Here comes the freeze
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Well, it looks like they're going to do it.
According to this report from the Associated Press, the Bush Administration will announce tomorrow that an agreement has been reached to freeze the interest rates on certain adjustable subprime mortgages for five years in what will probably amount to the first of many fingers being stuck in the "housing dike", formerly known as the "housing boom".
You don't seem to hear the White House marveling at the homeownership rate much anymore - it's about time they got back around to talking about the nation's housing market.
Will this plan help to reduce the number of those pesky "FORECLOSURE" signs now dotting neighborhoods all around the country?
Probably not.
But, it makes it look like the government is doing something about the problem.
In my brief (and, thankfully, unsuccessful) foray into management many years ago, one of the things that I learned was that you never want to be accused of doing nothing, no matter how intractable a problem.
It matters little how hopeless the task may really be on closer inspection - people like it when it looks like you're trying to solve their problem even when you know you can't.The Bush administration has hammered out an agreement with industry to freeze interest rates for certain subprime mortgages for five years in an effort to combat a soaring tide of foreclosures, congressional aides said Wednesday.
If this is a sign of things to come, I can't wait to see what they do next year - when the election season gets into full swing.
These aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the details have not yet been released, said the five-year moratorium represented a compromise between desires by banking regulators for a longer time frame of as much as seven years and industry arguments that the freeze should only last one to two years.
Another person familiar with the matter said the rate-freeze plan would apply to borrowers with loans made at the start of 2005 through July 30 of this year with rates that are scheduled to rise between Jan. 1, 2008, and July 31, 2010.
The administration said that President Bush will speak on the agreement at the White House on Thursday and the Treasury Department announced that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson would hold a joint news conference Thursday afternoon with officials of the mortgage industry.
And if you're one of those lucky homeowners who, just a couple of years ago, took a chance on one of those risky adjustable rate loans with a teaser rate to get into a house that you really couldn't afford - while your neighbor opted for a fixed-rate loan and settled for a house they could afford - well then, CONGRATULATIONS!
It looks like you're going to get bailed out.
12 comments:
After W's first couple of years in office I amused my friends by pointing out that he was a dangerous Leftie. He has yet to prove me wrong.
I still think the major problem with this plan is this:
Teaser Freezer borrower has the rate set at 4%. He paid $300k for the home. His monthly bill is set at $1200 for up to 5 years. New (previously unfrozen) borrower can only get a rate at 8% due to new lending requirements. Heck, he may even have to put 5% down! To offer the $300k price, the new buyer will have a monthly bill of $2400, double the amount. Unless new buyer is a very special kind of fool the government hopes for in this plan, he would only offer $150k for the home, and pay the same price of $1200. Instantaneous price collapse!
Tim, you and I know this has nothing to do with bailing out borrowers. It has to do with bailing out the big money boys.
What's that old saying? Something like if a borrower can't repay a million dollar loan it's the borrowers problem, if a borrower can't repay a hundred million dollar loan it's the banks problem? The problems are too large to ignore.
Like I've said before, anything that begins to restore a sense of confidence and buys time is helpful to the greater good. As much schenfreude as the I-told-you-so crowd might feel, there's too much at stake to risk a complete meltdown to just to be right.
I did an interview with Renae Merle of the Washington Post this afternoon for an upcoming article on this subject.
It wasn't until I spoke to her that I really started thinking about how I'd feel if me and the guy next door both bought houses in 2005 - if I was the responsible borrower and he was the one with the teaser rate that will be frozen for the next five years.
I'd be pissed.
Try being the one who has lived in the same smallish home for 20 years and responsibly saved money instead of buying the McMansion.
Talk about pissed - we're furious. ;^)
NUTS! I did the responsible thing and passed on the adjustables. And now Bush gives me the big raspberry. I could OWN that house, and the government would pay for it! Stupid me! I must be from a different dimension than the bozos who run the country. Responsibility? What's that?
And I started out liking Bush. I think the first big clue was the McCain-Feingold bill. How could any president with an ounce of guts NOT veto that piece of crap?
Flinking politics. Bush has turned out to be just another suck-up politician. And I had such high hopes...
This makes me SICK.
Why should some jerkoff who was stupid enough to pay for an overpriced pile get bailed out and people who were smart enough and patient enough and unlucky (and missed the opportunities of a few years ago) get screwed?
F*&*K this administration.
Honestly...it ain't worth owning a home in this country....
Tim, I'd be pissed too. And to the degree this A/B situation occurs, it's unfair. And I'll be the first in line to back legislation regulating lenders.
Additionally, my point is it's unfair for multi-gazillionaire Wall Streeters to get bailed out too. That pisses me off way more than some joe trying to make a buck.
Do you really think an average schmo would get squat if the banks weren't in trouble?
at least so far I haven't heard that the taxpayer will have to foot the bill ...
it does seem unfair and promoting of a moral hazard.
From what I've been reading lately, this is going to affect so few borrowers and lenders that the only impact it will really have is to restore some confidence at the height of the holiday shopping season.
Maybe that's all it was intended to do.
I think 'W' is supposed to speak any minute now.
This represents an absolute disaster that will cause far more harm than good.
Virtually all of the people eligible for this (it requires a MAXIMUM equity of three percent) would be better off just walking away. Do you really think that housing prices won't fall another three percent? The main purporse seems to be attempting to trap suckers into houses where they owe more than the home is worth.
It seems guaranteed to stir up resentment, since it "helps" so few people.
It also sets a dangerous precedent of government intervention in altering private contracts.
By reducing the expected interest paid to mortgage investors, fewer people will invest in mortgages in the future. This will make mortgages more expensive for everyone for years to come.
I hope lawsuits sink this thing for good, and no, that desire has nothing to do with wanting to "punish" people for their stupidity, just a wish to get things on the road to recovery as quickly as possible.
Anonymous...
GOOD...let's it helps no one. The rules should also NOT allow people to walk away with ill-gained profits like I know so many have.
Post a Comment