Chuck Ponzi February 22nd, 2008
The Chuck Ponzi Law of Unintended Consequences is alive and in full force. I had to whip it out another time when Congress started considering the subprime rate freezes. And now, it rears it ugly head again and I am forced to once again remind people how “helping” most often ends up just hurting people.
Remember the original rule:
If there is any chance that someone can get bailed out by someone else, they will, and you will have to pay for it from your own pocket.
I had to later add:
while you may need to pay for it, anything other than letting the market deal with it efficiently will likely crash it anyway
This time, I’ll have to add the following:
And messing with it will make it crash harder than if you had just kept your stupid nosy butt out of it.
and that’s how I can frame the message to those reading the MSNBC article about “saving” people from their underwater houses.
The current plan to “save” homedebtors is to “forgive” the amount that borrowers are underwater. Meanwhile, the Jeffrey Birnbaum seems to take the tack that we should be poopooing on the stupid lenders for lending that amount in the first place. Naturally, banks are fighting it. In the short run, this “solution” becomes their problem. Unfortunately, in the long run, it becomes everyone’s problem.
The legislation would allow bankruptcy judges for the first time to alter the terms of mortgages for primary residences. Under the proposal, borrowers could declare bankruptcy, and a judge would be able to reduce the amount they owe as part of resolving their debts.
There are at least 2 significant problems with this solution.
1. There is a moral component to paying back what you owe. It is supremely unfair to prudent citizens when gamblers and speculators are saved from their own poor decisions. But, it goes further than that; this bailout encourages more risk taking and gambling - a term referred to as moral hazard. The fear is that open risk taking can create systemic risk that at some later date cannot be bailed out; the captains must go down with the ship.
2. The other is the physics of a forgiveness. Like Newton’s third law of physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If Banks believe that they can lose up to 20 or 30% of the value of a home, they will begin to require borrowers to “self insure” by raising collateral requirements to mitigate their new risk. They will also likely offset the risk through higher risk spreads translating to substantially higher rates with stricter requirements for credit worthiness.
Consider who this is attempting to help:
The Democrats and their allies see the plan as an antidote to the recent mortgage crisis, especially among low-income borrowers with subprime loans. The legislation would prevent as many as 600,000 homeowners from being thrown into foreclosure, its advocates say.
The poor? Who would least likely be able to handle an increase in the collateral requirements and interest rates set forth for the purchase of a home? My belief is that if this law is passed, it will severely deepen the housing crisis. Indeed, this will likely make the housing problems a super-crisis; akin to raising interest rates in a deflationary environment. This would mean not only that we would be erasing all of the gains of the bubble, but likely much, much more. If first-time buyers were required to save 20% collateral again, it would literally shut down the first-time homebuyers in Southern California. It would not return to the existing levels for perhaps another generation as the system cleanses itself. All of the increased savings would have a positive effect of actual savings, but it would create a severe recession since consumers would need to retrench and cut off discretionary spending. We could easily see homeownership rates erode by 10% or more over the coming decade of turmoil.
This “solution” is quite possibly the worst kind of consequence in itself. It will crash housing markets in high-priced locales and deepen the coming recession throughout the country. I’m a fan of just letting the markets right themselves and sort out the mess itself. Any kind of well intentioned tinkering will only make the problem worse. The time to act is past and cannot be recaptured. The right time to fix the problem was to prevent it in the first place.
Unless the US Government wants to become the lender of last resort (see the discussion of systemic risk) and to personally insure low collateralized mortgages in an inflated market, there is no way this legislation cannot wipe out innovative lending. All of the lending and borrowing participants will have been crowded out by risk aversion.
Let’s hope that our government is aware enough to see what this would do and kill this legislation before it becomes a reality.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no banksters apologist. They are greedy, self-serving, and destructive. Their moral compass is broken and their money guides their actions. Congress, unfortunately are worse. They work with a corrupt moral compass and other people’s money.
Here’s hoping that if Congress can’t pull their heads out of their collective asses that President Bush has enough sense to wield the necessary veto rights. The very civil liberties of property rights must be protected; both for individual citizens and corporations. Once we take it from one class, we can take it from others; it’s only a matter of time before we find a reason to.
