Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Economy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 07:25 AM Jan 2012

Why not cramdowns instead of another bankster rescue? [View all]

http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/9429-the-foreclosure-crisis-a-government-in-denial

The challenges faced by the U.S. housing market today reflect, in part…a persistent excess supply of homes on the market; and losses arising from an often costly and inefficient foreclosure process (and from problems in the current servicing model more generally)… Absent any policies to help bridge this gap, the adjustment process will take longer…pushing house prices lower and thereby prolonging the downward pressure on the wealth of current homeowners and the resultant drag on the economy at large.


This memo is notable for several reasons. First, it's important to remember that when the Fed speaks, it does so in sober, limited terms. So an unprompted Fed warning suggesting "a persistent excess of supply" and a "resultant drag on the economy" is comparable to the Secretary of Homeland Security holding a press conference to warn of the risk of an imminent national emergency. Second, an unprompted memo from Bernanke to the House means that he is so deeply worried he felt the need to speak out in as strong a voice as his position permits. Third, the Fed rarely speaks on issues unrelated to its direct activities. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal subsequently wrote, "For an institution that jealously guards its independence, the Federal Reserve is wading into treacherous political waters."

<snip>

There is also a far worse possibility. Today, an estimated 29 percent of all homes with mortgages are underwater. In addition, at least one respected analyst estimates that a total of 14 million homes will be foreclosed on from 2007 to the end of the crisis. This represents a hard-to-imagine one in every four mortgages. With foreclosures increasing, there is now such a looming imbalance of supply and demand that, as the Fed notes, further decreases in home prices are likely. Some believe home price reductions of another 20 percent are likely. This would, in all likelihood, have disastrous consequences on at least three fronts — and ripple effects that are impossible to predict.

What is shocking is the almost total lack of attention the administration has paid to suffering homeowners. It's hard for me (and apparently Chairman Bernanke) to understand how the administration can possibly hope to revitalize the economy without seriously addressing the overhang of consumer housing debt. Moreover, the failure to address the risk this poses for a broader economic catastrophe borders on the inexcusable.

If President Obama is serious about saving the middle class and reducing income inequality, the administration needs to be far more aggressive in developing policies to keep homeowners as homeowners. As I have written before, this was one of FDR's central goals in the New Deal. Detailed proposals for addressing this extraordinary risk do exist. However, they will require a determined effort. There are solutions, but they are not simple.


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/9439-the-foreclosure-to-rental-screwjob

And, why - in heaven's name - would congress want to take on more risk when they can keep millions of people in their homes by simply reducing the principle on their mortgages to the present value of the house? (aka - "Cramdowns&quot Naturally, the losses would have to be absorbed by the banks who - by everyone's admission - were responsible for the present crisis due to their lax lending standards and, oftentimes, fraudulent behavior. This would lead to a restructuring of the country's biggest banks through a Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) so their toxic assets and backlog of foreclosed properties can be auctioned off as soon as possible.

This is a straightforward way to fix the housing market and it should have been done long ago. Bernanke's solution is not only unreasonable, it's also deceitful. Here's more from the Fed's paper: "Continued weakness in the housing market poses a significant barrier to a more vigorous economic recovery"..(without action)…"the adjustment process will take longer and incur more deadweight losses, pushing house prices lower and thereby prolonging the downward pressure on the wealth of current homeowners and the resultant drag on the economy at large."


"Since the Fed started buying $1.25 trillion of mortgage bonds in January 2009, the value of U.S. housing has fallen 4.1 percent, and is down 32 percent from its 2006 peak, according to an S&P/Case-Shiller index. The central bank is poised to buy about $200 billion this year, or more than 20 percent of new loans, as it reinvests debt that's being paid off. Some Fed officials have said they may support additional purchases that Barclays Capital estimates could total as much as $750 billion."

Did you catch that? Taxpayers are going to get slammed for another $750 billion. That's nearly as much as Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the fiscal stimulus that added 2 percent to GDP and kept unemployment from rocketing to 13 percent. Bernanke wants to throw that same amount down a Wall Street sinkhole.
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Get the facts straight - taxpayers aren't paying 750 billion Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #1
Investing 3 trillion and getting 77 billion is not a lot of money. It's less than 3%. mbperrin Jan 2012 #2
That was just for one year, and all expenses are paid out of earnings. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #4
The 3 trillion figure came from YOUR original link. mbperrin Jan 2012 #7
But that money doesn't come from taxpayers Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #10
I wanted to make another comment on the global problem Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #12
Several things Sam1 Jan 2012 #16
You mean spending is not limited when you have a sovereign currency, not debt, right? Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #18
I ment what I said. Sam1 Jan 2012 #20
Are you aware that the banks are still "borrowing" from the Fed - truedelphi Jan 2012 #8
That's not borrowing from the Fed Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #11
Call it what you want but William Black and Allan Grayson wouldn't truedelphi Jan 2012 #13
First of all, it looks to me, like Sam1 Jan 2012 #17
As many others here probably know, truedelphi Jan 2012 #21
Cherry pick much? westerebus Jan 2012 #19
How do cramdowns and mass bank liquidations fix anything? dkf Jan 2012 #3
You can't make mortgage loans when rates are this low. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #5
You run into non-warrantable condos? dkf Jan 2012 #6
Condos can be a real mess Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #9
Are condos a small enough % that the real estate market can be fixed without it? dkf Jan 2012 #14
It depends on your area Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #15
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»Why not cramdowns instead...»Reply #0