I have not read Sheila Bair’s upcoming book, “Bull by the Horns,” but it’s on a growing list (I hear former Senate staffer Jeff Connaughton’s book is excellent as well). Arthur Delaney notes that she had harsh words for HAMP, the Administration’s failed program to rescue homeowners facing foreclosure. And she didn’t shy away from accurately describing the program as one that fostered predatory lending.
In her new book, “Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street from Wall Street and Wall Street from Itself,” Bair recounts how her own housing proposals were passed over in favor of a much weaker program, which she knew would never save 4 million homes. Bair served as chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation until July 2011.
“At the Phoenix announcement, the president was masterful in announcing the program, though I cringed as he threw out what I considered to be wildly inflated numbers on the programs’ impact,” Bair wrote. “Even with our own, more aggressive proposal, we had estimated the number of successful modifications at 2.1 million tops.” [...]
The huge number of loans that needed to be reworked, combined with burdensome documentation requirements and a lackluster effort on the part of banks’ mortgage servicing divisions, guaranteed the program was “doomed to failure,” according to Bair.
“What’s more, it cheated borrowers,” she wrote. “Because Treasury wanted to demonstrate quickly that huge numbers of borrowers were being modified, it let borrowers enter into ‘trial modifications’ whereby they would start making reduced payments pending completion of all of their paperwork. But many of the borrowers could not provide all of the extensive documentation required by the program, so they would be put into foreclosure even though they had been making timely payments for months!”
I’m not sure that the documentation associated with the program was the problem, or the crutch that banks then used to deny permanent modifications long after the trial period expired. Bair seems to be more enticed by the “faulty design” theory of Treasury’s failure, than the “intentionally faulty design” concept advanced by Neil Barofsky in his book Bailout. But either way, the conclusion is the same: HAMP cheated borrowers by putting them into a trial program to squeeze out their last remaining savings, and then trapping them, demanding immediate payment of the difference between the trial and original payments. This did lead many into foreclosure just a little further down the road, so banks could absorb them. There was never any desire to protect homeowners or save their homes, which Bair says flat out: “HAMP was a program designed to look good in a press release, not to fix the housing market… I don’t think helping home owners was ever a priority for them,” she says, referring to Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.
Unfortunately, this book also plays the “Geithner and Summers undermined the President” storyline, which gives the President far too little credit, less than he would give himself. He holds himself responsible for what happens under his watch, and those discussing his policies should do the same.
Bair really goes after Geithner in the book, so much so that the New York Times’ Dealbook page had to grab Lee Sachs to defend the Treasury Secretary. Specifically, Bair objected to post-crisis bailouts, which she thought were designed mostly to funnel money to Citigroup. In addition, she says that Geithner and others froze her out of the decision-making process, making not-so-subtle hints at sexism in the financial regulatory space.
Photo by photo: Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights under Creative Commons License





20 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Were just looking at hamp all wrong. It was never intended to help homeowners. It was just to foam the runway for banks, and in that it was a huge success. As to why the administration choose to lie about the programs true intent…thats the question I want answered. Big O surrounded himself with all the financial people HE wanted so don’t try the old “they wouldnt do what he wanted them to do” lie, hell demarco still has a job for gods sake.
Hi David, I just left a long comment at the end of the Barofsky book salon where I transcribed hunks of his podcast interview with Martin Andelman. I broke it up into sections:
fyi…
Also,
I haven’t even read it but I loved the title on Robert Kuttner’s article on HuffPo a couple days ago: Filling Geithner’s (Small) Shoes
But Barack Obama’s a Democrat and everyone knows the Democrats are the good guys! Why this is just so cognitive-dissonance-inducing!
Well that’s all very exciting. Can anybody remind me how many sternly worded letters and books are required to bring this artifice down? I always forget.
Meanwhile, the great “progressive” blog, FDL, featuring front page Obamabots defending the indefensible, daily circle jerks about “good news” for the murderer-in-chief and his worthless party’s re-election, ecstasy over social legislation that accomplishes precisely NOTHING (oh wait, I forgot… now queers like myself have the “right” to kill and be killed in Obama’s wars of choice and aggression) and MASSIVE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, remains “neutral” about endorsing or not endorsing these criminal Democrats, as if the mere presence of the idiot Romney (or anyone else) on the GOP ticket is enough to justify its gutlessness.
“You can’t stay neutral on a moving train” wrote Howard Zinn, someone who had the courage and intelligence to be a true progressive through several decades. I guess Hamsher didn’t get that memo.
Please remind me of Howard Zinn’s brave stance on the 3 assinations…,… Oh it was safer to dodge them?
All the more reason to question the advisability of voting for Obama. This minion of the elite is a DINO and actually a closet retuglican. He was probably taken into a back office the day after election day and this occurred, “Now, boy. You have been elected to be president, and that’s a lucky thing for you, but here’s how it’s gonna be, or you might get to meet Jack Kennedy sooner than you think.”
I can see him responding, “But, but…but Motherfucker, I’m the President!”
and they said, “We’ll see if we can get you a spot on a dollar bill somewhere.”
And that was that.
The election is a sham, but the alternate is a world destroying nightmare.
I believe the nightmare will not be long is coming anyway and that this society is numbered now in days and I don’t have the resources to stock up on anything. I guess I’ll just have to lean way over and kiss my ass goodby.
I’m so sick of living in this benevolent police state that I’m pretty well ready to go anyway.
I expect that guy in Texas who finally got his big dose after they took three tries at him was finally sick of it all and said, “Let er rip, Boys!”
So much for a wonderful life and great opportunities.
My only regret would be that I, like Nathan Hale, have but one life to give for my country and to not be able to take some elitist piece of shit with me to the possible betterment of the world.
Our only chance as I see it is if the common American soldier rises up against their commanders and seizes the congress and executive and banking cartel and executes them wholesale and provides security for Americans and start to grow a new democracy, but I don’t give that much chance either!
But, WTF, vote for the lesser of the world destroying great evil, the black minion. Play the game, it’s the circus all over again!
That’s exactly correct. HAMP was supposed to slow the arrival of foreclosure properties on the market, not to give relief to homeowners. It was a breathtakingly cruel hoax on homeowners.
If this isn’t organized crime, then what, exactly, is it? Gangsters by any other name. Straight-up.
If I remember correctly, Mr. Barofsky stated that Geithner won’t be hanging on for a second term. If that’s true, then who might be the next walking turd to sit in that chair?
Gotta love this administration’s priorities. Thanks for keeping up on this story David.
My guess is Jon Corzine.
There’s no need for the air quotes — Firedoglake is a progressive blog. I would say there’s a range of opinion here from solid supporters of the Democratic Party (probably a minority, those) to those willing to tactically vote Democratic as the lesser of two evils to those who see it as corporate and corrupt and who will have nothing to do with it. I go back and forth between the second and third positions myself, but there’s no need to run down Jane Hamsher, who has carved out an important niche in the blogosphere and American political opinion in general with FDL.
You know me. I’ve been confused with Obama and his administration for 3 1/2 years. I just dont’t remember the democratic party being this way before. I might have early onset Alzheimer’s.
Jamie Dimon??????
X2
HAMP was never anything more than a Dimocraptic subterfuge to convince the rubes that they had an option, and a champion on their side, but then thats the D’s function.
A few examples. DADT was reversed because the military was having serious issues with recruitment and retention, the ENDA sat on Barry’s desk for weeks with no action, then an euphony and evolving view on gay marriage come election season. Barry deported more workers in three years, for the sake of wealthy employers, than Dubya in eight years. Suddenly, in election season, Barry comes up with an improvised pseudo Dream Act, where for $500 you can get your name put at the back of a two year deportation list, while conveniently providing information on family members. And, of course, the granddaddy of them all Roe vs. Wade. The most cynical aspect of the Dimocraps is their lack of concern about established law being shredded and attacked constantly until its Prez time, you have to vote for us, you know, its all about the Supremes. Even though the R’s continually demonstrate, any Senator can veto any nomination or appointment if they’re serious.
That also points out the schism in the “left”. The D’s use fear and fraud to get elected just as the R’s do, yet there are some who see only the marketing of brand D of UniPartyCorp as being the only thing standing between them and oblivion. Would the reaction of the Obamabot DPartiers to the administration be the same had it been President McCain that took Romneycare, ran it through the lobbyists of the rent seekers in health care, made sure it was acceptable to the Chamber of Commerce, be as ardently defended? Had two soon to be FIRE lobbyists, one each from the House and Senate, written a 2500 page train wreck fill-in-the-blanks by Wall Street lobbyists do nothing legislation be hailed as saving the 99%? Had President McCain tried to extend the Iraq war, doubled down on Afghanistan, started a dozen more all over the Middle East and Africa been hailed as deserving of a Nobel by the Barry supporters? I think the answer to those questions is obvious.
D’s and R’s are just brands of UniPartyCorp. It takes the R’s to propose ridiculous policy, it takes the D’s to enact it.
That being said, lets put aside the FDL being in the tank for the D’s, we may not agree on everything, but this is a great forum for progressive discussion. Try putting a comment like this up on Kos, or Truthdig,see if it stays up, or the amount of vitriolic personal attacks that will be posted in rebuttal, while calling a D supporters stand dumb will get you taken down.
Well, that would certainly blast away any misconceptions about who’s running the country.
I need to get me a set of White House cufflinks, specially modified with dollar signs all over them.
LBJ went with the warmongers so hard he became unelectable.
Carter moved to the right so hard Ed Kennedy challanged same party sitting prez.
Blow job billy signed off on every bit of reganomics he could
those that dont remember history are bound to repeat it. enjoy obama’s second term you are going to love it……………
if a dem comes out of nowhere he is prabably a sell out who has made his bones with the one per cent long before you ever heard his name.
“Look Forward, Not Backwards”. It’s past time to reverse JFK’s statement to:
“Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you.” If you’re a member of the 99% you’ve been getting short-changed for over 40 years. We now live in a nation where domestic policy is as militarized as foreign policy – “Back in the USSR”.