« Looking for My Return | Main | Failed States »

McCain's Mortgage "Plan"

26 Mar 2008 03:12 pm

I was a little bit confused initially by John McCain's plan to deal with the crisis in the housing markets because on first read there doesn't seem to be a plan there at all. On second read, there's just no plan. Rather, there's fear that there might be a plan. But John McCain's promising to put a stop to that. Ryan Avent remarks:

As best I can tell, he must figure that offering a mortgage policy solution that’s far stingier than that put forth by one of the least popular presidents in modern times will burnish his maverick image, thus earning him more press cred. And then maybe the press won’t really talk that much about his stingy mortgage policy? He’d better hope they don’t, because if the American public finds out that he feels Bear deserved its bailout and homeowners deserve nothing, they’re going to be pissed.

Right. McCain's thinking on economics seems driven by a kind of "eat your peas" moralism. The press, which always favors economic pain for people other than themselves, their owners, and their advertisers tends to like this sort of thing. Like when McCain tried to run in the Michigan primary by promising voters that he thought their state's economy was doomed. But actual voters don't much like that kind of thing; I think there's skeptical as to how much different government policy makes in their lives, but they want policymakers to be at least trying to make their lives better.

Share This

Comments (19)

No worries. The WaPo just devoted five adorable pages to Meghan McCain's blog.

No worries. The WaPo just devoted five adorable pages to Meghan McCain's blog.

Let's see:
- no bailouts for big banks
- no bailouts for speculators, purchasers of second homes, etc.
- focus assistance strictly on people in trouble over their own one home.

Why does that actually sound like a pretty liberal approach? Even if it did come from McCain, rather than Clinton or Obama.

I love Firefox. It makes your point twice.

I heard an interview on NPR yesterday with Ryan Lizza. He was creaming in his panties about what a great wonderful likeable guy McCain is.

The press corp is in the tank.

Let's see:
- no bailouts for big banks
- no bailouts for speculators, purchasers of second homes, etc.
- focus assistance strictly on people in trouble over their own one home.

Why does that actually sound like a pretty liberal approach? Even if it did come from McCain, rather than Clinton or Obama.

Except that McCain isn't actually against bailouts for large financial institutions, and hasn't actually proposed any assistance for people in trouble over their primary residences.

Nope. McCain is not "eat your peas." He came out against mark-to-market accounting. Mark-to-market is "eat your peas" accounting; historical cost basis is kinder and gentler. In mark-to-market, the reporting entity must use the present market value of financial assets. Historical cost basis starts by valuing a financial asset at its purchase price and then leaves discretionary room for reserving against losses. The regulators moved to mark-to-market precisely because it allows less room for discretion.

Eat your peas isn't necessarily good public policy; there are plenty of arguments for historical cost basis. My only point is that McCain is even more incoherent than Matthew suggests.

Nope. McCain is not "eat your peas." He came out against mark-to-market accounting. Mark-to-market is "eat your peas" accounting; historical cost basis is kinder and gentler. In mark-to-market, the reporting entity must use the present market value of financial assets. Historical cost basis starts by valuing a financial asset at its purchase price and then leaves discretionary room for reserving against losses. The regulators moved to mark-to-market precisely because it allows less room for discretion.

Eat your peas isn't necessarily good public policy; there are plenty of arguments for historical cost basis. My only point is that McCain is even more incoherent than Matthew suggests.

Huh--seems like an epidemic of double posting. I once got stuck in the 'preview' phase and TRIPLE posted on Atlantic so I better be careful today.

Here's the on-topic content: McCain is a romantic of nationalism. His 'plan' attempts to use the 'discipline' of the market to teach borrowers and lenders alike that they had sinned by their arrogant speculation and are weakening This Great Nation. So they will be sent to bed with no supper with the hope that they'll wake up in the morning chastened and resolve to be good soldiers in the future.

The standard he applies is not justice-and-fairness and it's not a cool management problem to expand wealth and spread it around. His standard is whether the economy makes America greater and stronger. If the economy does that, it's working. If not, we're failing and require being taught a lesson.

That romantic notion has a kind of appeal but I don't think it'll sell in November.

Aside from their being no specifics, McCain's approach makes sense. Why bail out homeonwers and lenders who got greedy? If you took out a mortgage you can't afford, or bought a security you didn't understand, I'm not sure why the government should be using taxpayer money to bail those people out. It's actually refreshing to see this approach.

Of course, since McCain hasn't actually put forward a coherent plan, my saying nice things about him comes with a bunch of caveats.

Matt, why do you assume bailing out overstretched homeowners is a good thing? It seems like a kneejerk reaction. I'm with the crazy old man on this one.

Helter's got a point. See also Ethan Penner's op/ed in yesterday's WSJ, "Of Markets and Mortgages". It's one of the more intelligent, nuanced, and least knee-jerk essays on the mortgage/real estate mess I've read so far.

Hillary's plan to freeze interest rates on ARMs across the board is excessive, and not all distressed homeowners should be bailed out, but it also doesn't make sense for the government to sit on its hands and let a tsunami of foreclosures devastate the economy and the social fabric. Discriminating support for those who could afford their mortgage payments at reasonable rates but were bamboozled into exotic ARMS makes sense.

McCain's support for homeowners boils down to asking lenders to be nice while subjecting banks to *less* regulation. His speech oozed contempt for homeowners in trouble, and spanked mortgage lenders, but when it came to explaining Wall Street's role the narrative grew strangely detached.

Freezing any mortgage rates by fiat would invariably lead to higher mortgage rates in the future. If lenders knew there was a possibility that the federal government could decide to re-write mortgage contracts at any time, lenders would demand higher rates as a premium to compensate them for that risk. That's an example of a knee-jerk policy response that would do more harm than good in the long run. It would be of a piece with the short-sighted policies that encouraged lenders to extend credit to these marginal borrowers in the first place.

Re: Freezing any mortgage rates by fiat would invariably lead to higher mortgage rates in the future.

Oh simply to a preference to write fixed rate mortgages rather than ARMS and other exotic products. After all, if the interest rate is fixed to begin with the lenders need not fear that the government will come along and fix it by fiat.

See also Ethan Penner's op/ed in yesterday's WSJ, "Of Markets and Mortgages". It's one of the more intelligent, nuanced, and least knee-jerk essays on the mortgage/real estate mess I've read so far

Wasn't Penner the guy who almost bankrupted his big Wall Street firm by freely making gigantic (often fraudulent) commercial loans, then securitizing them and booking the immediate profits to enhance his personal bonus? I vaguely recall that before everything blew up he personally made off with something like $100M---back when that was BIG money.

Since people are mostly morons with zero memory, he's obviously the ideal person to provide his opinion on the current generation of Wall Street thieves. Maybe in other year or two, the Enron people will start writing op-eds on accounting rules.

"After all, if the interest rate is fixed to begin with the lenders need not fear that the government will come along and fix it by fiat."

No, they would just have to fear having the government lower the rate by fiat. That would increase their risk, and they would demand a higher interest rate as a risk premium.

Re: No, they would just have to fear having the government lower the rate by fiat.

Why? I mean, there would be no precedent for that move since what we are talking about now is freezing rates on ARMS, not doing anything at all to fixed rate mortgages. Moreover for non-fixed rate mortagges the lenders already need to fear government action on interest rates given that the Fed has been lowering interest rates for months now.
Again, I think a freeze on ARM rates would make banks less likely to offer these products, which is to the good really since they are what has caused the lion's share of this mess, but would have no effect on fixed rate products.

"Wasn't Penner the guy who almost bankrupted his big Wall Street firm by freely making gigantic (often fraudulent) commercial loans, then securitizing them and booking the immediate profits to enhance his personal bonus?"

He did pioneer some forms of securitized commercial mortgages and was around when that credit bubble burst, but I haven't heard any accusations of fraud being leveled against him.

"Why?"

Because it sets a precedent that mortgage contracts can be arbitrarily re-written by the federal government en masse.

Also, your blanket condemnation of adjustable rate mortgages is unwarranted. They make plenty of sense and save homeowners money in some cases. I used one myself when I bought my place 8 years ago and 30-year fixed rates were at 9% -- I got an ARM for 8.5%. Then I refinanced a couple of years later to a fixed at 7%.


Comments closed April 09, 2008.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.