| 0 |
Subject: Detroit
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [41661813] Sun, Jul 21, 2013, 12:52
A good piece: Lessons from Detroit |
| 1 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Sun, Jul 21, 2013, 20:29
|
Yeah, I had a choice of defined benefit or a defined contribution, and opted for the 403B. Who knows if even the State will be good for my pension in 30-50 years. Don't trust them snakes if you don't have to.
|
| 2 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 17:10
|
In what world would stealing from pensioners to soften the blow on bond holders be a reasonable plan!?!. That really pisses me off.
|
| 3 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 08:12
|
Bondholders have always been one of the first in line of creditors, it is a huge factor on the rates that companies can borrow money to fund expansion and growth. The argument that moving bondholders down the list would have a very large impact on the economy is pretty strong. I'm don't really agree with it, but I believe that is the main reason.
|
| 5 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 10:24
|
I think that sends the wrong signal to bondholders. They need to be discerning in choosing the munis they buy, and realize that those investments are not risk free. It may increase some cities' borrowing costs, but perhaps that would be a good thing in the long run.
The pensioner's rights are inscribed in the state constitution.
|
| 6 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 13:00
|
It would probably just mean some cities would not be able to borrow money, I guess that would be good? Less cites filing bankruptcy, less public spending, less public employees...
|
| 7 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 13:04
|
I don't think, unless they are already on a downward spiral, any city couldn't find someone to buy there bonds. They would just have to pay hire interest. They bonds aren't usually used for paying salaries. They are usually for capital projects.
You can always raise money through taxes as well.
|
| 8 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 13:17
|
Their. Higher.
|
| 9 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 13:31
|
Correct, bonds are typically used (and often restricted) to being used for capital projects. An example would be a new sewage treatment plant. The upfront cost is going to be much more than a municipality can pay. So, they issue bonds that allow them to pay for the facility and the revenue from utility bills should pay off the bond over the next 20-50 years. Bonds are a necessary part of most municipalities structure.
I agree that most municipalities are could still sell their bonds, but the costs of the higher interest rates are just going to be passed back to the citizens.
|
| 10 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 13:37
|
Maybe they can, but junk bonds carry a much higher interest rate and the bond market isn't exactly swooping in for junk or BBB bonds right now.
Detroit, by all appearances, has cut out fat and is now cutting muscle. They aren't going to be issuing capital bonds for awhile.
|
| 11 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 13:53
|
Eminent Domain to the rescue?
What if the city issued bonds to buy the underwater notes (at current market value obviously), then sold those notes back to the current mortgage holders?
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 14:10
|
That might help the homeowner, but any help to the municipality would be way in the future. Very innovative idea, however.
|
| 13 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 14:20
|
Not applicable to Detroit in many cases, but citing the ex in the article...you cut someones mortgage from 340k to 140k, you just freed up a TON of discretionary spending cash on their part.
|
| 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 15:02
|
Yeah--long term this can really help. The best thing is that it keeps people in their homes, and the resultant value of that is pretty high.
|
| 15 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 16:48
|
So only people who made poor choices on underwater mortgages would benefit? Why would a bank continue to borrow to homeowners if cities had the power to cut the principal on a loan. Originally the bank did borrow the lender the full cost of the home...why should banks eat the reduction in home price and not the lender? Adding this amount of risk on banks would seem the push back would be for banks to almost stop lending for home purchases. I just do not see it as a realistic solution and I am rarely on the side of big banks.
My house is worth less than what I purchased it for but I also have paid extra on my mortgage for a few years so I am not underwater...why should I also not get a discount on my principal?
|
| 16 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 17:05
|
Why? Are you REALLY asking that question? After the banks charged full tilt and created the economic crisis, then took tax payer bailout money and used that to pay million dollar bonuses, and THEN, refused to refi buried homeowner mortgages? You mean other than any of those reasons why?
|
| 17 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 17:11
|
So when the banks pull out of the mortgage business all together...how do people afford to buy homes?
|
| 18 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 17:12
|
Like that'll ever happen. Any other red herrings?
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 17:32
|
At this point, the "poor choices" have been driven from those homes. I would challenge the claim that anyone who made poor choices but are still in those homes are, did, in fact, make poor choices.
This ain't the 2008 campaign anymore.
|
| 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 18:44
|
banks like this one?
MCARTHUR, Ohio - An Vinton County woman is looking to get her belongings back after a bank incorrectly broke into her house and took them.
Katie Barnett says that the First National Bank in Wellston foreclosed on her house, even though it was not her bank.
“They repossessed my house on accident, thinking it was the house across the street,” Barnett said.
Barnett, who had been away from the house for about two weeks, said she had to crawl through the window of her own house in order to get in after she used her own key that did not work.
Some of the items in her house had been hauled away, others were sold, given away and trashed.
It turns out the bank sent someone to repossess the house located across the street from Barnett’s house, but by mistake broke into hers instead.
|
| 21 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Wed, Jul 24, 2013, 10:44
|
re 19: Just because you are still in your home does not mean you did not make a poor choice, I don't even know what you are talking about here.
|
| 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Wed, Jul 24, 2013, 11:17
|
I'm saying that the excuse not to reward "poor choices" goes away when the homeowner in question demonstrates the willingness to actually pay his mortgage over time. Calling it a "poor choice" implies that someone just wants to get out of making that decision--that is the opposite of what is going on here.
|
| 23 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815 Wed, Jul 24, 2013, 11:37
|
Believe me...I have no love for big banks and do believe their foreclosure practices, refinance practices, etc...are all very suspect and underhanded but I just do not buy resetting loan values to current home prices. I am for penalizing/fining banks for underhanded practices.
If there was loan forgiveness practice where the banks were forced to forgive principle over the current market value. It would tighten lending significantly...if I was a bank I would never lend to a borrower if there was any chance of the home going underwater and would require enough down to prevent my bank from eating part of the loan. I believe the borrower has a far greater obligation to make a wise buying choice and if they make a bad choice the bank should not be required to bail them out. It is rewarding bad choices. If I buy a stock and it declines...it is my own fault for making a bad buying decision or not selling before the stock (house) declined that far in value. Borrowers always have the choice of letting the bank foreclose on the house and sticking the bank with the failed loan.
|
| 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Wed, Jul 24, 2013, 11:49
|
if I was a bank I would never lend to a borrower if there was any chance of the home going underwater and would require enough down to prevent my bank from eating part of the loan.
Isn't this what they really should be doing anyway? And isn't doing otherwise, while getting bailed bailed out by taxpayers, rewarding bad choices?
I think the law can be structured in such a way as to strongly encourage banks to renegotiate with the homeowners before such eminent domain actually occurs. In fact, the existence of such a tool should be an incentive to help a certain segment of homeowners (for example, those who have a good payment history and have underwater mortgages).
I think we need to really get rid of this idea that the homeowners in question should be punished for making "bad choices" when, in fact, they are doing exactly as they should be doing: Making steady payments on their mortgages for years.
|
| 25 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Wed, Jul 24, 2013, 14:07
|
A fairly simple solution would be to stop banks from selling the mortgages they underwrote. If they were on the hook for the risk over the life of the loan, I don't think you would see the risk taking, similar to what ChicagoTRS says. In the current system a bank, although more typically, a mortgage underwriting company gives the loan and then immediately sells the loan to another institution. They make their money on the underwriting, so are willing to take risks, or just cheat.
When I refinanced my house this spring, I paid a slightly higher rate to work with a local credit union, mostly because I knew they weren't going to sell it to another servicer.
|
| 26 | biliruben
ID: 226202916 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 16:07
|
Another Dumb Idea - Using Eminent Domain
|
| 27 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 16:19
|
Your URL is borked, it looks like you included rotoguru1.com/cgi-bin/ prior to what you wanted to link. Delete that and it works.
I can go along with allowing cities to do something like this. But, just realize that banks will either no longer underwrite mortgages in your jurisdiction, or require huge amounts of equity before they underwrite. Short-term convenience with a long-term penalty.
|
| 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 16:24
|
corrected link for above
|
| 29 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 16:48
|
Thanks man.
Yeah, but you are using a power, eminent domain, which is both inferior and not meant for, the job you are asking it to do, and you have unintended consequences.
Why not just use the the more appropriate and direct method: cram-downs, if that is what you really want to do anyway?
|
| 30 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 17:02
|
I'm guessing because the local municipalities can't force the banks to do cram-downs. So, they are taking the only action that is available to them. I have no idea how they think this is a good idea or won't ultimately be much more expensive then they originally think. Even if they, wrongly IMO, use eminent domain, they are going to pay more than the existing debt, after attorneys fees. If it does start to happen, it will be interesting to see if the properties that are done first are done as favors to politicians, either friends and families, or neighborhoods that they have an interest in.
|
| 31 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 17:36
|
Cram downs can't be legislated? Does a bankruptcy judge have the authority?
|
| 32 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 17:55
|
Attorney's fees for eminent domain cases are pretty small. That's because ED is a very big stick, and there is little to challenge, except typically for the amounts being offered.
I've no idea if this is a good use for ED, except to say that this could easily be used in limited cases to mitigate nearly all the objections being raised. IRL what will probably happen is that the threat of ED will cause banks to re-negotiate underwater mortgages with people. And that is a good thing, because the people who have underwater mortgages today have not walked away from their homes, and been paying their mortgages for years.
|
| 33 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 18:16
|
Same old, same old from the Administration on housing policy: new coat of paint.
|
| 34 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 18:34
|
That blog post was shoddy. I first read about cities using or threatening to use ED for underwater mortgages back in Feb. in this New Yorker article, and I think it is a GREAT idea. The recalcitrance of banks and the very low amount successful "cram downs" is an unreported story when places like BofA post record profits.
Bili, the City of Detroit is in bankruptcy, not the individual home owners. The City is now can renegotiate contracts and loan terms with its current assets/liabilities, not new ones. Cram downs were always voluntary measures from banks and it seems like they only agreed to a few.
ED obliterates the loan and the banks tremble at the thought, I mean tremble, because that is real power. I disagree with Frick and I also mock the banks' threats, this is an excellent way to keep people in their homes and not financially devastated and that is a far more important result to city governments than keeping out of state banks happy. I am honestly surprised this has not happened sooner.
|
| 35 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 18:39
|
Cram downs don't have to be voluntary, if if a judge is given the power to force cram downs the same tremors will be forthcoming without they need to drive a nail with a nuke.
|
| 36 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612 Wed, Aug 07, 2013, 18:54
|
How do you give the judge the power to force a cram down on a slew of individual loans?
|
| 37 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Thu, Aug 08, 2013, 01:11
|
I'd posted elsewhere about the use of ED by a municipality to take over underwater mortgages the banks refuse to rewrite, and then sell them back to the current homeowner.
Banks will ALWAYS be in the business of lending money. The use of ED in a few selected markets, is not going to change that simple reality.
|
| 38 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612 Thu, Sep 12, 2013, 17:32
|
Richmond, CA is the first city to use eminent domain for unnderwater mortgages
Richmond is the first city to pursue this strategy. Its city council — with the support of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), which for years has organized homeowners against predatory banks — recently voted 6-0 (with one member absent) to make offers to buy underwater mortgages. If lenders refuse, the city will take them by eminent domain and work with a group of friendly investors (Mortgage Resolution Partners, or MRP) to refinance the loans with the Federal Housing Administration.
In this city of 103,000, dominated by a big Chevon oil refinery, home prices have plummeted by 58 percent since the 2007 peak. Homeowners lost over $264 million in wealth last year alone. Thousands of Richmond homeowners have lost their homes to foreclosure, and many others, like the Conways, are just hanging on. About 12,000 families — half of all homeowners with mortgages in the city — are underwater. The city government, which has lost millions of dollars in property tax revenues, has cut funds for road repairs and significantly reduced the number of municipal employees, including librarians. Meanwhile, it has had to spend scarce funds to deal with abandoned buildings, crime and drugs, and other problems caused by the foreclosure epidemic.
If banks reset Richmond’s underwater mortgages to fair market value, homeowners would save an average of over $1,000 per month on their payments. If those savings were spent on local goods and services, it would generate about $170 million in economic stimulus and create at least 2,500 jobs. Right on!
|
| 39 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:44
|
I like how this basically a way for a group of friendly investors to make an easy buck. There is nothing good about this idea, this just encourages more group(s) of friendly investors to abuse the eminent domain system.
|
| 40 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923 Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 11:10
|
Those "friendly investors" are the ones already working with the FHA, through which the new loans would originate.
Really, I doubt it gets to that stage. This is a big stick, intended to get banks to agree to refinance underwater mortgages by those who have been paying on them for years.
|
| 41 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221 Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 11:50
|
Robert Reich's FB post this morning says it all for me, and why I don't really give two shits about the banks boikin is so interested in harboring;
My Berkeley colleague, professor Immanuel Saez, who has done the pioneering work on assessing inequality in the U.S., has just released his latest study, bringing his data up to 2012. His finding: The income share of the top 1 percent of earners in 2012 returned to the same level as before both the Great Recession and the Great Depression: over 22 percent. The study also shows that almost all the gains over the last 20 years have gone to the very top. Between 1993 and 2012, the real incomes of the top 1% grew 86.1%, while those of the bottom 99% grew 6.6% (the top 1% is defined as families with incomes above $394,000 in 2012). From 2009 to 2012, as the U.S. economy improved, incomes of the top 1% grew more than 31%, while the incomes of the 99% grew 0.4% - less than half a percentage point. Meanwhile, the typical worker saw almost no income gain at all. And we now have the lowest percentage of adults in the workforce than at any time in the last 35 years.
As I've argued, all this is not only savagely unfair but it's also bad for the economy. With so much of the nation's economic gains going to the top, the rest don't have the purchasing power to keep the economy going -- which explains why the recovery has been so anemic, and why it's also so fragile. This degree of inequality is also bad for our democracy: With so much income and wealth concentrated at the top, the rich have been able to entrench their wealth and privilege through laws that favor them and their businesses while putting ever-greater burdens on everyone else.
The question is: When do we reach a tipping point? When is inequality so wide that the vast majority of Americans refuse to take it any more? Is the upcoming mayoral race in New York -- centered as it has been on inequality, with the putative winner pledged to raise taxes on the City's wealthiest -- a sign of things to come?
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: Detroit
|