At a press event in North Portland in front of the home of a family struggling to avoid foreclosure, Senator Jeff Merkley unveiled a six-part plan to fix the housing market and rebalance the relationship between borrower and lender. The plan includes what Merkley calls “lifeline bankruptcy,” which is basically the cramdown proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of primary residence loans.
The “colossal disappointment” of the HAMP loan modification program, according to Merkley, necessitates a restart to the national conversation of how to heal the decaying housing market. The confusion in the market, as well as the continued flood of foreclosures, creates uncertainty for working families and the economy. “We’re not going to see a true economic recovery until we do something about the broken housing market,” said Senator Merkley at the event. “I met with Portland homeowners today who dealt with months of confusing instructions to get a mortgage modification, only to be told 10 months later they didn’t qualify and their home was facing foreclosure. My plan will put homeowners first and foreclosures last.”
Here are the six points to the Merkley proposal:
1) A national short refinance program. When a bank sends a home into foreclosure, it becomes an REO property, to be sold at auction at a large loss for the investors. Instead of going through the long process of resale, with the attendant upkeep that has to be spent by the bank on the home, and the disruption to the property values from having a vacant home in their neighborhood, this short refi program would allow qualified families facing eviction to refinance to an FHA-guaranteed mortgage based on current property values and interest rates. In the interim the family could stay in the home during the appraisal, new underwriting and final resolution. Many families would be able to pay a reduced payment if the home was written down to real value. The investor would get a bigger payoff than selling a vacant home in foreclosure. Neighbors would see their communities stabilized without a vacant property in their midst. And the family would get to stay in their home.
2) Ending dual track. The family highlighted at today’s event, Connie and Michael Umphress, were current on their mortgage when they sought a modification with Wells Fargo. The servicer encouraged them to miss a payment to qualify for the private modification, and then reduced the loan in the trial period. But at the same time, they pursued foreclosure actions. So Connie and Michael got foreclosure notices while they negotiated the modification process. Merkley’s plan would end this highly stressful dual track process, and suspend foreclosure actions while families sought a modification. This would reduce incentives for servicers to string along borrowers with a reduced payment for months (in the case of the Umphresses, 10 months), only to reject the modification and demand payment of the balance owed to avoid foreclosure. “This leads to families walking away from their homes or avoiding the modification process altogether,” Merkley said. “There must be a better way.
3) Single point of contact. Borrowers aiming for a modification usually talk to a different person at their servicer every single time they establish contact. This means they have to explain their situation all over again, and increases the possibility for mistakes. Merkley would establish a single point of contact between the borrower and the lender.
4) Third party review. Similar in spirit to Sen. Al Franken’s proposed Office of Homeowner Advocate, this would create an independent third-party review process for families facing foreclosure. It would check to see if the borrower explored every option to avoid foreclosure, and possibly initiate a mediation process with a sit-down between the borrower and the servicer. Mandatory mediation has proven successful in Maine, Connecticut and other states in getting modifications done and avoiding foreclosure. The third-party review would also “ensure that homeowners’ legal rights are protected” by ensuring that existing state laws have been fully enforced. This is the polar opposite of Third Way’s plan to deny due process to foreclosure victims. Merkley would actually have this independent reviewer identify state law where relevant to ensure a firebreak against things like foreclosure fraud.
5) Lifeline bankruptcy reform. This is basically cram-down, the ability for bankruptcy judges to treat primary residence mortgages the same way they treat vacation homes, second homes, boats or virtually any other asset. The result would be that homeowners would have a level playing field and the banks would finally have an incentive to pursue modifications rather than risk how the bankruptcy judge would modify the terms.
6) Homebuyer’s tax credit. I’m not such a fan of this proposal, but as Merkley describes it, he would generally target it toward first-time homebuyers purchasing “modest” homes. Merkley’s plan would give a $5,000 tax credit in the year of purchase (as opposed to the $8,000 tax credit implemented in 2009-10) to first-time homebuyers, “spending money upfront” to help working families become homeowners. I’m not sure that’s such a desirable goal, actually, but if this is capped, so that we’re not giving $5,000 away needlessly to buyers who would have purchased a million-dollar home anyway, it’s at least a bit better than the 2009-10 plan.
Merkley hopes his proposal would spark a conversation in Washington about how to fix the housing market. HAMP has completely failed; as Merkley noted today, less than $1 billion has been spent to mitigate foreclosures, out of a promised $50-75 billion. “We are not through the foreclosure crisis, so we must have a second national conversation,” Merkley said. He invited other proposals from members of Congress.
I asked Merkley if he was putting this together because he thought Congress would be forced to step in to clear up a chaotic situation if more legal rulings call into question the standing of servicers to foreclose. “Possibly,” he answered. “The role is to ensure fairness (in the housing market). The complexities in the system right now can create a challenge to the health of the market. So we have to deal with this.”
Merkley wasn’t familiar with the Third Way proposal to limit due process for foreclosure victims, but I think his plan serves as a nice counterpoint. If the housing market goes haywire, there will be a major need for off-the-shelf solutions to create an equitable situation that doesn’t simply bigfoot on the side of the banks. His proposal mostly does that. “Let’s empower homeowners,” he concluded.





17 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
why oh why didnt they do ANY of this when they had a huge majority?
now they will be voices in the wind railing against the TBTF
the same TBTF that they, the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY and DEM POTUS, aided and abetted in killing the middle class and the entire economy
HOLC!
PS the national short refi program is actually a white paper by Morgan Stanley. should have done it 2 years ago.
funny how now that the TBTF are losing in court cases and there is no way for SCOTUS to help them in property law, that NOW it is a CRISIS!!! and we MUST ACT.
Always works that way for the TBTF. who are BTW still woefully insolvent.
I blame obama, he either thwarted efforts, ran interference or simply lacked leadership;
no matter how you look at it, obama=magnificent failure (bigger then epic)
Process will work itself out. Last thing we need is to keep irresponsible homeowners in their homes or promote more ownership to those that can’t afford it through a 5k tax credit. We will be far better off allowing investors to purchase the homes and rent them out.
Obama thinks the rich and corporate will get him re-elected
Obama will say nice things about the ideas in this bill – but will not support it in the halls of Congress, will not push it, will not go to the wall for it.
Obama will report how he tried really hard, but the GOP were just so not nice, as the rich and corporate smile.
I like 2, 3 and 4. The others have absolutely zero chance of becoming law, since those options allow money to go from banks to homeowners.
Yes, its already working its way through the courts.
No proof of ownership, no right to foreclose.
I suggest that what you are saying misses the point -
Yes – we all agree that society is better off if those than could never afford their home are removed from it, but the process that put many into homes where they are now in trouble affected many that could have afforded homes if dealt with fairly – and that is a wrong that needs to be righted.
Indeed simple principle reduction seems the only way to make it a little more “right” – since the investors in the bad loans in our world of taking responsibility must take responsibility for their pushing for the creation of more such loan pools – asking the banks to make more liar loans. There is indeed enough error and bad faith dealing to dirty the hands of everyone if we are discussing only the different groups of people involved, but once we discuss individuals there are many with clean hands that need help. The bill in question may not be the correct solution, but foreclosure for all is not the right or just answer for many, and not the right answer for a just society, and certainly not the best economic solution. Indeed foreclosure for all is a bit like Harvard’s Jeffrey Sachs and his right wing “economic shock therapy” that left every country that tried it (Bolivia, Eastern Europe, Russia) worse off with greatly decreased inflation but at the cost of a rise in unemployment, a fall in industrial output, and a fall in per capita GDP (a 50% fall in Russia that they are just now coming back from).
Becuase it might have worked then?
Now the Pols get an ‘A’ for Affort w/o the chance of pissing off big money
HAMP was an example of progressive policy; using the power of govt to balance the equation between many people with little individual influence and a few people (or entities) with big individual influence.
And the Admin got HAMP completely wrong.
Says it all right there.
Since rents average a far higher monthly payment than home-ownership, how is this logical? If they can’t afford their $1500 mortgage what makes you think they can afford a $1700 rent payment?
Statistics show that once someone has defaulted, they’re quite likely to default even if the payment terms are modified. What that suggests is that this proposal will result in free money for the banks and more losses for the taxpayer.
Or: Merkley is proposing TARP II: Electric Bugaloo.
Link(s), please. And explain why this might be, and under what circumstances.
I like Merkley’s thoughtfulness and thoroughness, though, as some here point out, it’s not likely to pass as he’s presented it. Second, the robo-signing and other bad mortgage issues (not the underwater issue) are separate from Merkley’s plan and those are perhaps as or more serious.
I recently gave some thought to the bad mortgage issue and it’s pretty intractable. All the legal contract law and mortgage law was created to protect property rights and yet to let the market work. It’s based on legal documents and formalities which have been ignored with these bad mortgages. How can any law remedy this? I think Congress is pretty helpless in the face of gross negligence or outright fraud and it’s up to the courts to settle each case as it comes up.
Even if gov’t simply forgave them their sins it would leave no legal document showing ownership tied to debt the way a proper mortgage does.
Your “statistics show” is mostly not true.
The study you refer to was of the HAMP program where only a few thousand out of many hundreds of thousand “modifications” got a principal reduction.
For all others the loan remained well above the value of the house, with the modification being a lower interest rate with missed payments plus penalties added to the end of the loan.
The bank was trying to score a “foreclosure sale” for more than the market value.
So folks walked – and this proves modifications do not work – how?
They can’t. But why would we assume rent payments would be $1700? Supply and demand. If there is no demand for $1700 a month rentals than landlords will have to look at dropping rents to meet the demand for housing at $1400 or $1200. Investors will still make these rentals cash flow positive by putting more down payment on the properties….
HAMP was a bank bailout from the beginning, meant to give the banks, mortgage holders, and servicers another year to slow down the flood of the foreclosure pipeline.
This program won’t get off the ground. Too much interference from the banking lobby.