Trapped in a Sub Prime Mortgage? Obama Won't Save You

So says Rob Blake of the Mortgage Insiders Blog:

The Obama Housing Plan (known as ‘Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan’ or ‘HASP’) is simply “more of the same” when it comes to helping those who President Obama admitted in his speech are responsible for over half of all foreclosures: the subprime mortgage borrower.

The subprime mortgage borrowers are the ones who actually need help, yet the Obama housing plan seems to focus on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refinances and stimulating the GSEs activity by keeping rates lower.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not originate nor do they insure subprime mortgage loans. So Obama’s plan focusing on the now nationalized GSEs maybe good for the government but it’s not any help for the subprime borrower.

Obama has a gift for making something that's really a bit of a half measure sound like its more than it is. I listened to his announcement on POTUS today. It sounded awesome, but the devil is in the details and the failure to address the sub prime borrowers out there makes this a half measure.

Also, I'm richly fed up with the bleating complaint I hear repeated ad nauseum on the cable shows that Obama's plan or indeed any plan that helps out mortgage holders faced with foreclosure is hurting those homeowners who pay their mortgage on time. If you are one of the people who object to Obama's plan for this reason, let me break it down for you.

You're wrong, and illogically so. Whether your next door neighbor's house is getting foreclosed on because they bought more house than they could really afford, or because they lost their job and couldn't get back on their feet before they were financially ruined, IT DOESN'T MATTER!. When their house gets taken by the bank, YOUR house takes a value hit too. And when millions of homes get foreclosed on, it rapidly and artificially deflates the value of the people who are still paying their mortgages. Those of us who are making our mortgage payments have a stake in this tide of foreclosures being stemmed, because its eroding the value of our homes too, and rapidly so. That being the case, I don't care if a few irresponsible persons catch a break.

Disagree? Have your say.

Pro-Black People Policy Alert: Support Republican low-rate mortgage proposal

Republicans push low-rate mortgage in U.S. stimulus | Economy | Reuters

Mitch McConnel is pushing for a provision in the stimulus bill that would drive down mortgage rates to 4%. 30 year mortgages at that price point would make it easier to purchase a home and for people who refinanced, could save them thousands of dollars over the course of a year of mortgage payments. This is a Political Season Pro Black People Policy Alert

Why should black folks support such a provision? Because the last decade or so has seen a tremendous growth in home ownership and homeonwership remains a traditional path to generational wealth building for the vast majority of Americans. This is perhaps even more true for blacks. The economic downturn is wiping out hard earned wealth gains among blacks as financially devasted families lose their homes. Before this is all over, blacks may lose two generations of wealth gains. A provision such as this one is very much in the interest of black folks to support. Think of it like a 30 year tax break that puts money in your pocket from the get. The even better aspect of this is that it costs the government very little to do it. Because of the economic crisis, investors are parking their money in US Treasury bills as the safest place to keep it for now, which means the government can borrow huge amounts of money at very low rates, like 3%. If they relend that money at 4%, they pass on the benefit of that low cost money to homeowners and the government even makes a little change on the spread. No deficit hit. Its a win win.

Not only should blacks support insertion of this into the stimulus bill though, we need to push a little further in terms of implementation. Many black folk who got mortgages in the last several years got put into sub prime loan products. Sometimes because that was the risk profile of the borrower, but sometimes despite the fact that they could have gotten into a conforming loan. Either way, those mortgages ranging anywhere from 8-11%, are draining black folk dry as they pay these heavy financing costs and leaving even more people exposed to foreclosure, which costs everyone. In addition, I suspect that people who are in sub prime products are more likely to spend the savings they get from refinancing, thereby stimulating the economy with their spending, which is in fact the whole point. This proposal in my view gets even better in terms of impact on black folks if provision is made to get people out of high cost sub prime loan products.

Now, the Heritage Foundation does not like it, and I actually agree with them with regard to doing this to stimulate home sales. Mortgage rates are already quite low, so I think this provision is of marginal benefit on that front. Their other major contention is that its an income transfer from the financial sector to homeowners who don't really need it, which feels more like an ideological issue that does not help anybody per se, which is why I think the additional twist ought to be providing relief to those stuck in sub prime products. Considering how much income in the form of taxpayer dollars has been transferred INTO the financial sector, I really don't think its a problem to let some of that circulate back where it came from in the first place.

With a tweak or two, I think this is a good idea and firmly in the interest of black folks to support. Its action time. Call and email your senator and your represenative and the White House. Tell them you support the republican proposal AND that you want provision to be made to make these low cost mortgages available to people stuck in sub prime loan products. Use the links above, get their phone number and call their office now. Ask for the legislative assistant working on housing or on the stimulus and tell them you support Mitch McConnel's proposal for lowering mortgage rates AND that provisions should be made for people stuck in high cost sub prime mortgage products to refinance out of them, because those people are likely to circulate those savings back into the economy, increasing stimulus. Do it now, do it today.

Red Alert: The G-7 -- Geopolitics, Politics and the Financial Crisis

From Strategic Forecasting

The finance ministers of the G-7 countries are meeting in Washington. The first announcements on the meetings will come this weekend. It is not too extreme to say that the outcome of these meetings could redefine how the financial markets work, certainly for months and perhaps for a generation. The Americans are arguing that the regime of intervention and bailouts be allowed to continue. Others, like the British, are arguing for what in effect would be the nationalization of financial markets on a global scale. It is not clear what will be decided, but it is clear that this meeting matters.

The meetings will extend through the weekend to include members of the G-20 countries, which together account for about 90 percent of the global economy. This meeting was called because previous steps have not freed up lending between financial institutions, and the financial problem has increasingly become an economic one, affecting production and consumption in the global economy. The political leadership of these countries is under extreme pressure from the public to do something to solve — or at least alleviate — the problem.

Underlying this political pressure is a sense that the financial class, people who run global financial institutions, have failed to behave responsibly and effectively, and have therefore lost their legitimacy. The expectation, reasonable or not, is that the political system will now supplant these managers and impose at least a temporary solution. The finance ministers therefore have a political mandate, almost global in scope, to act decisively. The question is what they will do?

That question then divides further into two parts. The first is whether they will try to craft a single, global, integrated solution. The second is the degree to which they will take control of the financial system — and inter-financial institution lending in particular. (A primary reason for the credit crunch is that banks are currently afraid to lend — even to each other.) Thus far, attempts at solutions on the whole have been national rather than international. In addition, they have been built around incentivizing certain action and increasing the available money in the system.

So far, this hasn’t worked. The first problem is that financial institutions have not increased interbank lending significantly because they are concerned about the unknowns in the borrower’s balance sheet, and about the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans. With even large institutions failing, the fear is that other institutions will fail, but since the identity of the ones that will fail is unknown, lending on any terms — with or without government money — is imprudent. There is more lending to non-financial corporations than to financial ones because fewer unknowns are involved. Therefore, in the United States, infusions and promises of infusion of funds have not solved the basic problem: the uncertain solvency of the borrower.

The second problem is the international character of the crisis. An example from the Icelandic meltdown is relevant. The government of Iceland promised to repay Icelandic depositors in the island country’s failed banks. They did not extend the guarantee to non-Icelandic depositors. Partly they simply didn’t have the cash, but partly the view has been that taking care of one’s own takes priority. Countries do not want to bail out foreigners, and different governments do not want to assume the liabilities of other nations. The nature of political solutions is always that politicians respond to their own constituencies, not to people who can’t vote for them.

This weekend some basic decisions have to be made. The first is whether to give the bailouts time to work, to increase the packages or to accept that they have failed and move to the next step. The next step is for governments and central banks to take over decision making from financial institutions, and cause them to lend. This can be done in one of two ways. The first is to guarantee the loans made between financial institutions so that solvency is not an issue and risk is eliminated. The second is to directly take over the lending process, with the state dictating how much is lent to whom. In a real sense, the distinction between the two is not as significant as it appears. The market is abolished and wealth is distributed through mechanisms created by the state, with risk eliminated from the system, or more precisely, transferred from the lender to the taxing authority of the state.

The more complex issue is how to manage this on an international scale. For example, American banks lend to European banks. If the United States comes up with a plan which guarantees loans to U.S. banks but not European banks, and Europeans lend to Europe and not the United States, the integration of the global economy will very quickly shatter, leading to significant limitations on international trade, currency convertibility and so on. You will nationalize economies that can’t stand being purely national.

At the same time, there is no global mechanism for managing radical solutions. In taking over lending or guarantees, the administrative structure is everything. Managing the interbank-lending of the global economy is something for which there is no institution. And even with coordination, finance ministries and central banks would find it difficult to bear the burden — not to mention managing the system’s Herculean size and labyrinthine complexity. But if the G-7 in effect nationalize global financial systems and do it without international understandings and coordination, the consequences will be immediate and serious.

The G-7 is looking hard for a solution that will not require this level of intrusion, both because they don’t want to abolish markets even temporarily, and more important, because they have no idea how to manage this on a global scale. They very much want to have the problem solved with liquidity injections and bailouts. Their inclination is to give the current regime some more time. The problem is that the global equity markets are destroying value at extremely high rates and declines are approaching historic levels.

In other words, a crisis in the financial system is becoming an economic problem — and that means public pressure will surge, not decline. Therefore, it is plausible that they might choose to ask for what FDR did in 1933, a bank holiday, which in this case would be the suspension of trading on equity markets globally for several days while administrative solutions are reached. We have no information whatsoever that they are thinking of this, but in starting to grapple with a problem of this magnitude — and searching for solutions on this scale — it is totally understandable that they might like to buy some time.

It is not clear what they will decide. Fundamental issues to watch for are whether they move from manipulating markets through government intrusions that leave the markets fundamentally free, or do they abandon free markets at least temporarily.

Another such issue is whether they can find a way to do this globally or whether it will be done nationally. If they do go international and suspending markets, the question is how they will unwind this situation. It will be easier to start this than to end it and state-controlled markets are usually not very attractive in the long run. But then again, neither is where we are now.

China and the Arabian Peninsula as Market Stabilizers

By George Friedman (honorary Political Season contributor)

The single most interesting thing about today's global economy is what has not occurred. In 1979, oil prices soared to slightly more than $100 a barrel in current dollars, and they are approaching that historic high again. Meanwhile, the subprime meltdown continues to play out. Many financial institutions have been hurt, many individual lives have been shattered and many Wall Street operators once considered brilliant have been declared dunderheads. Despite all the predictions that the current situation is just the tip of the iceberg, however, the crisis is progressing in a fairly orderly fashion. Distinguish here between financial institutions, financial markets and the economy. People in the financial world tend to confuse the three. Some financial institutions are being hurt badly. Those experiencing the pain mistakenly think their suffering reflects the condition of the financial markets and economy. But the financial markets are managing, as is the economy.

What we are seeing is the convergence of two massive forces. Oil prices, along with primary commodity prices in general, have soared. Also, one of the periodic financial bubbles -- the subprime mortgage market -- has burst. Either of these alone should have created global havoc. Neither has. The stock market has not plummeted. The Standard & Poor's 500 fell from a high of about 1,565 in mid-October to a low of 1,400 on Oct. 19. Since then, it has rebounded as high as 1,550. Given the media rhetoric and the heads rolling in the financial sector, we would expect to see devastating numbers. And yet, we are not.

Nor are the numbers devastating in the bond markets. By definition, a liquidity crisis occurs when the money supply is too tight and demand is too great. In other words, a liquidity crisis would be reflected in high interest rates. That hasn't happened. In fact, both short-term and, particularly, long-term interest rates have trended downward over the past weeks. It might be said that interest rates are low, but that lenders won't lend. If so, that is sectoral and short-term at most. Low interest rates and no liquidity is an oxymoron.

This is not the result of actions at the Federal Reserve. The Fed can influence short-term rates, but the longer the yield curve, the longer the payoff date on a loan or bond and the less impact the Fed has. Long-term rates reflect the current availability of money and expectations on interest rates in the future.

In the U.S. stock market -- and world markets, for that matter -- we have seen nothing like the devastation prophesied. As we have said in the past, the subprime crisis compared with the savings and loan crisis, for example, is by itself small potatoes. Sure, those financial houses that stocked up on the securitized mortgage debt are going to be hurt, but that does not translate into a geopolitical event, or even into a recession. Many people are arguing that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and that defaults in other categories of the mortgage market coupled with declining housing markets will set off a devastating chain reaction.

That may well be the case, though something weird is going on here. Given the broad belief that the subprime crisis is only the beginning of a general financial crisis, and that the economy will go into recession, we would have expected major market declines by now. Markets discount in anticipation of events, not after events have happened. Historically, market declines occur about six months before recessions begin. So far, however, the perceived liquidity crisis has not been reflected in higher long-term interest rates, and the perceived recession has not been reflected in a significant decline in the global equity markets.

When we add in surging oil and commodity prices, we would have expected all hell to break loose in these markets. Certainly, the consequences of high commodity prices during the 1970s helped drive up interest rates as money was transferred to Third World countries that were selling commodities. As a result, the cost of money for modernizing aging industrial plants in the United States surged into double digits, while equity markets were unable to serve capital needs and remained flat.

So what is going on?

Part of the answer might well be this: For the past five years or so, China has been throwing around huge amounts of cash. The Chinese made big, big money selling overseas -- more than even the growing Chinese economy could metabolize. That led to massive dollar reserves in China and the need for the Chinese to invest outside their own financial markets. Given that the United States is China's primary consumer and the only economy large and stable enough to absorb its reserves, the Chinese -- state and nonstate entities alike -- regard the U.S. markets as safe-havens for their investments. That is one of the things that have kept interest rates relatively low and the equity markets moving. This process of Asian money flowing into U.S. markets goes back to the early 1980s.

Another part of the answer might lie in the self-stabilizing feature of oil prices, the rise of which should be devastating to U.S. markets at first glance. The size of the price surge and the stability of demand have created dollar reserves in oil-exporting countries far in excess of anything that can be absorbed locally. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has made so much money, particularly in 2007, that it has to invest in overseas markets.

In some sense, it doesn't matter where the money goes. Money, like oil, is fungible, which means that if all the petrodollars went into Europe then other money would flow into the United States as European interest rates fell and European stocks rose. But there are always short-term factors to consider. The Persian Gulf oil producers and the Chinese have one thing in common -- they are linked to the dollar. As the dollar declines, assets in other countries become more expensive, particularly if you regard the dollar's fall as ultimately reversible. Dollars invested in dollar-denominated vehicles make sense. Therefore, we are seeing two massive inflows of dollars to the United States -- one from China and one from the energy industry. China's dollar reserves are derived from sales to the United States, so it is stuck in the dollar zone. Plus, the Chinese have pegged the yuan to the dollar. The energy industry, also part of the dollar zone, needs to find a home for its money -- and the largest, most liquid dollar-denominated market in the world is the United States.

The United States has created an odd dollar zone drawing in China and the Persian Gulf. (Other energy producers such as Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela have no problem using their dollars internally.) Unhinging China from the dollar is impossible; it sells in dollars to the United States, a linkage that gives it a stable platform, even if it pays relatively more for oil. Additionally, the Arabian Peninsula sells oil in dollars, and trying to convert those contracts to euros would be mind-bogglingly difficult. Existing contracts and new contracts managed in multiple currencies -- both spot and forward managed -- would have to be renegotiated. Any business working in multiple currencies faces a challenge, and the bigger the business, the bigger the challenge. The Arabian Peninsula accordingly will not be able to hedge currencies and manage the contracts just by flipping a switch.

This provides an explanation for the resiliency of U.S. markets. Every time the news on the subprime situation sounds so horrendous that it seems the U.S. markets will crash, the opposite occurs. In fact, markets in the United States rose through the early days, then sold off and now have rallied again. Where is the money coming from?

We would argue that the money is coming from the dollar bloc and its huge free cash flow from China, and at the moment, the Arabian Peninsula in particular. This influx usually happens anonymously through ordinary market actions, though occasionally it becomes apparent through large, single transactions that are quite open. Last week, for example, Dubai invested $7 billion in Citigroup, helping to clean up the company's balance sheet and, not incidentally, letting it be known that dollars being accumulated in the Persian Gulf will be used to stabilize U.S. markets.

This is not an act of charity. Dubai and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as China, are holding huge dollar reserves, and the last thing they want to do is sell those dollars in sufficient quantity to drive the dollar's price even lower. Nor do they want to see a financial crisis in the U.S. markets. Both the Chinese and the Arabs have far too much to lose to want such an outcome. So, in an infinite number of open market transactions, as well as occasionally public investments, they are moving to support the U.S. markets, albeit for their own reasons.

It is the only explanation for what we are seeing. The markets should be selling off like crazy, given the financial problems. They are not. They keep bouncing back, no matter how hard they are driven down. That money is not coming from the financial institutions and hedge funds that got ripped on mortgages. But it is coming from somewhere. We think that somewhere is the land of $90-per-barrel crude and really cheap toys.

Many people will see this as a tilt in global power. When others must invest in the United States, however, they are not the ones with the power; the United States is. To us, it looks far more like the Chinese and Arabs are trapped in a financial system that leaves them few options but to recycle their dollars into the United States. They wind up holding dollars -- or currencies linked to dollars -- and then can speculate by leaving, or they can play it safe by staying. In our view, these two sources of cash are the reason global markets are stable.

Energy prices might fall (indeed, all commodities are inherently cyclic, and oil is no exception), and the amount of free cash flow in the Arabian Peninsula might drop, but there still will be surplus dollars in China as long as it is an export-based economy. Put another way, the international system is producing aggregate return on capital distributed in peculiar ways. Given the size of the U.S. economy and the dynamics of the dollar, much of that money will flow back into the United States. The United States can have its financial crisis. Global forces appear to be stabilizing it.

The Chinese and the Arabs are not in the U.S. markets because they like the United States. They don't. They are locked in. Regardless of the rumors of major shifts, it is hard to see how shifts could occur. It is the irony of the moment that China and the Arabian Peninsula, neither of them particularly fond of the United States, are trapped into stabilizing the United States. And, so far, they are doing a fine job.