BANKTHINK
Partner Insights

Eminent Domain: Eminently Suitable for Defaulted Loans

Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (13)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

A remarkable result of the housing crash has been the revelation that although local governments retain legal authority over real estate — taxes, title, recordation, foreclosure — 100% of them lack the will or the way to protect constituents from a horrific, slow-motion disaster.

If they won't use their powers constructively, then reduce complexity by having Washington centralize all this — such as title registry. That might even save money and thin the fog.

But Washington has done little that has been quantitatively effective in reducing the enormous costs and collateral damage associated with forcing out owners and throwing properties on the market.

Now comes a new idea: San Bernardino County, California, is considering acquisition by private investors via eminent domain of home-secured loans, to protect homeownership while delivering the market value of the old loans to their owners.

Many vested interests, starting with large banks and other investors who don't want to recognize losses, particularly on second lien loans, object vociferously to getting paid off at market. That's odd if their accounting is honest—but they're entitled to pursue their perceived self-interest. The people of our political subdivisions are likewise entitled to exercise their legal rights.

What legal rights? According to some commentators, this program is unconstitutional. First we are told eminent domain doesn't apply because there is no "public purpose." Ridiculous excuse. Protecting and improving neighborhoods, as with eminent domain for urban renewal, is a well-tested public purpose.

Second we're told that the program breaches the "sanctity of contracts." Indeed it does. After prior misreading of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, state legislative enactments have breached the "sanctity of contracts" to serve a public purpose with support from the Supreme Court since 1937 (West Coast Hotel Co. vs. Parrish). Now we again have what that Court referred to as "unparalleled demands for relief."

I do not argue for the specifics of the San Bernardino plan, but rather for flexible use of eminent domain, which fits specific classes of situations such as: The homeowner can't pay on his current mortgage loans, but he's able and willing to pay on a new mortgage loan with value at least as high as the reduced market value of his present loans.

A concrete example: Suppose the customer's payments under a 30-year government-backed fixed-rate mortgage, plus home equity loan — averaging a 6.5% rate — aren't affordable. He's paying only on the home equity. The total market value of the loans is only 50% of the balance.

Maybe he can make the much smaller payments — approximately half as large — under a new mortgage with no reduction in principal, but interest-only payments for 10 years with initial rate of 3.25%. This isn't a modification. It's a single new mortgage which should receive the same government backing, since it's more affordable.

Between the mortgage servicer settlement, legacy Countrywide, investors and various federal interventions, the refinancing of the old mortgages doesn't get done. So, the borrower, even after being magnanimously accorded the highly-touted advantages of "single point of contact" and "no dual tracking," is likely to lose his home.

Fix this: Cut the fiddling with securities trustees and owners of seconds. If the holders of the existing loan can give the borrower a better deal than the outside investor proposes, let them do so. Otherwise, the investor gets the loans.

Why does this idea upset almost everyone? First, it requires the current owners of the debt to recognize their losses. Maybe up to now their accountants and regulators have helped or allowed them to avoid this.

Second, the servicers who have been paid to mess with these mortgage problems—ineffectually, but profitably — don't want the game moved off their turf.

Then, there are the special pleaders who insist that the right solution always requires reducing principal to or below market value of the home. Reduce the principal every year? Every day? Somehow, it's OK to lose money on your investment or pension account, but never on your home.

Rates have dropped precipitously. Reducing the interest to market — which, under our inherited system, has become virtually a fundamental right of homeowners — is just too complicated without eminent domain because of the multiple consents required. Let's cut the knot, chop up the obsolete papers, and reduce the overhang of vulnerable mortgages. Next go after the mortgages on unforeclosed, abandoned properties that are not being maintained.

Washington isn't motivated to do this. Get out of the way and let governments that are closer to the people and have more direct eminent domain power do it.

Andrew Kahr is a principal in Credit Builders LLC, a financial product development company, and was the founding chief executive of First Deposit, later known as Providian.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(13) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

'I Want a Tom O'Brien Action Figure Doll': Comments of the Week

American Banker readers share their views on the most pressing banking topics of the week. Comments are excerpted from reader response sections of AmericanBanker.com articles and from our social media platforms.

(Image: Bloomberg News)

Comments (13)
Andrew - It must be nice to live in your world.
Posted by dakre98 | Tuesday, July 24 2012 at 2:13PM ET
So I have a borrower with a $10(M) Million Net Worth and a $1M home loan on a house now worth $500K and under this senario the bank gets to eat $500K and restructure the debt without being able to pursue our borrower for the $500K loss? Our down payment on future home loans will now be in the 35% to 50% range. This ought to stimulate the economy.
Posted by ibat26231501 | Tuesday, July 24 2012 at 2:19PM ET
So I have a borrower with a $10(M) Million Net Worth and a $1M home loan on a house now worth $500K and under this senario the bank gets to eat $500K and restructure the debt without being able to pursue our borrower for the $500K loss? Our down payment on future home loans will now be in the 35% to 50% range. This ought to stimulate the economy.
Posted by ibat26231501 | Tuesday, July 24 2012 at 2:19PM ET
Andrew you are living in a dream world. Your concept would basically stop securitization of Mortgages in America. It would stop Investment in Mortgages in America. How in will this help our economy?
Posted by robrose | Tuesday, July 24 2012 at 2:30PM ET
Every math professor I had in college was irrational and I had 6 of them. The one I had in multi-variable calculus had to be institutionalized mid-way through the course. Mr Kahr may be a good mathematician but he is essentially a socialist. He touts every socialist agenda from minimum wage to government seizure of assets. He is somewhat inconsistent when in one breath he wants the federal government to intervene. When they don't, he wants the power to be in the hands of local government that he just castigated. Like most elitists, he believes government control is the answer. From what I have seen of credit card issuers, he certainly is whistling a new tune these days.
Posted by John C | Tuesday, July 24 2012 at 2:34PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.