patrick.net

Not if they can't recover all of the original principal sa. As Patrick says, it is a great gamble for homeonwers, if the price had gone up, big money, if the price drops, oh well too bad for the bank.

Countrywide is asking $1 for a few houses in Michigan.
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/would-you-like-a-1-house/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22132648/

"But George Miller, executive director of the American Securitization Forum, which represents companies that package mortgages into mortgage-backed securities, told reporters he expected the industry would face suits from investors unhappy that the original terms of the mortgages have been modified."

Malcolm, I see your point vividly.

It's my understanding where the trust's PSA prohibits workouts, none are made. According to sources other than Mr. Miller, however, it isn't at all uncommon for trust documents to include language permitting mods provided they don't run afoul of SFAS rules or jeopardize Q status.

If you'd like to take a look, plan details are here:

http://www.americanbanker.com/article.html?id=20071205XN6AZN3U

(requires registration - free week, so no fee)

Additional thought. The industry will undoubtedly hear from investors unhappy that original mortgage terms get modified. They should read what they are signing.

And some will file suits and enrich their attorneys.

I don't see how this plan can pass constitutional muster. First, these contracts with investors did not contain any clauses for modifications. Second, although the plan mentions that it's voluntary, it makes no difference. No party was representing the investors when the plan was made.

This seems like an abrogation of private contracts by the government, which violates the Contract Clause. It wouldn't surprise me if these investors demand a preliminary injunction to prevent the plan from going forward until the courts can determine what is fair under the law.

Either way, the plan is beyond ridiculous and will fail. Nothing but political posturing.

Thanks Bruce, RaiderJeff just did a nice job summing up my concerns though I do conceed that it is possible some agreements with servicers may allow them some autonomy. In any case it is moot because my concern is that the government will impose the freezes whether or not the terms exist. Furthermore I do agree with Raider's conclusions. My concerns are purely on principle, I think this is dangerous territory to venture into but, I do think it will be irrelevent in the long run but I caution everyone that these stringent tiers of borrower candidates will become more laxly interpreted.

And some will file suits and enrich their attorneys.

Ah, warms the cockles of my alleged heart. :)

Art. I section 10 [1] No State shall....pass any....Law imparing the Obligation of Contracts.

First of all it's the Feds, not the states. Second, it's been government's perogative to mess with contrats for decades. For example, if you signed a contract with a hit-man to take out your daughter's boyfriend, believe me the government would step in. Similarly with real estate law - most contracts up until a few years ago forbid re-selling to blacks or orientals. :( Try selling a slave to someone. Or selling dope to someone.

My question is, apart from tax-payer-funded "GSE"s, WHO, WHO, WHO will buy any mortgage MBS/CDO/CWPs right now? Any more fools out there?

Dennis,
10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Also, the legal theories you quote are when the government determines that contracts are or contain illegal provisions. No such allegations have been made, and if fraud is involved the courts are very sympathetic to the injured parties.

OO, that's why it is a really slippery slope, it destroys all credibility for such a trivial result. If we are going to compromise basic rights of commerce we shouldn't tap dance around it, let's just declare all of the subprime ARMs void because more voters would be better off.

OO and Malcom :

I will repost the link I did many posts ago.

http://blownmortgage.com/2007/09/16/do-you-think-chinas-gonna-forget/

(The only important piece in that post is views of some insider - of course all this is being written anonymously, so usual dosage of grains of salt is needed.)

The post talk about China (as investor) specifically. But it applies to all. The risk of government action is always factored into bond prices, although till now it's effect may have been negligible. From now on, it will not be so negligible.

That's the real point.

For all those disgusted (and to be clear, I am disgusted as well) about this situation, there is a positive side.

What is heartening to see is the reaction to this purely political plan. This is NOT being viewed as "Oh, our benevolent government is doing justice and helping the downtrodden". There is enough skepticism, strong criticism in media as well. The real spirit of free market lives in the mentality of people, although admittedly, this is hard to see while listening to politicians on either side.

This plan is wrong from a pure theoretical point of view and will fail in practical tests as well.

This is a NO HOPE TM plan.

ozajh Says:
@DS, you misunderstand me. I don’t think M****M made any sort of general disclosure.

(I also heard a rumour at one point that the “fix” that was applied has just pushed the critical date forward by a decade or so …)

M****m *claim* to have notified their customers of the problem in their 1998 or so Y2K disclosure document. I haven't seen that document, it predates my time and the purchase here was post 2000. However, they have removed the problem in their next release because of significant architecture changes -- I won't name the new product or the version numbers. The certain Defence Force is going to upgrade as part of their new logistics program, also unnamed -- which is essentially just a rebadged bundle of the upgraded ERP and a few add-ons.

M****m had at least 80 customers still on the Y2K7 problem version, and visited them all to gouge them separately for the 1 trivial fix they had to make, price based on the number of licenses they had, for a single central server fix. The fix essentially winds the clock back some 5 years, just subtracts 5 years worth of days from every Julian date in the system, and the date processing module has been recompiled to adjust and add 5 years in processing. So the clock's ticking again... Time to upgrade versions for a mere $200K (this for a 'lifetime free license and upgrades' product)

The 'single customer' story sounds more like a co-incidental finding of the problem and subsequent experience turned into folklore, but they may have made the discovery, who knows.

I've had enough of this vendor, basically our co is switching to SAP soon...

StuckInBA Says:
For all those disgusted (and to be clear, I am disgusted as well) about this situation, there is a positive side.

This is a NO HOPE TM plan.

In short, it's capitalise your gains, socia1ise your losses...

Put simply, tho, the Clinton plan to boost home ownership backfired *because* they dreamt up a 'market-based' solution of promoting sub-prime products to get people into housing, rather than doing something more interventionist. In fact, housing costs in the US have been historically low by international standards, so the fact that lots of people *still* couldn't afford to buy points to me to problems in wage-earning stability in the labour market due to an 'easy hire-fire' system, low minimum wages, low pay in general, etc... i.e. low levels of employee protection, security and remuneration for many workers in the present IR regime...

>> so the fact that lots of people *still* couldn’t afford to buy points to me to problems in wage-earning stability in the labour market due to an ‘easy hire-fire’ system, low minimum wages, low pay in general, etc… i.e. low levels of employee protection, security and remuneration for many workers in the present IR regime…

And through the house ownership SCAM, these low protected people gave away their life savings to rich bankers ....

Thanks StuckinBA, I read it and it is a very interesting account.

Malcolm, if you and RaiderJeff will indulge me to the extent of reading Tanta's initial reactions to the freeze proposal over at CR, I think most or all of your concerns are addressed there.

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/

Among other things, the post explores what modifications - and what restrictions on modifications - are commonly contained in PSAs. Jeff, your assertion that contracts contain no provision for mods is interesting. Citation?