iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

At Last, One Government Agency Considers Cutting Mortgage Principal For Distressed Homeowners

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 03:50 PM ET

Bair

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair indicated Thursday that she is exploring the idea of reducing the principal on as much as $45 billion in mortgages her agency has acquired from failed banks.

That would be the first significant government attempt to employ a measure that some economists and consumer advocates have long argued is the only really effective way to stop foreclosures.

Although the $45 billion in mortgages only amounts to less than half of one percent of mortgages nationwide, the move would be significant because the idea of reducing principal has been all but dismissed for the last nine months by the Obama administration.

Economists like Yale University's John Geanakoplos, however, have argued that cutting the principal on delinquent loans should have been the administration's practice all along. For the nearly quarter of American homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than the house is worth, it's by far the best way to keep them in their homes and reduce foreclosures, Geanakoplos said in an interview last month.

Bair made her comments in an interview with Bloomberg News. She has not yet discussed her proposal with the Treasury Department, a senior administration official said Thursday in a brief interview. Though unfamiliar with the details of her proposal, the official said it was promising.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation no longer owns the mortgages directly; but when it sold them to solvent banks, it agreed to shoulder some of the future losses. Bair's move would effectively make sure that homeowners directly benefit from that guarantee, not just the lenders.

The Obama administration's $75 billion plan to help distressed borrowers has yet to make a serious dent in stopping foreclosures. In addition, when the plan was launched in March it was largely designed to help those homeowners with jobs, as the terms depended on minimum levels of income. Back then the unemployment rate was at 8.5 percent. Since then, the economy has shed about 2.5 million more jobs.

"Now you're in a situation where even the good mortgages are going bad because people are losing their jobs. So you have other factors now driving mortgage distress," Bair told Bloomberg.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, the Elizabeth Warren-led group keeping tabs on the bank bailout, said in an October report that "it increasingly appears" that the Obama foreclosure plan "is targeted at the housing crisis as it existed six months ago, rather than as it exists right now."

Instead of encouraging principal reductions, the Obama plan has led mostly to modifications that either lower interest rates or lengthen the duration of the loan, or both. But both of those practices leave homeowners who owe more on their homes than they are worth "underwater". And while stretching a 30-year mortgage to a 40-year does cut monthly payments, it actually increases the total amount of the debt because the payments are stretched over time, meaning more interest charges. Some modifications even increase principal, by tacking on missed payments and fees.

Another glimmer of hope for supporters of principal reduction: A September report by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on mortgage modifications done by banks outside the administration's plan found that principal reductions, while still uncommon, tripled from 3.1 percent to 10 percent. The amount of principal reduced, though, was oftentimes very small.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair indicated Thursday that she is exploring the idea of reducing the principal on as much as $45 billion in mortgages her agency has acquired from failed banks. That would be t...
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair indicated Thursday that she is exploring the idea of reducing the principal on as much as $45 billion in mortgages her agency has acquired from failed banks. That would be t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 446
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
10:31 AM on 12/07/2009
I understand that in a deep recession such as the one we we (and still are) in it is appropriate to increase govt spending to get the economy going again, but the problem is so little of that money has actually helped average people who are struggling - who who have been fired or or working for reduced pay or reduced hours. \

good articles: http://financeopinionss.blogspot.com
We're still in recession as far as I;m concerned. Screw GDP. Until there's jobs and health care it;s a recession.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zombywulf
Pirate Captain Church of Saint Jerry
02:52 AM on 12/07/2009
HEY How about some of that money for those of us who didn't lie about our incomes and didn't borrow over our heads. Why should we be made to pay for their fraudulent loans.
09:24 PM on 12/08/2009
That is a rude comment against people who are struggling financially. That is a general statement that in no way covers all of us who are facing foreclosure.

Some of us kept on employees and paid people from our savings accounts to keep them working!!!!
photo
drbob601
Soylent Green is People
08:37 PM on 12/06/2009
The Fed govt should STOP interfering with the normal mechanisms of the free market. These people are in trouble because they simply borrowed more than they could afford (and likely thought they could put off their day of reckoning by refinancing their excessive loan at a later date). Meanwhile, the Fed's policies over the last several years have effectively served to PUNISH responsible people who didn't mortgage themselves up to their eyeballs in order to live BEYOND THEIR MEANS. My money in the bank has now been making only average 1-2% interest for more than two years now. The govt's lame attempt to force people to "invest" their saved capital (read: Overpay for risky stocks, bonds and homes) will only end in creating another mess. STAY OUT of the market, and let it do its thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jalowe1957
Poisonous epitaphs dished out periodically.
03:16 PM on 12/06/2009
All I can say is this: keep holding your breath underwater if your mortgage is THAT underwater.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom95134
02:26 PM on 12/06/2009
You still cannot make mortgage payments if you have no job or if your job pays significantly less than you were making when you bought the house.

It's JOBS, Stupid!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
3neuticals
05:21 PM on 12/06/2009
You are 'talking' to a government agency. Their job isn't to create jobs or make things better, it is to provide a platform for milking an equitable career and gaining political leverage while doing just enough to placate the electorate. That is why their efficiency is what? Maybe 20%?
01:48 PM on 12/06/2009
Obama views unemployment and foreclosures as a short term issue that is beneath him to deal with because "he was not elected to be a crisis manager".

He places much higher priority on "his vision of what Amercia should be".

He believes he is leaving a mark; pal, it's a stain.

History will show Bush made a mess of things and Obama failed to properly prioritize which made things worse. Bush/Obama is the worst 1-2 punch in US history.

Where is Jack Stanton when you need him?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
3neuticals
05:33 PM on 12/06/2009
Bush? This problem has been in the making for decades. It is the product of an elite oligarchy, not any particular puppet in the Big Chair. We had two names in the White House from 88 to 08. That should say at least something. And don't even bother checking out Congressional tenures. Kennedy was behind much of the most damaging legislation since the Peoples' Revolution of the 1960s. I could go on...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Organic-Guy
Organic Gardener, Carpenter, Philosopher, Agitator
11:59 AM on 12/06/2009
Glad to see that at least some one is connecting the unemployment rate to mortgage failure. Fifty bucks a month is too much for some one without a job. This is going to take a long time to fix. Thanks GW.
11:35 AM on 12/06/2009
The government has put the same punch bowl out that got us into the mess in the first place. More debt and consumption and don't worry about paying it back. (Berbnanke= Greenspan II)

good articles; http://financeopinionss.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chipher
01:47 AM on 12/06/2009
...At Last, One Government Agency Considers Cutting Civil Service Employment...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:39 PM on 12/05/2009
Instead of having me go through the trouble of arranging financing and working out the mortgage agreement then not making any payments...why not just have the govt buy the house for me and give it to me? I'd like a great big one that I could never afford please.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JShankel
I want my country forward
04:17 PM on 12/05/2009
Don't like it? Good. No one does.

Remember that the next time someone tells you you can deregulate your way to prosperity.

This is the forseeable consequence of that delusion.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:19 PM on 12/05/2009
I disagree with cutting the principle. I feel that the consumers who signed the papers must have at least SOME of the risk sharing, along with the bank. Scaling back interest rates, yes. Cutting principle - NO. There's also way too much possibility for corruption in doing so.
08:15 PM on 12/05/2009
It's difficult to imagine any MORE corruption than what pervades the entire financial system now, and has since the nation's founding. In case you missed it, the consumer/would-be home owner still bears the risk inherent in the mortgage, volatility of the housing market, the job market, and escalation of healthcare costs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:55 PM on 12/06/2009
Heh. No, I didn't miss it. And I think that the consumer *should* have that risk, and am wary of changing that.
02:00 PM on 12/05/2009
There should be an across the board plan that rewards people who can make their payments.

Banks are gettingt money at 0%; why not 3%/40 years for all mortgages up to $2M?
Under this plan, no reduction in principle but at such a low rate you can likely make payments (unless you are unemployed).
01:59 PM on 12/05/2009
I'll believe it when I see it. This is a congress of do-nothings. (as compared to the rights know-nothings)
01:54 PM on 12/05/2009
What, another plan where at the end of the day it's up to the banks to approve the loan?

It's too late but BAC and Citi should have been nationalized and mortgage terms mandated to solve the problem.

More faux Obama posturing. He believes the American people can be satisfied with crumbs and posturing. Well, he is a posturing fool.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:21 PM on 12/05/2009
This is a little different, since these loans are directly under FDIC/government control.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TJCole
11:58 AM on 12/05/2009
Thank God for Sheila Bear, as a Republican she is more of a Democrat and humanitarian than our so called Community Organizer Wall St. lackey President..!