On Ben's Advice for Banks

So, uncle Benny, in his most recent spew of "wisdom", suggested banks should consider forgiving some principle on bad loans given to people who couldn't possibly pay them back for homes they couldn't possibly afford. Now normally, I think the Fed is generally bad for the country, bad at their job (controlling inflation, in case anyone forgot what that was), and bad in their advice. However, in this case, I think it's not actually that bad (regardless of how bad it sounds). I'll explain (in a shameless copy of a post made on The Mess That Greenspan Made)...

Banks and other lenders have a problem with all their bad loans which is going to get worse. As people figure out they can walk away from underwater loans with various levels of downside (from a simple defaulted "everybody did it then" debt to "many people did it then" bankruptcy), lenders will be left holding a lot of properties they can't unload. As states try to combat urban blighting, they will figure out ways to fine the lenders lots and lots of money to compensate for lost property tax revenue. Add in the foreclosure cost, chance of people declaring bankruptcy and keeping their homes while clearing their debt (which is certainly possible), and lawsuits over predatory lending, and lenders are staring down the proverbial abyss.

Given those considerations, it really might be cheaper for the lenders to write off some of the principle of the debt, and a prudent financial move. The goal of the lenders is to get people paying 100% of their income to the lenders, forever, without pushing the people who borrowed money to the point where bankruptcy or defaulting is seen as the better option. If giving people some phantom equity furthers that goal, it's certainly an option worth considering, compared to the probable alternatives for most of the "obvious default" loans.

I know, I feel dirty for agreeing with Benny... but that's just how I see this one.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I Hate Obama-speak

Every time Obama speaks, it aggravates me. It's not because of his method of speaking or speech itself: he's a great public speaker who's clear, eloquent, and polished. It's also not because he uses a teleprompter obsessively, is very good at not straying from whatever canned message or pitch has been written for him, and dodges answering any probing questions with real information: most politicians have perfected these arts, and they have become so ingrained in our political process that they are as expected as they are unhelpful in conveying actual information. It's obviously also not because he lies: most politicians lie, usually very well, and Obama can state even laughable, preposterous fallacies without even breaking stride, but again, that's expected, normal, and uniform in today's politicians. No, none of these things are the reason Obama's speeches really get to me. See, Obama comes across as a smart guy, and every once in a while you get a semi...
Read more

If there was going to be a public health care plan...

I realize a public health care plan is a bad idea, but it did get me thinking: if I were making the bill, and everyone else strongly wanted a public plan, is there a form of the plan which I would be agreeable to? I thought about it, and I think a public plan would be eminently workable, provided it has some simple immutable provisions. Now, I don't think the Democrats are going to put anything like this into their disaster of a plan, much less be capable of adhering to all the requirements, but I would venture to say that if they truly wanted bipartisan support, this would be one way to get it; I strongly suspect most Republicans would back a public plan with my simple provisions. Without further ado, the provisions: - All public employees will be covered by the same public plan with the same benefits, from every level of government from janitors to the President. This will ensure that the plan is good, provides reasonable coverage, and Congress has a strong incentive to get it ri...
Read more

Why the housing market decline is far from over

Image
This chart shows the recast dates for various loans over the next five years, based on the current rate of negative amortization (copied from CalculatedRisk ). I think it would be fair to assume that most of these are going to be defaults, as soon as (or slightly after) the recast time; almost everyone who can afford their house is either already in a fixed-rate mortgage (and thus not appearing on this chart). This virtual tidal-wave of defaults represents roughly $25,000,000,000 worth of housing inventory being added to the market, per month, for the next five years . For reference, the NAR's latest statistics indicate there are only about $66B in sales of existing homes, per month, total, in the whole US. That lines up pretty well with the latest estimations of total home sales which are foreclosures, which is around 45% (REO's are selling slightly better than non-REO's, cause they are more realistically priced). Most people agree that the housing market is not likely to...
Read more