Obama’s Fannie Mae failure

Amid all the rhetoric and posturing that have accompanied every twist and turn of the great housing bust and the ensuing slow, stuttering recovery of the United States economy, a comment made last week by new Fannie Mae CEO Tim Mayopoulos to the Wall Street Journal might have seemed consequential only to the most wired-in housing wonk. ”From my perspective, I don’t believe we need principal reduction to modify loans and make [modifications] work for homeowners,” Mr. Mayopoulos said.

He would have been correct in that assessment, in that there was once a long-standing principle in public finance that you don't want to mess with the bondholders.

Unfortunately, Obama, Geithner, et al busted that with the bailout of the auto manufacturers.

Now there is a precedent.

Mr. Mayopoulos is an idiot. He needs to tell me again why I should pay a $1,700 monthly mortgage payment that only results in a property that’s $50,000 underwater? I won’t live long enough to see the property’s value recover.

And, there’s a million more people like me in the same boat!

Beause you signed a contract and agreed to pay it back?

You, of course, can default and/or declare bankruptcy. But do you really expect a "something for nothing" principle forgiveness or mortgage modification?

HAMP is set to cease operations by December 31, 2012. But the Obama administration and its supporters in Congress, their egalitarian worldview intact, can be counted on to find other ways to promote easy mortgage credit. The Federal Housing Administration is one such vehicle. FHA-insured mortgages, which are meant for first-time buyers and are inherently riskier than conventional loans, now account for around 30 percent of all originations, way up from 2 percent just a few years ago. Much of this reflects a deliberate effort by FHA, part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to reach high-risk borrowers. An article in the September 20 edition of Investor’s Business Daily puts it this way: “The subprime market as we knew it might be dead and buried. But it hasn’t really gone away. It’s just wearing new clothes - government-issued, by the Federal Housing Administration.”

The ongoing mortgage industry rescue, whether focused on the supply or the demand side, reflects a lack of understanding of the natural reality that eliminating the consequences of risky behavior unwittingly encourages similar behavior. The Home Affordable Modification Program is a prime example of why the never-ending quest for market “stability” is destabilizing over the long run. Minimizing business risk can be risky for a whole nation.

http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/10/04/obama-mortgage-modification-bailout-distorts-housing-market

There is, at the same time, a moral contract. The loss is caused by something outside our control, namely, really poor government policy. Why do I need to continue to take a hit for it?

This is my fourth home and the third one to take a loss. Generally, the market was upset by government intervention,m never with good result!

You mention bankruptcy. Why is that necessary? There is no “deficiency” here like so many other states.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.