Home > Mortgages > Eastwood Meets the West Wing

Comments 0 Comments

I am a New Yorker. I am a Giants fan. They made my day last Sunday. Sorry, Gisele.

Like over 100 million of you, I saw the Chrysler commercial and, for the record, Clint Eastwood made my day.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure—my college flame was the granddaughter of a famous Chrysler design engineer—so I confess that I have a warm spot in my heart for those guys, but that said, how can you not appreciate the concept of “This is not a country that can be knocked out with one punch?”

Isn’t that what we Americans are all about?

So I think it’s high time for us to decide whether better days or bitter days are ahead. I, for one, cast my vote for better days.

Unfortunately, there are those “nabobs of negativism” who would promote the “end of days” when it comes to our economy and the Obama Administration’s efforts to continue to pull us out of the fiscal bonfire that has consumed this nation for the past five years.

Steps that are proposed to ease the financial pain of the American people seem to follow a well-defined path. The President makes an eloquent speech announcing an initiative in general terms. Even without specifics, the idea is debunked by critics usually on the right, but occasionally on the left as well. The details are released, or a piece of legislation is introduced and it is pronounced dead on arrival.

At first blush, this would seem to be the case with the mortgage refinancing plan that Obama unveiled during the course of his State of the Union message. It was criticized before it was seen, and when the enabling legislation was introduced, most commentators simply assumed it would go nowhere. But if you read between the lines, you will discover something very different—and that difference exposes a most interesting philosophical dichotomy rarely found in the workaday, soundbite world in which we live.

The proposed new program is well thought out. There is to be no reduction in the principal amount of the mortgage, but FHA-guaranteed refinancing at today’s amazingly low rates would be permitted for anyone who wanted it, so long as they had a minimum credit score of 580, and an existing mortgage with a principal amount within the FHA’s limits ($271,050-$729,750). Borrowers would also have to be current on their mortgage payments for at least the last six months, and have not more than one delinquency in the six months prior to that. The program is estimated to cost between $5 billion and $10 billion, paid for with new fees on those financial firms that have more than $50 billion in assets. As far as it goes, this is a terrific plan, balancing many competing interests and spreading the costs around pretty effectively.

Conservative opposition to this plan has been predictable and not particularly vociferous, in light of the fact that the formerly liberal, now newly minted voice of the right has advocated that we let the foreclosure mess “run its course.” What’s different is the liberal reaction, from a whole host of different sources that seem to advocate a program that would reduce the principal amount of mortgages, as opposed to one that only makes payment-reducing refinancing easier. Their argument is simple—right now there are approximately 11 million homes in the United States that are worth less than the principal amount of the mortgages that encumber them. About one in every eight homes that has a mortgage is either delinquent or in foreclosure. At best, the Obama program would assist, at least to some degree, less than 4 million homeowners, and by definition none would be delinquent or in foreclosure. The unprecedented magnitude of these issues has led some observers to opine that the United States is in “a permanent foreclosure crisis,” one that can only be solved by forgiveness of debt in equally unprecedented magnitude.

Taking a step back and thinking about it, it becomes clear that those who push for actual debt forgiveness, which would involve the government taking by fiat an asset of a private lender—at best constitutionally dubious—must necessarily believe that housing prices will not return to their pre-2008 levels for a very long time, if at all.

So the philosophical question presents itself very naturally: What kind of America do those who advocate debt forgiveness envision? Unless you believe that all those new housing projects in the Gingrich moon colonies will vastly increase supply in the coming years, you must believe that our collective future is rather bleak—meaning at least that there will not be enough money or enough buyers to bring housing prices back to 2007 levels.

I believe that the foreclosure crisis is just that—a crisis about which something extraordinary must be done in the very short run; but I do not believe that it is permanent. That said, there are certainly some situations that will require lowering mortgage amounts, such as those involving lender abuse (the subject of the suit settled just last night by the 50 state attorneys general which allocated about $26 billion from the big banks, most of which will be used to reduce mortgage principal for about 1 million underwater homeowners and provide cash settlements of about $2,000 to 750,000 people who were foreclosed upon).

There are other solutions available that do not require an across-the-board suspension of the due process clause. I have often advocated for the SAM, or the shared appreciation mortgage, which gives to beleaguered borrowers exactly what they need (time, not money)—reduced payments but not reduced principal.

Ultimately, the federal government is there to act in precisely the sort of situation in which 11 million homeowners find themselves in 2012. The right solution to the foreclosure crisis will be one that reflects the nature of the problem and the country; that is, one that reduces rate, not principal—except where appropriate—and recognizes that punishment is less important than solidarity. It will acknowledge that everyone contributed to this problem—banks, brokers, borrowers, and of course, the federal government itself. However, it will not sacrifice constitutional principle in the heat of this particularly searing moment in American history.

The Obama plan is not a solution, but it is a step in the right direction. We need to cooperate and collaborate with each other to solve the mortgage crisis and minimize the personal tragedy it engenders. And we need to find solutions that recognize that real estate prices will rebound, as will America in general. However difficult it is to muster it at this moment, optimism is something that has always characterized this country, and will continue to serve it well in the foreseeable future—and is something exuded by President Obama, as it was by Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and other American icons…

You’re absolutely right, Clint. It is halftime and we can and will make the finish line. That’s something we Giants fans understand all too well.

Image: Mr Lujan!, via Flickr.com

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team