• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

McCain Proposes $300 Billion Mortgage Plan

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,024
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Is this a good idea?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- John McCain's proposal to buy up bad home mortgages would use nearly half the $700 billion from the recent Wall Street bailout package to assist Americans directly, instead of indirectly by rescuing the nation's financial markets.

The Republican presidential candidate announced during Tuesday's debate that he would order the federal government to spend $300 billion in federal funds to buy the mortgages and allow financially troubled homeowners to keep their houses.

Democratic nominee Barack Obama last month sounded a similar theme, proposing that the government consider taking such a step.

But McCain's approach was far more categorical.

"I would order the secretary of the Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home-loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes - at the diminished values of those homes - and let people be able to make those payments and stay in their homes," he said.

The proposal, which he called the American Homeownership Resurgence Plan, is as much a policy plan for the future as it is a political tactic for the present.

The economy has been a key factor in helping Obama pull ahead of McCain nationally and in key battleground states. What's more, Americans reacted with helpless outrage at the need for a $700 billion rescue for the country's financial institutions.

Many Republicans voted against the package, objecting to its size and to government intervention in the free market economy. McCain's step would represent an even greater role for government and potentially an even greater financial loss.

McCain made clear he would use the plan to distinguish himself not only from his rival but also from President Bush, an increasingly unpopular figure as the economy sinks.

"It's my proposal," McCain said. "It's not Sen. Obama's proposal. It's not President Bush's proposal."

As conceived by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and as passed by Congress, the rescue package would be used primarily to purchase mortgage-backed securities. It would allow, but not require direct purchase of mortgages. Under McCain's plan, the Treasury would be required to rework mortgages directly with homeowners whose houses were losing value.

It was unclear - either from McCain's remarks or from the backup materials provided by the campaign - how such a massive plan would be administered. Though McCain, a budget hawk and critic of rising federal spending, did concede one point. "Is it expensive? Yes," he said.

Has McCain stolen a political march on Obama here? Is it good politics? Is it good policy?
 
In principle something along these lines I believe would be a good idea however it is the details that would determine if it was a good policy or not. For instance it has to be that the (ex?)homeowners no longer stand to gain financially from their house, that any future profit from the sale of the property goes to the government and so on.
 
In terms of the USA election I can see how it could be spun favourably e.g. "helping out good old Joe Sixpack" or unfavourably e.g. "bailing out the greedy slackers".
 
IIRC, this was one of the purposes of the original Paulson plan...to buy up toxic assets until they became less toxic (value increase, etc...).

What is different with McCain's supposed new "plan"?

TAM:)
 
In principle something along these lines I believe would be a good idea however it is the details that would determine if it was a good policy or not. For instance it has to be that the (ex?)homeowners no longer stand to gain financially from their house, that any future profit from the sale of the property goes to the government and so on.

Suppose that property values did recover, there would be a possibilty of gaming that system if the seller undersold the property to the buyer in exchange for a kickback (under the table).
 
IIRC, this was one of the purposes of the original Paulson plan...to buy up toxic assets until they became less toxic (value increase, etc...).

What is different with McCain's supposed new "plan"?

TAM:)

Except for populist posturing, probably not much. It would "require" Paulson to do what he planned to do. It might have a perverse effect of taking away Paulson's bargaining power, making a bad deal for taxpayers worse.

My understanding is that under the current plan Paulsn is "authorized" to buy any assets, but not "required" to buy any. This would make it inevitable that at least 300 billion would be spent, whether he can get a good deal or not.
 
Last edited:
Suppose that property values did recover, there would be a possibilty of gaming that system if the seller undersold the property to the buyer in exchange for a kickback (under the table).

I'd say fraud is nearly always a possibility, it is matter for the legislation to be drawn up in such a manner to try and minimise fraud.
 
I'd say fraud is nearly always a possibility, it is matter for the legislation to be drawn up in such a manner to try and minimise fraud.

True, but even without fraud, there would be no incentive for the seller to ask for a penny more than the amount he would be allowed to keep for himself.
 
What is different with McCain's supposed new "plan"?
The problem isn't that all of the mortgages backing those securities are bad, it's that some of them are bad, and since nobody knows which ones they are, all of the securities are suspect. Buying the securities directly offers at least the chance that the government may eventually recover a lot of what it pays out. In this regard, it's not much different from the kind of thinking that created the problem in the first place. The motive is different: the government isn't trying to earn a profit, and even breaking even would be basically a bonus; the goal is the preservation of our financing system.

McCain's plan would have us take some of the mortgages we can identify as bad and aquire those, and one advantage of this approach is the certainty it offers: we can be certain that the government isn't going to recover any of that money.
 
The homeowner, when he/she eventually sells his property.

Ah right - that's why I put it as "(ex?)homeowners" - I can think of several ways that such a policy could work. One would have the government become the owner of the property so the homeowners become sitting tenants if you like, they lose their house but not their home.
 
...snip...

McCain's plan would have us take some of the mortgages we can identify as bad and aquire those, and one advantage of this approach is the certainty it offers: we can be certain that the government isn't going to recover any of that money.

How can you be certain of this? The houses most surely retain some value and in a few years time that will have more than likely risen again in real terms.
 
How can you be certain of this?
Well, okay -- "as certain as we can be of anything, at this point".

The houses most surely retain some value and in a few years time that will have more than likely risen again in real terms.
Again, this is just the sort of thinking that created this mess. It's one thing to hope that things will improve; it's another to bet on it. Sure, the value of some of those properties may rise again, and some of them may eventually reach or even exceed the value of the mortgages on them (despite the fact that the question most often being asked is "where's the bottom?"). But if insuring that those are the ones you'll be aquiring is an important goal, to go looking specifically for the ones that are not performing now hardly seems like a viable approach. It's moot anyway. That is not the goal; McCain's plan is not betting on those aquisitions turning a profit (or even breaking even) any more than is Paulson's. I'm just saying that McCain's plan appears to be much less likely to result in recovery of that money later on as a bonus.

To the extent that everybody can be said to agree, everybody agrees that the government needs to step in, even if it ends up costing money in the long run. The question is: if the government does not recover that money, what will have been obtained? Paulson's plan aims to rescue a failing system, one that is vital to the health of our economy. McCain's plan would identify the most reckless among both lenders and borrowers, and reward them for their poor choices. This helps the economy how? It "stabilizes home values"? How does it do that?
 
...snip...

Again, this is just the sort of thinking that created this mess.

...snip...

You are saying there properties have zero value right now? Can you support this?

...snip...

It's one thing to hope that things will improve; it's another to bet on it.
...snip...

Who is betting on it? You're the one that's made a very strong claim that any money used to buy the mortgage off a lender is certain to be lost.

I just can't see that at all. Look at this scenario:

Current house value: $100,000
Outstanding mortgage: $99,000

Government steps in and picks up the $99,000 mortgage. 5 years on the House is sold at $99,000 - the government has recouped most of its money.

Current house value: $100,000
Outstanding mortgage: $125,000

Government picks up the mortgage (at no more than say $100,000), 5 years down the line the house is sold for $50,000 - the government has only lost just over half of the money.

The only way the government is certain to lose all the money is if the housing market goes to zero and stays there. And if that has happened the fact that the government has lost a few billion is not going to be anyone's priority - hunting rabbits for food is.
 
As I said earlier, this could easily backfire on McCain. I already saw a link on DailyKos today to a thread on a conservative forum where folks were outraged at this proposal. Anecdotal evidence of course, but McCain is in a predicament trying to woo suburban voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, even Missouri and Pennsylvania to some extent, while not inflaming the conservative base that was outraged at the bank bailout bill and could be even more outraged at bailing out individual homeowners with another expensive government program.
 
It won't play too well with the fiscal conservatives in the Republican party. It looks like you're rewarding bad personal decisions with taxpayer dollars. When I heard McCain say it, I recognized it as a populist move ... but he forgot about his base.
 
Didn't Obama originally say that he wanted some protection for the homeowners in the bailout plan? Admittedly I didn't hear any details of how it would be done, but I know the suggestion that bailout money go to help people who were losing their homes met with lots of howls when I made it here.

But Obama's original statement on the bailout including stuff about helping people stay in their homes.
 
From memory Obamas plan has the ability for homeowners to go to court and have a judge order the mortgage company to renegotiate their loans. This would be done on a case by case basis and through the court.

McCain seems to be saying the Government would buy the bad loans. If so, who decides which loans are bad? And how many class action lawsuit industries will spring up based on "my mortgage wasn't bought out but my neighbours was"?
 
True, but even without fraud, there would be no incentive for the seller to ask for a penny more than the amount he would be allowed to keep for himself.
True I would say it would be a better idea to let them keep all or a portion of the gain above the original mortgage plus interest.
 

Back
Top Bottom