice? I'd rather take the depression.

Tuesday, 13 May, 2008  
Anonymous Justin Rietz said...

Bob, I find your economics incredibly interesting - you seem to use Austrian theory to analyze past economic events, and then switch to Keynesian mode when prescribing solutions.

Would you provide some “color” to the claim that a mortgage bailout is needed in order to prevent a severe recession (or a pointer to where you have already done so)? Given the issues pointed out by the previous commenters, in addition to the myriad of other economic concerns surrounding a bailout (moral hazard, inflationary pressures, government debt, historically low level of savings in the U.S., etc), I don’t see how a bailout is warranted.

My personal opinion is that if a depression is in the cards, no fiscal package, regardless of structure or magnitude, is going to prevent it.

As an aside, I was at the Haas Business School Business Forecast luncheon, and enjoyed your speech and recession humor (who thought financial ruin could be so much fun?). All I heard was praise from everyone attending. Ever thought of gunning for the host of The Daily Show?

Tuesday, 13 May, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard your commentary on NPR this morning. I could not disagree more.

You said:
"Ideally, there'd be an auction system through which investors could buy up the loans at discounts that reflected their riskiness, and then do the refinancing."

Well. I believe there is such a system and its called "foreclosure". Its not pretty, but does what you describe.

No matter how you dice and slice it, home costs are out of alignment with income. There has to be a correction and its really just a question of who takes the hit.

Your proposal would have the taxpayer take the hit, while attempting to prop up home prices for the illusion of wealth.

Houses do not represent wealth. Most of us have to live in a house. If we sell, we probably have to buy - so where is the "wealth" ?

This proposal will punish the prudent and reward the irresponsible who gambled and lost. (I am personally acquainted with a few of those gamblers who would probably agree with you.)

Wednesday, 14 May, 2008  
Blogger Katanu said...

thank you for an interesting post, I suggest to use online mortgage calculator on the website of Fizber, it will help.

Wednesday, 14 May, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

I thought the Dodd/Barney plan was that the Federal Government would GUARANTEE - NOT BUY-- the mortgages provided the dealers (or current holders) of the mortgages discounted them, thus absorbing some fair share of the losses for their snake-oil lending practices. I assumed this plan would also not cover the speculators.

Now, you say the solution is that the Federal Governemnt will BUY the mortgages and Refinance them--while you at same time you say the mortgages will likely decline in value another 10-15%.

I which you would put some numbers to your thinking, Dr. Reich. For example, please clarify taxpayer money risks and impact on our Huge annual Deficit and Debt situation. For example:

If there were 10,000,000 defaulting mortgages purchased at an average mortgage balance 0f $125,000, this means our Government is in the mortgage lending business for $1,250,000,000,000 or $1.3 Trillion! Now, if the mortgages decline in value another 10-15%(while our Government is holding them), then we will have a Government loss (granted on paper) for an indefinite period of $125-185 Billion.

Could you address whether we can AFFORD to go this far given substantial accumulated DEBT and other big demands on taxpayer funds, most of which I outlined in PART III-Transition to a Stable Economy?

BUYING the mortgages might make sense only if the people who now hold them take a HIT first, and indeed the speculators are weeded out of such a program. In other words, come up with a plan to Buy out the mortgages at 85-90%, say, of the current mortgage balance value or 85-90% of current assessed property market value -- whichever is LOWER.

In this way, the refinancing will be structured on a more realistic basis for all parties to the deal, i.e., the Government doesn't have to subsidize the refinancing below reassonable market terms, those who instigated the crisis with bad lending practices share in the losses, and the homeowner gives the Government a fair share of his eventual gain on future sale of the property. Also, I would have rules that no homeowner would share in any property appreciation gain over the refinanced mortgage value, if the property were sold within three years. If the property were later still sold at a loss under the Government refinancing deal, then this would be a taxpayer loss (an incentive to keep the Government refinancing on a prudent basis).

Personally, I favor the Government GUARANTEE mortgage approach for defaults... combining mortgage discounts with more flexible qualification limits, perhaps, than the Republicans support. But, I confess not to be up to date on the latest Bill maneuverings concerning this serious problem.

A main concern is that our Government (like many of ourcommercial banks and investment
banks) now has a very serious LIQUIDITY problem. Getting into the mortgage buying business on a huge scale (without some equitable, tough conditions) isn't going to help matters much with all the other demands coming up for Government financing. Financing demands have to be balanced and prioritized.

Could you not further clarify for readers these and other questions and facts about the Bill, being raised to your writing here?
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands

Wednesday, 14 May, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

Sorry for clarification:

6th paragraph: "the people who now hold them":
this refers to the Mortgagee not the Mortgagor and assumes the former can be identified

Wednesday, 14 May, 2008  
Blogger Jim Driscoll said...

In the interest of offering a better solution: The proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the balance on a mortgage in a bankruptcy proceeding hits only the people who were party to making bad loans - the borrower, the servicer, the originator (if within the buyback period), and the investors who bought the loans.

Those people, rather than prudent taxpayers, should be the ones who bear the burden of the bailout.

There are people who claim that this is unfair - the simple reply to that is that this "cramdown" ability is one that banks themselves have for their property. Why shouldn't homeowners have that same power?

Wednesday, 14 May, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

Dr. Reich:

I, like Frank, was struck with the changed conditions of buying versus guaranteeing. You condemned Hillary's proposal of buying, admittedly, at the time she was talking about the securities packages rather than individual mortgages, at least according to you.

At that time there was much confusion as to who owned which mortgages due to all the repackaging. I haven't read where that issue has been resolved.

If the government is going to take on the risk, I would prefer the buying route versus the guaranty route. My reason is simply based on my limited knowledge of private sector dealings with the government. No doubt the mortgage or the security package holders will attempt to take Uncle Sam to the cleaners in a purchase agreement but it could be easier for the government to hold fast on a one shot deal and secure better pricing than to guaranty and be faced with all the games that the private sector will play to milk all the milk from the cow.

Integrity is seldom uppermost when the private sector is peddling to governments.

I would demand that the investor side of the equation bear all the losses, up to and including a discount for a further decline in housing prices. If the government is going to bail out the homeowners they should limit their exposure to a minimum. Maybe the Fed should step up and bear some responsibility for their complicity in the whole affair. That's probably shooting ourselves in the foot though.

I don't completely agree with your statement regarding no sense staying in a house if the mortgage is more than the value of the home. Given that:
1) people have to live somewhere and the value of the home will increase over some period of time.
2) Most people buy homes not as an investment but as a way of living the American dream. The increase in value is a bonus
3) Most are happy in their neighborhoods, their homes, their children's schools
4) Most compare a mortgage payment versus rental costs in the decision to buy a home. I admit the tax preference is also a factor but they would still be getting that
5) Rents accumulate no equity where staying in a home could return to an equity position in a few years

All these speak to staying in a home provided mortgage payments are commensurate with rents. It also assumes the ability to make the mortgage payments.

In that regard I would think legislation freezing interest rates on subprimes to the "teaser" rates would motivate lenders, wherever in the chain they can be found, to convert to fixed rate mortgages. Further legislation requiring court approval for any foreclosures, without bankruptcy filings, with guidelines to the court for handling subprime or questionable mortgage tactics, would add even more impetus to the mortgage holders. Legislation of this nature could eliminate the need for the government to step in by buying or guaranteeing. Getting it passed is a whole nother issue.

Wednesday, 14 May, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A simple reform of the property tax could make a big difference. Reduce, even eliminate, the portion of the tax that falls on the values of homes and other buildings and improvements to property. Increase the millage rate on buildings. This will bring down the cost of housing to the point where ordinary working mortals can afford housing within a reasonable distance of the work. And underused land would be put to use, producing housing people could afford. What a novel idea that would be! Reinvigorate the economy and house our fellow human beings, in comfort and close to community amenities!

Wednesday, 14 May, 2008  
Anonymous Worker said...

"the government gets a pro rata share of the profits, if any, when the house is resold."

Dr. Reich,

I don't think this is part of the mortgage bill. I think the OTS had proposed this- basically a second lien with 0 interest or amortization. But I have not heard it make its way into any proposals, possibly because it would likely require all states to modify their land/title statutes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll be pleasantly surprised with Congress.

A bailout should be funded by the recipients of the bailout proceeds to the greatest extent possible.

Thursday, 15 May, 2008  
Blogger Rosa L. said...

i just tried the online mortgage calculator on the website of Fizber, it is amazing!!!

Friday, 16 May, 2008  
Anonymous Rahul said...

Affiliate Program Dictionary | Auto Credit Information | Beach Exotica USA | Best Casino Information | Best Finance Information | Best Finance News | Best Hotel Search | Best Life Insurance Information | Best Lifestyle Information | Best Loan Information Online | Money Market Information | Personal Finance Information | Refinance Information | Car Loan Information | Casino Dalasvegas | Change The Fortune | Chicago Hotels Information | Cruise Holiday Planning | Dating With Madeeasy | Easy Estate Loans | Easy Web Adverting | Endless Health Informations | Exotic Holiday in India | Health Fitness | Free Online Dating | Casino Gamble | Herbal Information | Holiday Party Planning | Hotels Information | I Love Gambling | India Holiday

Saturday, 17 May, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My hubby and I are in LA and having seen boom and bust periods in real estate in the past figured we'd wait this housing bubble roller coaster out. That was back in 2000. The insane increases in home prices out here went on longer than we anticipated. Each year we had saved up enough for a down payment we discovered we were yet again priced out of the market. We both have good salaries, two small children and cannot afford to buy a home in a neighborhood that is not gang infested or an hour an a half commute away. Now that prices have begun to come down there is all this talk of propping up the prices on outrageously overpriced homes and a proposition to do away with rent control on the ballot. The past ten years of our careers have been basically work harder longer for less money and benefits and now this? Yay, thanks.

I say let the entire rotten corrupt economy crash. Then at least we can get about the business of building a new one.

Sometimes I think I might enjoy seeing some really big fat cat financially houses and/or mortgage administrators bite the dust. CEO's and hedge fund managers selling apples at street corners. At this point it would be like witnessing a life long bully get their comeuppance. 'Cept that stuff only happens in the movies. Or revolutionary france....

Saturday, 17 May, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its interesting that no one seems to want to talk about the one disastrous side effect of this bill. An artificial intervention could potential result in keeping home prices artificial inflated. Everyone seems to be hung up on falling home prices. When prices fall because they were artificial inflated thats good for the overall economy. If your home realistically is a 400K home that because of speculation and other practices is now priced at 650K that extra 250K does not represent real value. The fact that a correct will now result in the home been valued closer to its real value (closer to 400k) is good.

Wednesday, 21 May, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Deserves got nothin' to do with it!"
"Life is not fair!"
&
"We will all either stand together, or fall individually!"


Wake up Jim! Nobody cares about your plight into the realm of unfairness. You are either on board for the win (thereby saving your own skin in the process) or you can whine and moan about how "unfair" it is and watch your family starve...righteously. What's it going to be? Cowboy up a little, you sound like the kid down at the beach who got sand kicked in his face.

Saturday, 24 May, 2008  
Blogger red said...

Thank you very much for this information.








muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
sevgi
mirc
chat
chat
mirc
sohbet
kelebek

Wednesday, 03 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,

Thursday, 12 February, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home