LyrArc Article Gist
How the mortgage restructuring process might take shape to mitigate the effects on homeowner, on lenders and on the overall economy of rising foreclosures in 2008 as the Alt-A mortgages rest to higher rates. Active intervention by California's governor to obtain mass restructuring through agreements with lenders, four servicers agreed to extend the teaser rate for several years and fast tract the procedures for whole masses of struggling but not hopeless borrowers to get the lower rate.

LyrArc Article Gist
The House of Representatives just passed a bill to stem foreclosures and stabilize house prices by having the government through the Federal Housing Administration reinsure upto $300 billion of problem loans. The bills backers estimate 1.5 million foreclosures could be prevented by this bill but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only about 500,000 foreclosures can be averted this way. Under this bill lenders would have to writedown their loans to 85% of current value of the house. Borrowers pay a fee for the insurance and give up any share in future price appreciation to the government. According to the Congressional Budget Office the cost to the government is modest about $1.7 billion over years. The reason for the limited effectiveness of this bill is that it is voluntary, not much government money is extended. Many of the comments in the blog on this article as is the case with other articles on help to homeowners facing foreclosure show the widespread idea that its a bailout of irresponsible decisions by homeowners and mortgage companies who made the loans. This may be the reason why so little has been done in this regard and the limited government money extended even in plans put forth by Congressional Democrats like Barney Frank. Feldstein who is a former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Reagan has taken a different approach focussing on homeowners who may see the rational decision is to walk away from homes where they have no equity in their homes as prices drop by 20% and for government to prevent a wave of foreclosures in this manner. The danger is if not much is done there could be a downward spiral in home prices as foreclosure reach a new high in 2009. Last year according to Economist's charts foreclosures were averaging more than 100,000 a month now they are averaging more than 200,000 a month, this would take it from 1.5 million foreclosures in 2007 to 2.5 million in 2008. According to the Economist 9 million people owe more than their house is worth, the homeowners who have negative equity, and if they were to foreclose at the rate of 2-3 million a year and accelerating as the economy deteriorates, this could be enough to start a downward spiral. At that point a new President and Congress would have to take drastic action with a substantial amount of the government's money. In that kind of crisis not much thought would be given to the cost because like the financial meltdown that was feared during the Bear Stearns crisis the fears of a global severe economic crisis would make action necessary on many fronts of which housing would be one....

LyrArc Article Gist
Gretchen Morgenson describes the issues of regulatory capture for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during the 2008 financial crisis and the first term of the Obama administration, which affected how Geithner treated homeowners and banks. Morgenson describes close ties to Citicorp.

LyrArc Article Gist
Disappointment for those who had high expectations for the Obama Presidency. The slog of daily governance proves too much. Attempting too much in too short a time. Polarization in Congress. And the person Obama is -transformative but cautious.

LyrArc Article Gist
The truth is very different from the rhetoric coming from the Obama administration about helping Main Street America and ordinary workers against "fat-cat bankers," says Goldfarb. Under the Obama administration banks have grown larger and gained more influence over administration decisions. No conditions were made part of the agreement that would require banks to lend a portion of the money handed out to the banks to ordinary borrowers. And not much of significance was done to help homeowners under water, which would enable a faster recovery. In this respect the policies slanted in favor of banks of the Obama administration worsened the prospects of an economic recovery. Experts from Reagan advisor Martin Feldstein- who as early as 2008 advocated serious help to homeowners under water to reduce principal and interest- to the FDIC's Sheila Bair and Princeton Prof. Krugman, across the ideological spectrum, perceived this being in the national interest. Feldstein's first op-ed on his plan appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 3/7/2008, followed by ones on 4/15/2008, 10/4/2008, 1/20/2010/ 10/12/2011 in WSJ, and a oped on 10/30/2008 in the Washington Post, repeating the call for siginificant debt reduction to homeowners. Banks had extraordinary influence on successive administrations in the U.S., both Republican and Democratic- the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations- so that policy actions could be distorted from what would otherwise take place. A study by two University of Michigan professors shows that banks did not increase lending after receiving government money. Instead taxpayer money was used to invest in risky securities for profits from short term price movements, resulting in gains of about 10% in investment returns. Ran Duchin, one of the two professors, says helping ordinary borrowers was not the most profitable use of capital for banks. Without the necessary conditions from the Obama administration, the banks depolyed capital in ways that did not help the economy. Similiarly when banks needed to be restructured no preparatory action was taken because of resistance within the administration- a request by President Obama to Treasury Secretary Geithner for preparing a plan for the restructuring of Citigroup was ignored, according to a report by Goldfarb and Wallsten on 9/17/2011 in the Washington Post....

LyrArc Article Gist
Edmund Phelps, is 2006 Nobel prize winner and director of the Center on Capitalism and Society at Columbia University. Phelps offers a deep reflection on capitalism and what it is as a system and isn't, from the insights gathered and knowledge accumulated about its workings- conditions in which operates best, and conditions under which it is stressed or fails. It is the actors and overseer's, the public's ignorance about how the system works, the insights about its advantages and its serious hazards if neglected, that lead him to say we need deep reform and re-education. Capitalist systems, he says, are mechanisms by which economies may generate growth in knowledge- with much uncertainty in the process owing to the incompleteness of knowledge- with growth in that knowledge leading to income growth and job satisfaction. The uncertainty can be serious and dangerous if not accounted for, and the knowledge offers opportunities for personal growth, problem solving and exploration. There has been an intellectual failure in developing a wide understanding of its benefits as well as its serious costs if not kept in check, costs that arise from uncertainty and moral issues of proper behaviours if not properly guided. This is an admirable and clear expression of what capitalism is and how it should be understood....

LyrArc Article Gist
Transcripts from U.S. Federal Reserve meetings in 2006 that show Bernanke, as Fed chairman, and Geithner, as head of the New York Fed, ignored the risks of a collapsing bubble in housing and mortgages.

LyrArc Article Gist
In December 2009, the Obama administration assumed an economic recovery was underway. But administration economist Christina Romer was proven wrong in her assessment of the situation. Many of the new jobs added at the time were from temporary surge due to census hiring. The administration lost its focus on unemployment and failed to grasp the economic situation.

LyrArc Article Gist
Joe Nocera of the New York Times, says that it is the Attorney Generals of the 50 states in the USA, that have taken up the rights of homeowners, not the federal authorites. He points out that the Obama administration, the Treasury department and the federal agencies, have failed miserably in getting the banks and servicers to take loan modification seriously. It was the attorney generals of the states that were with homeowners from the beginning, to prevent predatory lending and outright fraud. Until they were stopped by federal bank regulators, who sided with the banks in court. The subprime lending crisis might never have ocurred, says Nocera, had the states not been obstructed in this way. As the subprime lending mounted, the state AG's were talking to people in their communities, and knew the reality on the ground. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision, two primary regulators of the banking industry, saw their role as protecting banks from consumers rather than protecting consumers. Professor Prentiss Cox, of the University of Minnesota Law School, who was an assistant attorney general in Minnesota in charge of consumer enforcement, says federal regulators should have been listening to us, instead of trying to shut us down....