July 29, 2008

Sad News on the Wicked Local Blog, and San Diego Plays Hardball With Irresponsible Lenders

According to Chris Biondi’s post from the 23rd, a Taunton woman killed herself as her home was approaching auction, saying she wanted her son and husband to use her life insurance to keep the house. I know I sound like a bleeding heart — but this is the reason we have things like bankruptcy laws.

200708 the economist july 19th 2008 Sad News on the Wicked Local Blog, and San Diego Plays Hardball With Irresponsible LendersIt would be nice if the less-government crowd were right — if banks would take a breath, self-regulate, realize that foreclosure is bad for all of us, and come up with plans for refinancing, interest reduction, and outright debt forgiveness for homeowners who are in trouble. But according to the July 19 issue of The Economist, banks spent millions to lobby to have themselves deregulated; that’s how we got here.

It’s also true that bankers — the people, not the institution — hate bankruptcy. I used to work in a bank, and the dominant attitude — one you were expected to mirror if you worked there — was that people who overspend and then can’t pay should be ruined. Bankruptcy is legal stealing. People who can’t pay are deadbeats. Looking down on them had the air of a moral obligation. The intimidation of the bill collector is what holds the banking system together, after all — only, right now, it’s particularly bad for business.

It’s true that homeowners got greedy; but the “Twin Twisters” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t the fault of imprudent buyers.

Essentially, The Economist says that taxpayers are paying for the bailouts of these two mammoth companies. But the taxpayers didn’t reap the rewards of any of the profits made by these leviathans — they aren’t actually socialized. The article seems to say that no one ever believed that the feds would let mortgage mega-banks perish, and that we’ve been had — bailing out these institutions means irresponsible businesspeople are being rewarded for intentionally seeking deregulation, marketing the heck out of a really, really bad idea, keeping their jobs and houses, and sticking us with the bill.

What’s worse is that we’re spending money to bail out the banks and doing very little for homeowners faced with foreclosure. There’s some hope on this front, however. According to a Reuters article, “San Diego’s city attorney said on Wednesday he filed a lawsuit against Bank of America Corp … and its Countrywide unit to prevent the mortgage lenders from foreclosing on homes in the city, which he aims to make a ‘foreclosure sanctuary.’” We need to see more than this — we need to see lenders propose a workable plan to get this market back on the rails. And we need our legislators to get tough on the industry until that happens. High-five San Diego.

The smartest thing for banks to do is to rehabilitate customers. They lose a pile of money on almost every foreclosure, and they’re removing families from the pool of potential buyers just when the real estate market needs them most.

Image links to source.


  • I can appreciate your position, I really can -- but saying "you deserve to burn" isn't going to help the market right itself. And...well...there's nothing so sweet as exactly what you want to hear, right? Especially when it comes to buying your home. What drives me crazy are people who are walking away from mortgages but still driving expensive SUVs. A repo isn't nearly as bad as a foreclosure, folks. Get rid of the schlock and keep the house if you can!
  • Payurbills
    I agree with certain aspects of your story. The taxpayers should not bailout the corporate leeches that made plenty of money the past 10 years. However, all of these tax payers crying should just give it a rest. If these people didn't know what they were doing then I would like to sell them some swamp land. What did they think was going to happen? I am sure they own a credit card and know how interest rates work. Let me see if I understand this correctly- I buy my house at the peak of the market and because I didn't get a 5yr ARM then people have no sympathy for the 30 yr fixed homeowners. These people were irresponsible and now they are paying the price. Why should I have sympathy for either- the corporations and dumb homeowners both appear to be the same greedy deadbeats? Plenty of people have lost millions over the years in the different bubbles popping in our economy. Our society needs to be smarter and not so quick to be sympathetic for irresponsible people. Pay your bills…
  • Cool -- thanks.
  • tom.newhampster
    LTI of 28%: Ratio of monthly mortgage debt cost to income should not exceed 25% of Gross Income. I remember when is was a a lot tighter than that.

    Monthly mortgage payments (1st, 2nd, etc all added together) of principal and interest plus real estate taxes and insurance (including MGIC, mortgage guarantee insurance if you didn't have 20% down or your house lost value...) of TWENTY FIVE percent. Twas the standard for years, at least in the 1970s.
  • Thanks for your 2 cents -- I'm not real happy about it either, though a lot depends upon propping up those two institutions. You should go down to the dentist's office and swipe a back issue of The Economist -- his article is really in-depth and interesting.
  • anon
    I'm part of the "less-government crowd" not because it's necessarily the best way to get the best outcome for the economy, but because regulation tends to have the nasty side effect of limiting freedom. You're right - less government will not clean up this mess in the way that you imply it needs to happen. However, the point is that freedom is not freedom if you aren't allowed to fail. The banks need to crash and burn because it is the right thing to do. It might actually be a better way to solve the problem in the long term too if it forces everybody to start pricing risk appropriately, especially if the workouts you are proposing merely drag the pain out over a longer period of time. However, that is beside the point; they need to fail because they took the risks and reaped the profits which resulted in this mess of their own doing. This bailout disgusts me. Our representative Barney Frank disgusts me.
  • Too true -- it isn't only FSBO sellers who are a little unrealistic, and the sooner we get some fresh blood into their first houses, the sooner it all gets moving. A lot of houses sit because sellers want to travel back in time a couple of years.

    Want to explain LTIs for us?

    Thanks, Max!

    Mike
  • max
    What this market needs most is reasonable prices, and reasonable lending. And by "reasonable" I mean LTIs of 28%, which is historically proven to be sustainable. The sooner we get there, the better.
blog comments powered by Disqus
close