An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Joe Nocera: The Way Out is to Help the Homeowners

NYTimes business columnist Joe Nocera was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in commentary last year. His latest book, Good Guys and Bad Guys: Behind the Scenes with the Saints and Scoundrels of American Business (and Everything in Between), is a collection of his business writing.

Nocera believes we can’t solve the financial crisis without addressing the problem that people have sub-prime mortgages that are going to go delinquent or are already facing foreclosure. A guest on Bill Moyers’ Journal last week, he spoke with Deborah Amos:

JOE NOCERA: You cannot solve the financial crisis if you don’t solve the problem at the root, which is on Main Street in people’s homes where they either have sub prime mortgages that are going to reset in ways that will make them unable to pay their mortgage, or they’re already facing foreclosure…. if you don’t do something for homeowners, not only will it hurt the economy, it’ll hurt neighborhoods. It’ll hurt the next door neighbor. And by the way, it’ll go all the way up the chain of Wall Street and you’ll start to see the write offs all over again and the same problems all over again.

DEBORAH AMOS: The counter-argument has been about moral hazard. That if you bail out, bail out homeowners, there’ll be more people who will say, “I need help.”

JOE NOCERA: And there’s more than a little truth to that. And the moral hazard is a real argument. And it has driven a lot of the thinking in Treasury about what to do about homeowners. It’s like if you give people incentive to foreclose, more people will decide, “Hey, I’m about to foreclose.” So my problem with it really is that if you’re going to say that about homeowners, why don’t say the same thing about financial institutions? Why doesn’t moral hazard work for them as well? And, you know, the government has bent over backwards to give money to financial institutions whether they need it or not. And they just don’t seem to have the same set of standards.

He’s a fan of FDIC head Sheila Bair, a political appointee who broke with the administration:

JOE NOCERA: Well, she has been in this position where she has, the FDIC took over a bank in California, IndyMac, and they have used it as a petri dish to experiment with mortgage modifications to see what can be done, what can’t be done, how many can we do. Now, the program is still in its beginning stages. There are 60,000 mortgages at IndyMac. And I think they’ve only modified 3,000 or 4,000. But she does view this as a way to do major modifications. And the idea is, you know, you get it down to 31 percent of their income, however you have to do it. Income, interest rate readjustments, even some principle readjustments. You broaden the length of the loan. You make them fixed rates. There’s a lot of things she’s doing. …

[These things] absolutely do work. Now, what she wants to do on the federal level is cut a deal with banks that basically says if you modify mortgages so you take a bit of a hit and you do same thing we’re doing at IndyMac, we will guarantee that you won’t lose any more money on those deals. In other words, if the person re-defaults after you do a modification, the government will guarantee to cover the loss on the re-default. The estimate for that at the moment is about $40 billion. She has been negotiating with the White House for well over a month on this and the Treasury Department. And they basically think it’s too much money and they don’t want to spend it. And they also think her criteria is too broad, and they want to narrow it. So she finally, in disgust really, just posted her plan on the FDIC website and basically said, “Here, America, is what I want to do and they won’t let me do it.” She is completely broken with the administration.

In an editorial last month the NYTimes endorses the idea, “the Treasury would do well by the American public by going where Ms. Bair and the F.D.I.C. are leading.”

  • StockBoySF
    I agree and I've commented on here before that banks should be given incentives to refinance people's mortgages (not just subprime, because prime mortgages can go into default too, if people lose their jobs or are stuck with unforeseen bills). That helps the banks, that helps people and a lot of the toxic debt on banks' books, which are tied to mortgages become less toxic if the underlying mortgages don't go into default. It also helps real estate values since fewer homes are on the market.
  • DLS
    Aiming money at the deadbeats is moral failure, though what we suspect Barney Frank and the other Dems to emphasize (buying the votes of those who are so easily and cheaply bought). The same is true for federal compulsory delay or postponement of foreclosures, or for arbitrarily rewriting mortgages (contracts) -- if the lenders aren't compensated, it is low-life theft as well as loser-vote-buying.

    Treating everyone, responsible and irresponsible, equally (giving money to all homeowners) is still morally deficient, but superior to the more obvious, disgusting foreclosure-only dream of some Dems.

    Better still would be debt relief to all, not limited to home mortgages (which is, in fact, discriminatory and creating a favored class of individuals) but to all debt. Besides, how long will it be before there are cries about the credit card debt Crisis! and a desire to rewrite debt (perhaps forcing down by law interest rates or the "spread" between credit card rates and the federal funds rate)?
  • DLS
    "banks should be given incentives to refinance people's mortgages (not just subprime...) ..."

    I don't want direct federal arm-twisting. I suppose Barney the barking dog Frank (he needs to learn to stop interrupting people, to stop shouting, and to stop babbling mindlessly and spouting lib-Dem prattle that's sometimes forty years or more out of date) and Chris Countrywide Dodd will have other ideas, though. And don't forget that there can be indirect forms of this, that penetrate into what could happen naturally, anyway. Namely, the new Congress and Obama administration could change laws regarding mortgage default, foreclosure, uniform bankruptcy laws nationwide including homestead provisions that prohibit foreclosure or eviction, new laws for debt reorganization*, and so on.

    There already is an unfortunate non-governmental incentive in the scenario involving homeowners in trouble that is easy to envision. Namely, default on mortgage means foreclosure, eviction and repossession, and resale. Not so fast. It's costly to do all these things, the scummier greedy borrowers have often trashed the homes before leaving (they belong in prison for that -- that solves their housing problem [scowl]), and continued falling home prices (which are in order anyway given where they still are) only make the foreclosure-and-resale response financially risky for the lenders. So they may be moved on their own to renegotiate mortgage terms. (Of course, everyone else with a mortgage deserves such renegotiation as well, in fact, more so given their better management of their finances and their lives.)

    The key is that this should be _voluntary_, between the lenders and the borrowers, not be forced upon the lenders by the federal (or state or local) government. Of course, the invitation to federal intervention and _compulsory_ revisions to mortgages has been extended insofar as federal money has been given to the lenders, and it confers the ability for the feds ("us") to demand a set of reforms in exchange for that money. (The real key here, though, is that there shouldn't have been a financial industry bailout. In doing the bailout we've made things worse, with likely more kinds of complications from Washington yet to come.)

    * A morally correct way to lower mortgage payments for all, not only those in trouble, would be to exchange lower periodic payments for a longer term, 40-50 years, so that the same amount of principal were still eventually repaid. To actually reduce principal by government is truly theft, and reducing any nominal amount repaid to lenders by government fiat is theft.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC