Bad news for CA housing recovery

July 9, 2012

By Steven Greenhut

SACRAMENTO — Just as the housing industry is showing signs of recovery, California’s Democratic officials have concocted a “solution” that adds regulations and higher costs to the foreclosure process. These are the same officials who can’t produce an honest budget and refuse to deal with a deepening public-employee pension crisis and other issues under their purview, but once again they think they can correct problems in complex private markets.

The newspaper photograph from Tuesday showed legislators and the state attorney general congratulating themselves for their work on a Homeowner Bill of Rights, which they believe will be emulated in other states. It is based on a national legal settlement between states and five banks and is likely to be signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Most news coverage makes the legislation sound benign. The bills would stop lenders from engaging in “dual tracking,” whereby they engage a distressed homeowner in a loan modification while also beginning the foreclosure process. The legislation also would require banks to assign one group of employees to deal with each person’s mortgage situation and ban those robo-signed documents.

I’ve dealt with banks in buying and selling houses, and they are almost as bureaucratic and uncaring as government officials, so I understand those complaints.

But summaries of the legislation, authored by the California Chamber of Commerce, get to the heart of the problem: The legislation “[c]reates procedural traps to impede the foreclosure process and delay lenders’ ability to recover collateral legitimately in foreclosure, and creates a private right of action that could discourage investment in California’s housing market and make capital more expensive for consumers.”

Increased costs

A recent study from Beacon Economics finds that various proposed mortgage reforms will delay the foreclosure process and thereby increase the costs of this process. That will only make it harder for these properties to work their way out of the system, increase lending costs and tie everything up in litigation and red tape. The real key to reform is letting the market sort itself out, not creating a vast expansion of damages that attorneys representing homeowners can seek.

A Sacramento Bee editorial supported the bills, but noted:

“But once the measures take effect, legislators need to monitor them to ensure their actions don’t have unintended impacts on the housing market, as banks, real estate agents and the California Chamber of Commerce have warned.”

Can anyone who covers the state Capitol seriously believe such monitoring will happen or that the same people who created these bad bills will know what to do to fix them once things go awry?

Everyone at the Capitol ought to read this part of the Beacon report:

“All indications show that the number of distressed mortgages in California has fallen dramatically from its high of three years ago, even as the overall market has begun to find its footing. Sales are trending up, and prices have started to move off their 2011 bottom.”

That conclusion conforms to what I’ve been reading and seeing, as short sales have helped work distressed properties out of the system.


In stronger markets, such as Orange County, there’s heated competition to buy foreclosed properties. Even in some hard-pressed inland housing markets, prices are going up slightly. These are important signs of life in the housing market. What will happen when more lawyers get involved, and more regulators require an even taller stack of documents for each transaction?

Even the Sacramento crowd has been one-upped for heavy-handed governmental ideas by officials in San Bernardino County and in the cities of Fontana and Ontario. Officials there created a new government entity, a joint-powers authority, that will be empowered to seize thousands of underwater mortgages.


It’s a convoluted scheme — concocted by an influential group of San Francisco investors called Mortgage Resolution Partners — that is brilliant in a sinister way.

Let’s say you owe $400,000 on your home, and it is now worth $200,000.

The government will use eminent domain – not to take your home by force but to take the note by force from your lender. With eminent domain, the government pays “fair market value” for the property, but experts say the note holders would be paid a wholesale value of about 20 percent less than the value of the property. In this hypothetical case, your bank would be paid $160,000.

The process would be funded by the new investors. You, the homeowner, would now be paying on that lower $160,000 figure, which would make your payments go down. The government believes it will be fixing the foreclosure crisis by eliminating your negative equity and encouraging you to stay in your home. And the firm that finances this (either MRP, or another company like it) will get properties on the cheap and will restructure the new loans on them, thus creating a fortune for investors.

It’s a “win-win,” according to supporters, except that it comes out of the hide of the current lenders, who would lose their property – or at least lose the chance to collect the money owed them. I can come up with a similar “win-win” scheme whereby I steal your money and spend it on a new car. Don’t complain. It’s a “win-win” for me, the car dealer and even the DMV.

For those who shrug off this money grab out of dislike for banks, consider that the plan, in order to avoid political push-back, exempts all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages and those held by major banks, so it only targets privately held mortgages.

This is a troubling abuse of government power to advance the interests of private parties. Likewise, the only beneficiaries from the new Homeowner Bill of Rights will be private attorneys who gain a new target. These laws aren’t about fixing the mortgage crisis. They are about special interests using government to help them get their piece of the action before the crisis goes away.


Related Articles

State: a sea of cluelessness

AUGUST 13, 2010 Earlier this week I beat up on the California High Speed Rail Authority for failing to provide

LAO Says Zero Out AB 32 Funding

MAY 4, 2011 California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is in every sense of the word a landmark piece

Cap and trade, or tax and raid?

Aug. 28, 2012 Katy Grimes: An auction tax is one of the proposed methods for allocating permits to California businesses and public