FORECLOSURE PREVENTION PLAN.....

jbatzmaru_IHB

New member
What do the people of IHB think about this plan? it has a 60% chance of passing.... yikes..... will this mean a soft crash landing?






Foreclosure prevention plan under attack

Lenders trying to derail legislation that would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage balances for home owners



<p>NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Two bills before Congress would give bankruptcy court judges the authority to reduce mortgage debt, which could save thousands of borrowers from foreclosure. </p>

<p>Lenders are furious at the prospect of having judges seize control of their mortgage portfolios. Community and consumer advocates argue that such a move makes sense amid the current mortgage crisis. </p>

<p>Both the Emergency Home Ownership and Mortgage Equity Protection Act of 2007 and the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 aim to provide relief for some home owners in bankruptcy. Only borrowers who live in their homes and hold subprime or non-traditional mortgages, like interest-only loans, would be eligible. </p>

<p>"This will help 600,000 households avoid foreclosure this year and next," said Ellen Hornick an attorney for the Center for Responsible Lending.</p>

<p>The policy, which in industry parlance is called a cram-down, would reduce mortgage balances and monthly payments based on how much a home's value had decreased.</p>



<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/real_estate/loans_failing_pre_resets/index.htm" title="http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/real_estate/loans_failing_pre_resets/index.htm">Subprime loans defaulting even before resets</a>



<p>It is one of many efforts by government and consumer groups to encourage lenders and mortgage servicers to restructure loans to more affordable terms for home owners in danger of default.</p>

<p>"While there are some loans being [voluntarily] modified," Hornick said, "foreclosures are still outstripping modifications by seven to one; subprime ARM foreclosures by 13 to one."</p>

<p>But opponents say the cram-downs would increase mortgage borrowing costs for everyone.</p>

<p>"It would affect a lot of prospective home owners," said Wayne Brough, chief economist for FreedomWorks, a conservative policy advocate, "anyone who applies for a mortgage."</p>

<p>Cram-down opponents argue that borrowers who take risky loans should take the fall when they fail. Without penalties, borrowers would keep making bad bets. </p>

<p>And forgiving debt transfers risk from borrowers to the debt holders - investors in mortgage backed securities. That means interest rates will have to be higher to attract investors.</p>

<p>Steve O'Connor, the senior vice president for government affairs at the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), claims this could add upwards of one-and-a-half percentage points to everyone's interest rates. That would translate into an increase of about $200 a month on a $200,000, 30-year, fixed-rate loan.</p>

<p>"Looking forward, investors will say, 'How do I know this won't happen again, on a larger scale?'" O'Connor said. "Investors have choices in the marketplace and if they see an additional risk, they'll migrate to other securities."</p>



<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/real_estate/OTC_refinance_plan/index.htm" title="http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/real_estate/OTC_refinance_plan/index.htm">Don't forgive mortgage debt, just postpone it</a>



<p>The CRL's Ellen Harnick argues that the cram-down provisions narrowly target relatively few borrowers.</p>

<p>There were only 800,000 bankruptcy filings in the United States in 2007, according to the National Bankruptcy Research Center. </p>

<p>And while there is little hard data as to how many of these involve homeowners, some evidence suggests that about half the cases do. In one metro area, Riverside, Calif., 62% of 2007 bankruptcies involved home owners with outstanding balances. And not all of these would qualify for cram downs.</p>

<p>"These bills have means tests," Harnick said. "If you can afford to pay your mortgage, you don't qualify. If you can't afford to pay even after the mortgage balance is reduced, you're not eligible."</p>

<p>And Adam Litvin, a law professor at Georgetown University contends that cram-downs would add little to the costs of new mortgages. </p>

<p>He examined historical mortgage rates during periods when judges were allowed to reduce mortgage balances, and concluded that the impact on interest rates would probably come to less than 15 basis points - 0.15 of a percentage point.</p>

<p>"The MBA numbers are just baloney," said Litvin.</p>

<p>However, even though the direct impact on borrowers would be limited, permitting cram-downs could indirectly give borrowers more leverage in dealing with lenders, according to Bruce Marks, founder and CEO of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA). </p>

<p>Mortgage borrowers could force lenders to negotiate loan restructurings by threatening to file for bankruptcy and have the judges do it for them.</p>

<p>Some people with credit-card debt already win concessions from credit card lenders by threatening bankruptcy, where the debt may be discharged.</p>

<p>"I consider this one of the most important pieces of legislation before Congress right now," said Marks.</p>

<p>Will it become law?</p>

<p>"We believe it will be very difficult to stop this legislation and we put the initial odds of enactment at 60%," said Jaret Seiberg of the Stanford Group, a policy research company, in a press release assessing the new bills.</p>

<p>A vote on the Senate bill could come as early as next week. <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/21/real_estate/cram_downs_coming/index.htm?postversion=2008022113#TOP" title="http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/21/real_estate/cram_downs_coming/index.htm?postversion=2008022113#TOP"><img width="7" height="7" border="0" src="http://i.cnn.net/money/images/bug.gif" alt="To top of page" title="http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/21/real_estate/cram_downs_coming/index.htm?postversion=2008022113#TOP" /></a></p>


 
<em>""This will help 600,000 households avoid foreclosure this year and next," said Ellen Hornick an attorney for the Center for Responsible Lending."</em>





This estimate will of course be too high, and even if it comes to pass, it will be a drop in the bucket compared to the scope and scale of this problem.





One more morsel for homedebtor's appetite for denial...
 
<p>There is another proposal over at Calculated Risk which the super brain Tanta is getting a really hard time over. If you have an hour, go over and read that thread.</p>

<p>IR, FairEcon and I have posted on it.</p>
 
IR- would this mean that it will open the flood gate for the judge to carry over to other regular people and not subprimer only?
 
"IR- would this mean that it will open the flood gate for the judge to carry over to other regular people and not subprimer only?"





I don't know. It does sound like anyone who does this is putting their faith in a bankruptcy judge.
 
This is actually the "old" way to do it. If somebody went into bankruptcy, any debt could be cut. Mortgage lenders got a change in the bankruptcy law to get them special protection - if somebody goes BK, their debt is privileged over all other debt. This just means they have to face reductions like any other lender. Given that the mortgages are often very excessive compared to both the value of the property and the borrower's ability to pay, this is a pretty fair way to handle the situation. The lender gets the borrower's liquid assets and a fairly valued loan without having to go through foreclosure.
 
<p>Sorry, but this is crap. I didn't buy a house BECUASE I COULD NOT AFFORD TO. I make just under six figures and could have easily used an exotic loan to purchase a house that I COULD NOT AFFORD. But I DID NOT, because I am responsible.</p>

<p>ANY effort to "save" people living in houses they cannot afford is a bail-out that everyone else will have to pay for. This will be rewarding bad behavior. The price of buying a home will INCREASE for me while keeping hundreds of thousands of people in homes they have no business living in.</p>
 
Car repo's are at a 10 year high...so would they be willing to cut Car payments as Cars de-value too? After all..it's the same thing right?



This would be a welcome shot in the Arm to Domestic Car manufacturers who's Cars lose 40% of their value the moment they are driven off the Dealers lot!
 
How 'bout Hillary's plan to place a moratorium on foreclosures and freeze interest rates? She wants to make sure that all those "hair dressers" can stay in the homes they purchased with liar loans and other exotic mortgages! Hell, I'm voting for her! Free house for me!! Hmmm, where to buy, I refuse to spend less than $1.5 million of YOUR money!
 
Peter: actually, yes. If you file bankruptcy the judge can reduce or eliminate your car loan, and has always been able to. Why should your home loan be different?
 
<i>"If you file bankruptcy the judge can reduce or eliminate your car loan, and has always been able to. Why should your home loan be different?"</i><p>


Because the mortgage contract has a protocol in place for default, and judges are not inclined to ignore private property laws and contract law. Judges are supposed to uphold the law, not make up their own.
 
Well, bankruptcy judges can override contracts. Indeed, that's the point of bankruptcy! Fairly recently (1978 or 1993, depending on how you look at it), the law was changed to exempt mortgage contracts (but not secured contracts in general) from a bankruptcy judge's purview. Why should they deserve a special exemption?<p>



Calculated risk has an overview <a href="http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/10/just-say-yes-to-cram-downs.html">here</a>.
 
<i>"Why should they deserve a special exemption?"</i><p>


To protect private property rights. And it is not a special exemption. Forgiving a loan is the special exception. The lender should be made whole and the contract should be honored as much as is possible. Judges should not set aside contracts unless they can not be followed. If a borrower can not make payments on a mortgage, the contract may still be fulfilled under it's terms. There is no legal reason for the judge to change it.
 
I'm not afraid of Barack. He tried to ban mortgage fraud in <a href="http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2280:">February 2006</a>. Too bad the bill died in committee - would have stopped hundreds of billions in fraud. He reintroduced the bill in <a href="http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110qB5aj1:e2036:">this Congress</a> with an extensive definition of fraud. Lenders would have to:<p>



A) Certify the borrower could pay the loan


B) State maximum payments AND payoff amount for the first 10 years (goodbye fraudulent Option and Neg Ams)< br >

C) Actually check income (no liar loans)< br >

D) Make no prepay requirements beyond 2 years<p>



A big step forward, IMO.
 
In a bankruptcy, by definition, the borrower cannot make his payments, or at least will not be able to continue to. Some contract must be breached. That's the point of BK. Why should mortgage contracts be favored over other secured contracts?
 
I just read CR's take and what I get is that CR is saying lenders are greedy and predetory and borrowers are stupid and both need to be protected from themselves and each other and it is the governement's job to do both.
 
<i>"Some contract must be breached. That's the point of BK. Why should mortgage contracts be favored over other secured contracts?"</i><p>


The contract does not have to be breached. The mortgage contract has a protocol in place for non-payment as part of the contract. The judge should only modify that which has to be modified because it can not be performed. The mortgage contract may be fulfilled by foreclosure so there is no reason to modify it unless the lender and borrower agree to a modification. th point of BK is not to modify everything involved. The point of the BK is relieve that which is necessary to be relieved. The mortgage contract does not need relief.
 
> What do the people of IHB think about this plan? it has a 60% chance of passing.... yikes..... will this mean a soft crash landing?



EXPLETIVE EXPLETIVE. That's what I think about it ;)
 
Back
Top