January, 08 2009, 11:34am EDT
REPORT: Time to Quarantine the Foreclosure Epidemic
In 1902, faced with an outbreak of smallpox, the City of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, adopted a mandatory vaccination law. Challenged by a Mr.
Henning Jacobson as an unconstitutional infringement upon his
liberties, this intrusion on individual rights was nonetheless upheld
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even more intrusive quarantines have been
found lawful as a means to stop the spread of plague, influenza, and
other cascading threats to the public health and well-being.
WASHINGTON
In 1902, faced with an outbreak of smallpox, the City of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, adopted a mandatory vaccination law. Challenged by a Mr.
Henning Jacobson as an unconstitutional infringement upon his
liberties, this intrusion on individual rights was nonetheless upheld
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even more intrusive quarantines have been
found lawful as a means to stop the spread of plague, influenza, and
other cascading threats to the public health and well-being.
Today, our country faces a different kind of epidemic. With house
prices having plunged again in November at possibly an all-time record
rapid drop, roughly 12 million borrowers now owe more than their homes
are worth--double the number from a year earlier and expected to rise
to nearly 15 million this year--while another 8.1 million foreclosures
are expected over the next four years. Over 1 in 10 Americans are in
mortgage default. It is time to re-evaluate how we think of the
situation.
By any reasonable measure, we confront a spreading foreclosure
epidemic that is eating away at the core of the nation's economic
health. However well-intentioned, private and governmental efforts to
date have not contained the damage. In the early stages of a public
health crisis, voluntary treatment of the ill also fails to stop the
spread of disease. What makes certain epidemics so devastating is that
normal delivery systems for patient treatment are overwhelmed by the
sheer number of cases all happening virtually at once.
Moreover, epidemics often infect health workers themselves, further
weakening the normal recovery systems. And when rising illness rates
and falling resources combine, the health care system is further left
unable to help other ill patients, who themselves then get sicker than
they might in normal times.
Looking at the current foreclosure crisis as an epidemic, the
parallels emerge. At a normal rate of borrower defaults, the financial
system can "clear," in industry parlance, bad assets such as troubled
home mortgages through workouts and occasional foreclosures. Today,
however, it is abundantly clear that multiple foreclosures in many
communities are infecting neighboring homes with rapid value
dissipation. If left unchecked, this will lead to further community
malaise due to lost tax revenues, increased crime and fire prevention,
and a general draining of public resources.
Similarly, some players in the financial system who could have
addressed scattered defaults themselves are "sickened" when
foreclosures soar. Over 100 mortgage companies that originated many of
the subprime mortgages are now out of business, and servicers who
remain suffer capacity shortages to deal effectively with all the
borrowers in need. Finally, homeowners with prime mortgages or good
incomes who might have not gone into default in normal times now see
themselves also "upside down," owing more on their home than it is
worth in the market, leading to home equity lines being called, or
lacking home equity to deal with what would otherwise be normal
borrowing for unexpected setbacks, college tuitions, and the like.
The upshot: Entire communities have become economic casualties of
the main epidemic, and this plague continues spreading. Consequently,
it is time we consider stronger measures--the economic equivalents of a
quarantine. What can be done? Several extraordinary actions for
extraordinary times need to be given greater urgency.
Exploding REMICS
Over nine months ago, the Center for American Progress put forward a proposal
by Michael Barr and James Feldman to modify the Real Estate Mortgage
Investment Conduit, or REMIC rules to open a path for the servicers of
loans to accelerate modifications and prevent unnecessary foreclosures.
In 2009, we need to go a step further than simply implementing these
needed changes.
REMIC status offers an enormous tax benefit to investors in the
residential mortgage trusts that hold millions of mortgages. Many
individual mortgages held in these pools are heading toward
foreclosure. Recognizing that REMIC status is a special privilege, it
is time to revoke REMIC status for any residential home mortgage
loan-holding entity that forecloses on more than a certain percentage
of all of its mortgages.
This step, alongside other REMIC and accounting changes outlined in
the CAP proposal and elsewhere, would free up the ability of mortgage
service companies that collect individual mortgage payments and
distribute them to their investors to modify troubled home mortgage
loans, or sell them off at a discount. The potential revocation of
REMIC status would dramatically incentivize loan servicers to halt
foreclosures and restructure loans to affordable levels, or sell them
to those willing to do so Getting defaulted mortgages out of the hands
of mortgage servicers so that systematic modifications based on
sustainable principal and interest payments is perhaps the only
broad-based approach likely to turn around the current price plunge.
Congress already authorized the Treasury Department through its
Troubled Assets Relief Program to buy up troubled mortgages, and
previously funded the Federal Housing Administration as a source of
refinancing. But to date, servicers have not been sellers. The economy
cannot afford any longer to wait for them to decide to seek the
economic equivalent of medical help. We need to put mortgages into
temporary foreclosure quarantine.
National foreclosure moratorium
In the 1930s, state after state adopted moratoriums on foreclosures, dramatic action upheld by
the U.S. Supreme Court. While hardly the best course of action in
normal times, barring foreclosures to stem the downward spiral is a
necessary part of a quarantine approach.
Even with the REMIC law changes, the sale of mortgages into the
control of parties motivated to make lasting loan modifications will
take some time under the best of circumstances. Congress could begin
with a six-month moratorium, a reasonable time for transfers to occur
and extendable if the situation has not improved. But given the
national economic consequences of the current foreclosure wildfire, a
federal moratorium approach is justified both to stop further price
declines and to make more aggressive loan modifications a better
alternative.
Even the bankruptcy playing field
As an adjunct to these other measures, granting borrowers in
bankruptcy proceedings the same mortgage modification rights enjoyed by
commercial real estate owners and even second-home owners is long overdue.
Currently, judges have no authority to force a lender to restructure a
homeowner's mortgage on a primary residence to a level that reflects
the current home value. This puts all the burden of the loss--which
clearly under today's circumstances is a loss in value beyond what
either party could have anticipated--only on the consumer.
Giving homeowners the same bankruptcy options as enjoyed by Donald
Trump is a fairer way to spread the burden of the current downturn and
gives lenders a needed incentive to reach a more realistic modification
to avoid the bankruptcy courts to begin with. Even those in the
financial services sector that have long opposed such a move,
among them Citigroup Inc., the National Association of Home Builders,
and the American Bankers Association, recognize this course of action
may now be needed. Indeed, serious studies have concluded that "mortgage markets are indifferent to bankruptcy modification risk."
Stronger government interventions in the market such as these will
inevitably raise objections. Some will argue that any change in the
current status quo will amount to a "taking" of private property. The
power to take such actions, however, was upheld in the Depression era,
and in other cases of economic necessity in the past. Indeed, forcing
the sale of mortgages outright by invoking eminent domain using
existing statutory powers was recently advocated by Harvard Law School Professor Howell Jackson.
In the end, the takings issue boils down, in the situation of a
frozen malfunctioning market, of whether the government is paying
owners just compensation. The financial complexity and split ownership
of mortgage-backed securities in which most mortgages are now bundled,
combined with buyers sitting on the sidelines while prices plunge,
makes it almost impossible for the marketplace to function properly.
Market dysfunction requires government action even though this may be
contentious, and our legal system has well-established mechanisms for
looking back and valuing property after it is taken.
Others will assert that some of the proposed actions will distort
the market, but that talismanic argument is belied by recent financial
history. If swifter action by regulatory authorities had been taken
initially to prevent the widespread selling of poor mortgage products,
and then to recognize the full scope of the home mortgage crisis and
prevent foreclosures, then our government would not have had to
intervene in the economy in a manner so forceful that it could hardly
have been imagined just 12 months ago. Given widespread current market
failure, bolder actions are necessary in the short term precisely
because we need the government to help restart a normally functioning
market balance between sellers and buyers of homes along with a stable
home mortgage finance system.
Finally, a common argument against intervention is the refrain that
since 90 percent of borrowers are still paying their mortgages, any
action to help defaulted borrowers avoid foreclosures will somehow
induce more borrowers to go into default. Yet the vast majority of the
90 percent who have not yet defaulted will not be eligible for any
modification as they still have reasonable equity cushions above their
mortgage balance, and/or their loan payments relative to income are
below the modification guidelines.
It is possible that at the margin, some borrowers looking ahead to a
time when they expect to hit trouble may default sooner. But defaulting
still comes at a great cost to the homeowner--a bad credit rating, very
time-consuming workout process, and heavy financial scrutiny. And of
course it is not as if we don't do these interventions, then no more
borrowers will go into default. The cost of staying on the current
course is almost certainly millions more foreclosures, and a dramatic
further drop in values for the rest of us.
As with a health epidemic, there is no way to perfectly match those
who need treatment with the remedies necessary under extreme
circumstances. Some who may get pulled into the quarantine who would
have recovered without it. But if conventional remedies were working,
then things would not have reached today's epidemic proportions.
The Center for American Progress is a think tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action. We combine bold policy ideas with a modern communications platform to help shape the national debate, expose the hollowness of conservative governing philosophy and challenge the media to cover the issues that truly matter.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular