Neel Kashkari says political realities made it impossible for the government to do anything that would actually solve the housing crash. Kashkari is that Goldman Sachs guy who became an assistant Treasury secretary under Henry Paulson. He was the head of the Office of Financial Stability and ran TARP, where he worked on all those failed plans, like HARP and HAMP. Now, he’s with the gigantic bond fund, PIMCO. It’s still true, he says.
Given this political reality, we need either to agree, as a nation, to spend substantial taxpayer dollars to reach more homeowners, or the federal government should focus on programs to quickly move troubled homeowners to affordable rentals and, most important, focus on pro-growth economic policy to create jobs.
Kashkari is probably talking his book when he suggests throwing money at homeowners. it’s likely that PIMCO would profit handsomely if the government offered tons of cash to strapped homeowners to give to their lenders. You will recall that the goal of TARP as conceived by Paulson was to use federal dollars to buy up real estate mortgage-backed securities from the teetering banks at prices far above the market. There is still a lingering hope that Geithner will find some way to do this. Maybe they can do a settlement agreement with giant banks calling for principal reductions on firsts without getting rid of the seconds. Oh wait, that already happened.
Why not at least mention cramdown? I know it’s dead too, killed by the banks, but it was a brilliant plan, especially because it doesn’t cost taxpayers anything, and those homeowners who don’t want to help their neighbors can’t complain. I first heard about it in late 2007 at a bankruptcy seminar. My friend explained that the Bankruptcy Code would be amended to allow people to cram down a first mortgage in Chapter 13. The main requirement for filing Chapter 13 is having a reasonably stable income.
The Debtors and the Lender would go before a Bankruptcy Judge to determine the fair market value of the home. The Court would have the power to lower the mortgage balance to that amount, and to reset the monthly mortgage payment to reflect a term of 30 years at a fair interest rate. All under water liens would be cancelled. All junior lienholders, and the first mortgage holder to the extent of its deficiency, would be treated as unsecured creditors and would be paid some percentage along with other unsecured creditors over five years, after which the balance of the unsecured debt would be discharged in full. The net result would be families staying in their home with enough income to pay all their debts. On the other hand, if the family couldn’t make the payments, they could convert to Chapter 7, dump their debt, and move ahead.
So, what’s the problem? Banks hated the plan. They made up a bunch of PR reasons why it was a bad idea, like possible increase in interest rates in the future. Those excuses were despicable lies. The bankers feared that this change would give households power to force them to negotiate instead of acting unilaterally. Cramdown focused on the results of years of bank lobbying state legislatures to take from borrowers all the protections created by the Common Law or consumer protection statutes.
Even worse, it would force lenders to prove they had rights in the collateral. That wouldn’t be possible in many cases.
Banks large and small called in favors from their gullible and/or corrupt congressionals, and killed the bill. The decision to kill it was a rare example of bipartisanship, with plenty of Democrats voting no.
The hypocrisy of the vote is painfully tangible. Both parties pretend to believe in free markets, but here was a chance to even up a market that was totally one-sided in favor of the banks. Congress made sure the banks would have all the market power and the homeowners would have none. Then to top it off, they claimed it would be immoral for homeowners to walk away from their debts. They pretended that underwater homeowners caused the Great Crash was their they should bear all the losses, even though banks had rigged the game.
And, of course, no one goes to jail.
With that huge victory in hand, Kashkari wants more cash for those cheating lenders. No wonder these guys are rich, they never stop asking for other people’s money.




28 Comments

The interfering middle class will be a thing of the past.
They want it all, and then some.
Is this guy the second term replacement for Geithner or Summers?
Kash&kari’s TARP solution: “Give us more, more, more, and it’ll all get better.”
Cash and Carry Gold
Man Sacks, Intense Laser Beam Focus
Focus? Yes. All us
Kashkari has looked psychotic in that photo ever since it was released during the Bush years. Minus the flag it could be a mug shot or wanted-man image, and with the flag it takes on a very Heil-Der-Fuehrer quality.
Every time I hear about this guy I think about his leaving DC and going to build a cabin in the Nevada outback. I think he was preparing for the economy to collapse and have his hideout from the mass of angry people.
http://www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/351/Bailout-point-man-Neel-Kashkari-living-in-Nevada-wilderness-building-a-shed.aspx
familiar story
My order of preference is:
1. Cancelation of the improper debt. This law has been around since . . . well before the American Revolution. Back in that day, English bankers would lend to farming colonists and then demand payment one week prior to the harvest. The farmer would eventually be forced to forfeit most of his crops if not his estate to the banker. The colonists enacted a law that stated the terms of the loan must be such that the borrower has the ability to pay back the debt (i.e. loans cannot be forced to be made due prior to the harvest). The net effect is that if a bank designs a loan that will force a borrower into default by its nature is voided. Using this as a starting point would put the bankers on notice.
2. Cram down.
3. Split the mortgage into two notes. The first would represent a cram down. The second would consist of that portion previously crammed down. If housing prices recover AND the seller sells, the second notes gets a portion of the profits. If the housing market does not recover, then the second note becomes worthless.
Good timing, the example of colonial loans. I personally believe that the economic policies if today, were they comprehensible to the King of England and the banks of that day, would be seen very favorably by those parties.
Neel Kashkari is going to be remembered as one of the screw ups that fucked America into the ground along with Paulson, Timmy, and the rest of the wrecking crew.
Kashkari is the same SOB who, when questioned by Congress about where all the bailout money went, wanted to use that time to tell Congress, instead, about needing to privatize Social Security for his ***real*** employer Goldman Sachs.
Those blazing crazy eyes of his are really blazing crazy. All these guys know is they have Americans over a barrel and they are gonna have their way with us without mercilessly and without apology.
Thanks Obama and Dems, Sorry as F*ck we wasted out time being fooled by you.
Oh whey oh
Walk like and Icelander
Oh whey oh
I don’t believe this is quite correct:
Cynthia & I have exchanged brief ideas on this. I believe we agreed the bankers had some foresight of the coming storm, and the removal of cramdown was premeditated on the coming storm.
Does this guy have that serial killer look about him, or what?
“like possible increase in interest rates in the future.”; and THAT’S coming a lot sooner than most are anticipating anyway.
“Even worse, it would force lenders to prove they had rights in the collateral.” ; BINGO !!!
The Supreme Court ruled that cramdown would not be available for homeowners in Chapter 13 in 1992, in Dewsnup v. Timm. The matter was litigated through the 80s, and arises from language in the original Bankruptcy Code that was passed in 1978. When some homeowners tried Chapter 11, the banks rushed to their toady congressionals and got a law change in 1994. I mentioned that banks set up all the laws to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.
They made the same argument about interest rates in court and in all their lobbying. Apparently no one noticed that we could conduct an actual comparison to find out the impact of cramdown on interest rates. In some states there are no deficiencies, meaning that the bank can’t collect more than the fair value of the collateral. That is the result of cramdown. So, we have a natural comparison, we could check interest rates in both kinds of states. There is a minor difference, but it isn’t enough to matter. That’s why I say the banks are despicable liars.
Oddly, Scalia dissented in Dewsnup on the grounds that the language of the 1978 was quite clear, and allowed cramdown.
Cramdowns on primary residence mortgages was prohibited in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, which doesn’t necessarily obviate your hunches about how long some of these guys might have been thinking about this heist (I think for at least that long), but still leaves room for the more recent opposition to modifying that law to be based in keeping clear of negotiations.
D’oh! Guess masaccio’s arrived after I’d begun mine. Sorry!%)
interesting article .. thanks!
Kashkari was following the blue print layed out in the Break the Glass document, the plan was worked out 6 months before Paulson got on his knees and begged Pelosi to whip the Democrats harder for a second vote on the bail out.
Andrew Ross Sorkin has it on his site.
I hope this is not too tangential to this diary – from the comments at Thursday’s Links post at naked capitalism:
How did we wind up with two consecutive administrations where all members should be in jail ?
Rhetorical question, right?
Got a link to see Scalia’s opinion?
Found it
And the opinion Scalia AND Souter disagreed with:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dewsnup_v._Timm
“tons of cash to give their lenders” was not what he said
And I am in favor of incentives to get modified loans to current loan holders – refi’s – at current market rates – with no underwriting for “credit” or other pretend reasons to dent or make more costly such refi – and to reduce foreclosure for those that can afford payments based on current market value (principal reduction).
Keys for lease is a much less disruptive program that toss on the street.
While I agree that Obama has been in the back pocket of the investment banks that were the derivative makers and which run Wall Street – but not all that nice to all the other banks – the proposals we finally are getting are not all that bad. Indeed that is why we will probably never see them enacted.
Yes, and this looks like a good summary from his opinion:
Kashkari says: “Given this political reality, we need either to agree, as a nation, to spend substantial taxpayer dollars to reach more homeowners”. What would be done with the money if it isn’t used to pay lenders?
Why not cramdown the interest rate? The Fed is already lending the banks money at 0% !