« Previous | Main | Next »

Only Halfway Through the Foreclosure Crisis?

Share

November 13, 2008 4:21 PM

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports from Capitol Hill: Martin Eakes, who runs the Center for Responsible Lending, told the Senate Banking Committee in February 2007 that the U.S. was on the precipice of two million foreclosures for subprime loans. Today, the committee chairman, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., called Eakes prescient and said the two million figure "seems almost quaint."

Eakes, however, sees no end to the foreclosure crisis in sight.

"We're only halfway through subprime loans alone, not to mention a third of the way or less through the adjustable or arm," he told the committee today, of foreclosures. Eakes calls the proposal by FDIC Commissioner Sheila Bair (and rejected, apparently by the Treasury Department) to use taxpayer money for a homeowner bailout "just an absolute no brainer."

What was billed as an oversight hearing on the Treasury Department bailout for Wall Street turned more into a meditation on the housing crisis and what banks benefiting from the ever-evolving bailout are doing (and not being forced to do) to help people avoid foreclosure.

There was unanimous confusion among the witnesses - bank executives, academics and consumer activists - that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson seems to have rejected a proposal by Bair to use authority within the bailout bill and $50 billion of that $700 billion program to help people with subprime loans in danger of foreclosure restructure their loans. Bair's proposal was modeled on a program enacted by FDIC to restructure the subprime loans of Indy Mac bank when it went into conservatorship earlier this year.

Dodd said the rate of foreclosures demands more systemic approach than the several voluntary programs enacted by the federal government.

"Between now and next Wednesday, some 50,000 families will go into foreclosure," he said. "Some 50,000 will lose their homes.

"It is still confounding to me why the Secretary of the Treasury and others refuse to understand this is the heart of the problem. And until we address this, this problem is not going to go away."

Dodd also accused Paulson of only pretending to look at Bair's proposal. He said he could offer mortgage relief legislation on the floor of the Senate when lawmakers return for a lame duck session next week. But without buy-in from Republicans, nothing is likely to pass next week.

Wharton Business Professor Susan Wachter told the Senators she was "puzzled why Treasury has rejected (the Bair plan)."

Bank executives were less committal, but said more should be done by the government to systematically address the foreclosure crisis.

Anne Finucane is an executive at Bank of America, which acquired Countrywide, the lender most famously undone by subprime lending. She said BofA is trying to unilaterally restructure many mortgages - 200,000 this year, she said - but said "the more we can do systematically to deal with this issue, the better."

But the bankers differ with the Democrats and activists on whether a controversial proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to unilaterally restructure mortgages would endanger the market.

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., whose state is particularly hard hit by the foreclosure crisis, said he worried about the bankruptcy provision, but wants to see more done to help homeowner's specifically.

Dodd also castigated banks for "hoarding capital" given to them under the program and argued that the true cost of the bailout has grown to $5 trillion when you factor in the temporary bump in FDIC insurance to $250,000 per account, the bailout of insurance giant AIG and the nationalization of government mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"It isn't just 290 billion. It's 5 trillion. The taxpayer is really behind your institutions," he said.

But still Dodd defended the $700 billion rescue package passed this year.

"If you believe that you would be no worse off than you are today, then I invite you to return to the Treasury the billions of dollars in taxpayer investments, guarantees and discounts that you currently receive, and I wish you well as you try to make it on your own," Dodd said.

November 13, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (29)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I think we need another $500 billion set aside for the mortgage bailouts, in addition to the $300 billion stimulus giveaways, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion to banks, $100 billion to automakers, $500 billion yet another stimulus giveaways.

Our Dearest Greatest Smartest Leader is an authentic, 100% real, candy giver.

Long Live the Leader (LLL)!

Posted by: Follower of Dearest Greatest Leader | Nov 13, 2008 4:43:05 PM

Well, the last person on this earth that I would consider an expert on this topic is Senator Dodd. The Senate didn't do its job in providing the oversight needed for this mess, and the only time the Legislative Branch seemed interested in addressing this issue is when the Executive Branch came with a request to spend 700 billion dollars. Now we will see how the Senate Reacts. But if you ask me, they are just waiting for the Executive Branch to make a political mis-step, then cash themselves a check for some political capital. This is just disgusting. They are supposed to represent our interests, not their own political ambitions.

Posted by: John | Nov 13, 2008 4:58:29 PM

Hey, mom, you missed the point. Our Greatest Leader first need to take care of the CEOs of banks and automakers, who make 10s and 100s millions per person per year, by injecting another $100 billions into Detroit, so that they can take care of you.

Even the 3 CEOs of the big Autos make $100 million a year, that's only 0.3% of the bailout. Good deal, worth it!

You need to look at the broader picture to understand the Harvard Smartness of our Greatest Leader and his vision for a better united state of america, for the common good of the society.

Posted by: Follower of Dearest Greatest Leader | Nov 13, 2008 5:00:25 PM

Instead of given billions to banks, they should have given $200,000 to every tax-paying citizen. Then they could pay off or down their mortgages and debts instead of giving it to the greedy financial institutes that put us in this situation to begin with. The American people are hurting while financial institutes are hoarding the bailout money. It isn't right nor fair. The banks only care about making money, not helping the people. Look at AIG who through a party with tax payer money. Whatever.

Posted by: Mel | Nov 13, 2008 5:01:16 PM

Mel, you think like mom.

Posted by: Follower of Dearest Greatest Leader | Nov 13, 2008 5:03:28 PM

I can't imagine why anyone would listen to a thing Chris Dodd has to say. Connecticut kicked the wrong Chris out of office. Chris Dodd is a large part of the credit crisis.... see his support for ACORN!

Posted by: SL | Nov 13, 2008 5:06:34 PM

Well then...I'm right on schedule. I should hit forecloseure status right about March. (Shrug)

Posted by: DobermanSpencer | Nov 13, 2008 5:08:53 PM

I wonder, if the politicians just stop tinkering with the market - stop with the bailouts, stop with the news conferences, stop with trying to prevent catastrophe - how quickly the market will just hit bottom so it can start to rise back up. When you're bouncing a ball, you have to let the ball hit the ground before it can start to bounce back up - the markets are really no different.

Posted by: Justin Thyme | Nov 13, 2008 5:10:09 PM

Congratulations Barky, you have just won the captainship on HMS Titanic, post iceberg. The faster you spend, the faster she'll sink! What's that faint noise in the background, oh look, the band is playing...

Posted by: hmn | Nov 13, 2008 5:12:02 PM

scanny: "Obama gets what he reaped. Obama and his friends of MOVEON created this mortgage crisis but the news refuses to mention that little bit of tidbit information"

They don't mention it because it's an absurd little fantasy not supported by any actual facts. Obama and MOVEON is to blame now? Are you serious? Could you please decide if Obama is the empty suit with no record or the source of all evil - it's getting tough to follow "logic."

Posted by: jhw539 | Nov 13, 2008 5:19:09 PM

Why does this not surprise me that all this money has not done a damn thing but swell the pockets of these banks. Here is the solution and if anybody wants to listen. Please don't say the cost of Milk and Bread will go up with what I am about to say! Who cares if it goes up with the savings the american people will have monthly we can afford $6 gallon of Milk.

1) Each Tax Paying American get $250,000
2) For a Husband and Wife they get $500,000.
3) We all sign a letter agreeing to use our money to pay down or off our Mortage.
4) The average home loan is approx $250,000.00 that means all home loans would be paid in full!
5) Any extra cash would be used to purchase consumer goods.

This accomplishes the following

1) Banks get whole real fast. Most bad loans paid in full.
2) Money is being pumped into our economy and companies will than be able to make profits.
3) Very few people would have a monthly house payment, on average $1500 per month. They could use that money to purchase the everyday goods (even at a higher price)

WE NEED TO GET OUR GOVERNMENT TO GIVE USE THE MONEY AND LET US GET THIS THING BACK ON TRACK! ENOUGH OF GIVING MONEY AND NO OVERSIGHT

Posted by: chuck | Nov 13, 2008 5:20:08 PM

Justin Thyme "I wonder, if the politicians just stop tinkering with the market - stop with the bailouts, stop with the news conferences, stop with trying to prevent catastrophe - how quickly the market will just hit bottom so it can start to rise back up."

You could try reading up on the Great Depression, where the federal government's stimulus programs were insignificant relative to GDP and did nothing. It took WWII to get government spending up to the point it goosed the economy.

Or, if you don't like messy things like reality and facts, you can just post random musing to boards on the internet .

Posted by: jhw539 | Nov 13, 2008 5:21:23 PM

jhw539,
In case your memory is so easily fading, you ought be reminded that Pres. 0bama made the boneheaded mistake to push for Bush's money giveaway, one year ago, so that he could buy vote, sweeten some of your pockets with $600. He ridiculed Hillary Clinton's solution to use that $300 billion to save the mortgage and financial crisis.

If he had followed Clinton's lead, the economy might have not tanked as is now.

Pres. 0bama is either clueless about the economy, or he was putting his personal gain of pandering voters like you to buy votes to give money away.

You pick whichever you like.

Posted by: Coke2 | Nov 13, 2008 5:25:06 PM

the sad fact of all of this is that the world wide depression that we will see is something that has occurred on a regular cycle in the history of the western world and we will just have to adjust to this until the leaders of our countries come together and agree as a group to have a unified approach to managing the whole worlds debit issues.

Posted by: don edwards | Nov 13, 2008 5:55:33 PM

Congress does have the power to hold back the second half of the $700 billion if it thinks the first half isn't working out. BINGO!

Posted by: glenn_2099 | Nov 13, 2008 5:56:26 PM

Thanks GWB.... Real good presidentin you done there.

Posted by: BlueJersey | Nov 13, 2008 6:01:08 PM

Oh for Pete's sake people. The reason buying up bad mortgage loans is a BIG mistake is because banks want to sell the loans to the government for 100 cents on the dollar when the related collateral is worth 50 cents on the dollar. The government isn't going to profit in that scenario unless they restructure the loans and take a principal loss (hence a taxpayer loss) or hold the loans for 10 years, until the real estate market returns. Second, the VAST majority of subprime loans were made to either (a) people who could not afford the home they purchased at any price, but took advantage of low teaser rates (I will agree, with some coercion from crafty mortgage brokers and the very greedy banks that are looking for bail out) or (b) investors who rented the properties out and made money while the teaser rate was in place but walked away when the interest rates 'jumped' to market and they couldn't refinance or sell the property. There is only a slim margin of 'real' property owners who bought homes they thought they could afford, and have either lost jobs or been unable to refinance based on the credit crunch. Banks have yet to mark their bad loans to market (take the "loss" of loan collateral value on their books) because they need cash for their balance sheet to increase their loan loss reserves. So, when banks receive bail out funds there is no money left over to re-lend, because they are juggling numbers to stay solvent.

Posted by: RohnertPark1 | Nov 13, 2008 6:07:50 PM

jhw539 ... your math & accounting skills seem remarkably similar to El Presidente Bush's. If we were to exercise your suggestions, it would cost, oh, somewhere in the neighborhood of $37.5 TRILLION DOLLARS (assuming approximately 150 million taxpayers). Do you have any concept what would happen to our economy, our country, our trade capabilities with other countries? Go examine Germany in the 30's or Argentina in more recent years. Milk at $6? Try more like $600 per gallon, and I'm not exaggerating. Look up hyperinflation on wikipedia, you'll see the picture of a German woman feeding her stove with money, because it was worth more as kindling than as currency. We're already in danger of increasing our national debt to an unsustainable level (and that's before the massive wave of social security payments hits us in the next couple of decades) with the bailout we've funded so far. Bottom line, we're still way above the natural level of home ownership (i.e., only people who can actually afford mortgages have them), and any attempt on the government's behalf to artificially keep us above that level is just delaying the inevitable pain and suffering. Face it, we (and I mean everyone, wall street & main street!) gorged ourselves on the cheap tequila of overly-easy credit, & now we're all trying to avoid the massive hangover. Only one thing cures a hangover for certain ... time. Hopefully next time (and there will be a next time) we all learn to sip more slowly from the bottle.

Posted by: Frank | Nov 13, 2008 6:19:03 PM

BlueJersey.

How is it Bushs fault that people took out loans that thay shouldn't have.
I'm no fan of Bush but I can't blame anyone but myself for the bad decisions I've made in my life. |

Posted by: Hippie Smasher | Nov 13, 2008 6:24:00 PM

banks should never have given loans to people they knew could not pay----they had strict standards years ago---to many uneducated people in this country that did not know what would happen

Posted by: rodney | Nov 13, 2008 7:21:24 PM

Post a comment