Live data from Hacker News

Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

washingtonpost.com

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#41
post #9

They say using Eminent domain as if thats the solution, take the banks property away. I am thinking the fallout from this move will be disastrous. These are the ideas that fundamentally change the fabric of a society. Now the Government will use Eminent domain whenever a private entity is acting against the social interests of the citizens, whilst many will applaud such a move I fear it gives the Government and elect…

Now the Government will use Eminent domain whenever a private entity is acting against the social interests of the citizens, whilst many will applaud such a move I fear it gives the Government and elected officials far too much power. Isn't the purpose of government to protect its citizens when a more powerful entity acts against them? Also why bother obtaining property and wealth when the Government positions itself…

[deleted]

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#42
post #10
post #2

Good luck to anyone ever getting a mortgage in that town ever again.

Or maybe lending standards will increase (ie, you won't be able to get a loan unless you can prove you are going to be able to pay it off), and valuations will be more conservative. Neither are exactly a bad thing.

I think big banks will actually avoid the municipality like a plague for several years. But a community bank will rise and the locals will laugh.

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#43

The reporting of the so-called "Wonkblog"'s reporting is particularly un-wonkish, describing the plan as 'complex' and talking about it in one of those artificial newspaper pseudo-neutral points of view, affecting to be balanced while dropping loaded language like such as A courtroom victory for Richmond, a town of about 100,000, could give cities around the country the courage to act -- and potentially help keep mil…

Factually you are absolutely correct. But bad outcomes like this are the result of bad decisions by the Supreme Court. We all have to live in a land run by "Kelo v. City of New London"

Maybe this can help get the laws under that decision changed.

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#44
The reporting is frankly terrible.

Let me put it in simple terms. An idea has been floating around for a while now that, in theory, you could use eminent domain to seize not just the houses, but the mortgages on the houses. Let's say that someone had borrowed $200k, but the house was now worth $100k. If you were a local government, you could seize the mortgage from the mortgage holder paying them compensation of, oh, $80k, tear it up, then the home owner gets a new mortgage for $90k, and gives you the proceeds, which would pay you back for the compensation you had to give the mortgage holder, and leave you with $10k to cover your overheads, fees, court costs, and maybe even leave something over for the group of highly altruistic bankers pushing this scheme.

This is normally where I would say "but there's just one problem", but that would be a lie, because there's at least three.

1) The constitution, post Kelo, is pretty lax about needing a good reason to deploy eminent domain, but it's still quite strict about the compensation needing to be fair (ie, the market value). The market value of a $200k mortgage for a $100k house is NOT $80k, or even $100k. Even if the mortgage is currently in default, it still represents ownership of a house worth $100k; by definition that makes it worth $100k, no $80k...and many mortgages won't default at all; even the ones who will eventually will be making payments in the meantime. So right off the bat, legal analysts are confident it's unconstitutional. (But the city can't offer the actual market value of the loan; they're broke.)

2) Banks are going to be very displeased. Except that's a lie; in the US banks don't actually make mortgages. The Federal government does (more than 90%, in point of fact), through the FHA. And they have already stated that they think this is the worst idea since forever, and they will take whatever steps necessary to shut it down, including just not making any more loans for houses in the region. Which in context is basically the nuclear option; the value of a house which can't get a mortgage is pretty much $0. The scheme absolutely relies on being able to get a new mortgage on the houses.

3) Just as if that wasn't enough, the IRS has a lot of very strict rules involving gifts. And buying someone's loan and tearing it up counts as a gift, and you have to pay tax on it. Quite a lot of tax, as it happens. And the homeowners in question don't have the cash, nor would they be thrilled at their massive tax bills even if they did. Which, again, kills the scheme.

4) It's also not entirely clear that this would be good policy even if it worked. This isn't the first attempt at trying to "fix" the problem of underwater mortgages, but results so far have been mixed at best. Then there's the broader policy implications of a bailout. Once you crunch through the likely results of the program, it's not exactly "take from the banks and give to the poor". The banks don't actually own mortgages, and the poor don't actually own houses. It actually ends up being "take from the pension funds and split the results between the middle class and some bankers". Makes for great soundbites, but it's not exactly Robin Hood and Sherwood Forest here. More like the Sheriff of Nottingham.

TL;DR: The plan is illegal, the federal government has already announced that they're putting a stop to it (and they hold all the cards in the mortgage market), it wouldn't work anyhow, and it's probably bad policy even if it did. It's been called a "scam", and frankly, that's pretty accurate.

Edit: From the article: "He's actually the guy responsible for it all: Steven Gluckstern, a former insurance executive who had teamed up with Vlahoplus to co-found Mortgage Resolution Partners, the firm that's lining up the capital -- from hedge funds, for instance -- to buy any mortgages that Richmond might seize. After that happens, Mortgage Resolution Partners would help the homeowner refinance through a Federal Housing Administration loan, and earns a $4,500 fee per successful transaction." Keep in mind that the FHA has said they won't make the loans. The scheme, at its core, is for some bankers to use hedge fund money to grab assets from pension funds, then refinance it using super-cheap loans from the FHA to turn a quick buck. But the FHA has stated it won't make the loans, so the scheme is D-E-A-D dead.

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#45

They say using Eminent domain as if thats the solution, take the banks property away. I am thinking the fallout from this move will be disastrous. These are the ideas that fundamentally change the fabric of a society. Now the Government will use Eminent domain whenever a private entity is acting against the social interests of the citizens, whilst many will applaud such a move I fear it gives the Government and elect…

Without discussing the merits of this particular case (of which I have no knowledge aside from the article, and the facts might be, as cynicalkane claims, quite different), I'd like to say something about the premise of your argument from a more philosophical point of view.

Elected officials are representatives of the populace. "Government" is, then, is not some alien entity, but at least in principle, the voice of the people. The government is therefore not the taker of all things, but the giver of all things, and let me explain that:

The right to private property isn't a natural law, or even the natural form of human behavior. Human beings started out living in collective tribes. It's not that property was shared, but that there wasn't much property at all. Sure, I guess some men objected forcefully to others taking their women, but the transition from women to material property is certainly not an obvious one.

Only with the advent of agriculture humans started having anything resembling property at all, and it was their decision to allow property to be owned "privately". It was society, or "government" if you will, that created the notion of private property through a social contract in the first place.

So it is society, or government, that graciously allowed you to "own" anything, but that by no means implied that society could not place restriction on ownership. And if you didn't like the rules you were welcome to leave and spend your life away from society.

Sure, this arrangement is pretty much the only one that has worked so far, but there have been many revisions and will be many more. But the premise should not be that society infringes on private property, but that the meaning of private property is constantly re-created and negotiated by society.

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#46

The reporting of the so-called "Wonkblog"'s reporting is particularly un-wonkish, describing the plan as 'complex' and talking about it in one of those artificial newspaper pseudo-neutral points of view, affecting to be balanced while dropping loaded language like such as A courtroom victory for Richmond, a town of about 100,000, could give cities around the country the courage to act -- and potentially help keep mil…

Factually you are absolutely correct. But bad outcomes like this are the result of bad decisions by the Supreme Court. We all have to live in a land run by "Kelo v. City of New London" Maybe this can help get the laws under that decision changed.

The eminent domain plan simply lies about the value of a mortgage, saying it's worth less than not only best accounting practice but the market value required for their plan to work. Kelo doesn't apply because using a clearly unfair valuation in eminent domain is directly against the Constitution.

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#47
post #30
post #28

They're making the fundamental mistake of fixing a problem now in a way that will cause huge problems in the future. Mortgage lenders will put huge premiums on mortgages in the town in the future because of "default by eminent domain" risk, if the government pulls freddie/fannie mae it'll be even more expensive. Basically they're robbing future mortgage owners in order to pay current ones. Worse yet, other towns with…

If this system becomes routine, mortgage rates will go up, though I'm not sure about "huge premiums." Is that a bad thing? The investment becomes risker and more expensive, so less money is available, so fewer mortgages are made. More people rent instead of buy their own homes. I would submit that fewer owner-occupied homes would be a positive thing for the national economy.

If people can't get a mortgage on a property in this area, then house prices will fall. This effectively hurts all the people who have been paying their mortgages - which seems like an ineffective solution.

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Factually you are absolutely correct. But bad outcomes like this are the result of bad decisions by the Supreme Court. We all have to live in a land run by "Kelo v. City of New London" Maybe this can help get the laws under that decision changed.

The eminent domain plan simply lies about the value of a mortgage, saying it's worth less than not only best accounting practice but the market value required for their plan to work. Kelo doesn't apply because using a clearly unfair valuation in eminent domain is directly against the Constitution.

I don't disagree, but the definition of "clearly unfair" floats on the whims of Justice Kennedy.

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#49
post #45

They say using Eminent domain as if thats the solution, take the banks property away. I am thinking the fallout from this move will be disastrous. These are the ideas that fundamentally change the fabric of a society. Now the Government will use Eminent domain whenever a private entity is acting against the social interests of the citizens, whilst many will applaud such a move I fear it gives the Government and elect…

Without discussing the merits of this particular case (of which I have no knowledge aside from the article, and the facts might be, as cynicalkane claims, quite different), I'd like to say something about the premise of your argument from a more philosophical point of view. Elected officials are representatives of the populace. "Government" is, then, is not some alien entity, but at least in principle, the voice of t…

government is therefore not the taker of all things, but the giver of all things

It is dangerous to view it literally this way. To think that government and/or society is giving you things, assumes that they owned them to begin with. Government owns your rights, and then "graciously" allow you to exercise them? No.

Government exists to protect your rights. It's an important distinction. You rights to life, liberty, property, etc. are innate to you as a human being (the fact that others in the past have not had this view does not disprove this philosophy), and we created government and the notion of a rule of law to protect those rights.

Of course not all systems of government work this way, we call those that view themselves as the arbitrary "giver of all things" tyrannies.

Re: Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

#50
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this system becomes routine, mortgage rates will go up, though I'm not sure about "huge premiums." Is that a bad thing? The investment becomes risker and more expensive, so less money is available, so fewer mortgages are made. More people rent instead of buy their own homes. I would submit that fewer owner-occupied homes would be a positive thing for the national economy.

Fewer mortgages = lower property prices. No mortgages = 10x lower property prices.

No mortgages = Detroit. The end result of this idea is not pretty.
Post reply on HN