When home prices begin to fall, a natural level of weak support may develop around a loan-to-value ratio of one. That is, when equity in a home approaches zero, the homeowner ought to become reluctant to sell. History suggests any such strategy should prove foolhardy. Trends in housing tend to be long and headstrong, and hence not easily resisted…The development of significantly negative home equity among the same homeowners that also comprise the world’s most voracious consumers would likely trigger several economic problems…banks would become reluctant to lend to home buyers. The effect would be to contract the credit available to would-be homeowners and therefore severely undercut the main late-cycle driver of demand…These problems would compound the worsening domestic employment situation, further reducing demand for residential housing and thereby producing the requisite positive feedback loop that historically has allowed burgeoning asset deflation to accelerate. As the real estate deflation wears on, it would not be unreasonable to expect that unemployment-induced income shocks mix in toxic fashion with the comparatively high mobility tolerance of the United States citizenry, motivating homeowners to start sending their keys to the bank in ever-increasing numbers. Many banks taking possession of increasing amounts of real estate will ultimately fail themselves. A catharsis could then take shape, and home prices would leg down yet again. After much pain both despair and disgust will settle in, and a bottom would begin to form.

-Scion 2Q 2003 Letter to Investors

Ms. Morgenson:

Regarding MERS, a few months ago I read that MERS was actually conceived by Fannie Mae and the concept was described in a presentation given at a Mortgage Bankers Association convention in 1993 or 1994. The article claimed Fannie got positive feedback on the MERS concept from the mortgage bankers. The article claimed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then funded the development of MERS with contributions of 2 million dollars each. After MERS was 'brought live' Fannie and Freddie invited large mortgage industry members to join MERS on a subscription basis.

I've searched again for the article(s) recently, but I haven't been able to find the articles that described the actual creation of MERS. Perhaps the articles have been "scrubbed".

What I read seems to confirm the leadership role that Fannie and Freddie had, and the ways these two GSE's influenced and led the industry, and how they shaped practices in the industry. You might find the two articles referenced below interesting:

Is FM Watch a Crusader With an Agenda? By Louis Sichelman – RealtyTimes, pub. 7/5/1999 at: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/19990705_fmwatch.htm

New Alliance Confronts FM Watch, Champions Existing Housing Finance System By Broderick Perkins RealtyTimes, pub. 10/5/2000>  http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20001005_fmwatch.htm

During a December 15, 2010 U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee hearing witnesses gave testimony on issues relating to "Mortgage Servicing and Foreclosure Practices".¹

A critical focus of the testimony and discussion was apparent problems with the recordation of land title and note ownership. Witnesses claimed that the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)² has failed to reliably record changes in title and note ownership (chain-of-title). The accompanying video-clip is a segment from the C-SPAN video of the hearing:

If you are not familiar with MERS do a key-word-search for more information.

Footnotes:

1. see, C-SPAN Video Library, Mortgage Servicing and Foreclosure Practices House of Representatives Judiciary Committee December 15, 2010 at: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/297095-1

2. see, Washington Post - October 8, 2010 article titled, Reston Based Company MERS in Middle of Foreclosure Chaos By Brady Dennis and Ariana Eunjun Cha at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100702742.html

 

 

Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives July 16, 2002*

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.

One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

See transcript at: http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=323&Itemid=60

An excerpt from an article which appeared in The Wall Street Journal Opinion Section – December 8, 2011

Subsidizing Wall Street to Buy Chinese Solar Panels*

By T.J. RODGERS

At the end of the recently released film "Margin Call," the chairman of the fictional investment bank that triggered the mortgage-backed securities meltdown sits in his executive dining room, looking down on the Hudson River sunset while enjoying a steak and an expensive bottle of Bordeaux. Why not? He has just saved billions for his shareholders by dumping the firm's entire "toxic loan" portfolio in one hectic trading day. Just before giving a bonus to the brilliant analyst who foresaw the meltdown only hours in advance, the chairman predicts, "There's going to be a lot of money made coming out of this mess."  

Wall Street understands how to make money, up-market or down. "Margin Call" may fuel Occupy movement ire, but in creating mortgage-backed securities, Wall Street did nothing other than facilitate home-financing access to the next tier of less-qualified home buyers, as demanded by every president since Bill Clinton. After that, the bankers did exactly what their shareholders wanted: bundle those risky loans into securities, sell them to lock in the profits, and dump the risk right back onto the federal government—where it belonged.

My purpose is not to debate the morality of mortgage-backed securities but to update the Law of Unintended Consequences with the corollary Law of Misguided Subsidies: Whenever Washington disrupts a market by dumping subsidies into it, Wall Street will find a way to pocket a majority of the money while the intended subsidy beneficiaries are harmed by the resulting market turmoil.

The recent crash in mortgage-backed securities was a near-repeat of the savings-and-loan crash of the 1980s, in which Washington insured the S&L industry but failed to set limits on high-risk loans. When the bubble burst, Washington paid Wall Street the insurance money while homeowners lost huge sums in real-estate hell. Wall Street understands how to manage risk; the federal government and consumers do not.

---

 

 

The complete article may be seen at:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204903804577082631863392956-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwNTExNDUyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

See an article announcing the Massachusetts Attorney General’s lawsuit against firms in the mortgage industry.

http://realestate.msn.com/blogs/listedblogpost.aspx?post=f996a28d-1b02-4ceb-bf07-ac8483393a03

 

Also, watch this brief video-clip of Georgetown Law Professor Adam Levitin’s testimony before Congress titled, “Federal Regulators Don’t Want to Know: The Blind-Eye Policy” at>

 

The Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) which is mentioned in the lead article is based upon a concept and operating model which was proposed to The Mortgage Bankers Association by the GSE’s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at a Mortgage Bankers Association meeting in the mid-1990’s. The Mortgage Bankers seemed to like the concept, so Fannie and Freddie financed the creation of MERS with a contribution of 2 million dollars each (from Fannie and Freddie). After MERS was created, Fannie and Freddie invited other major mortgage banking entities to join the MERS via an annual subscription arrangement.

 

The structure and the processes in the MERS system seem to have had some “destined to fail” characteristics which would make an interesting case study of ‘management control and audit procedures’. And, the system also raises some questions about the legality of the system’s processes in the context of common law of land title conveyance. See, “Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System’s Land Title Theory” by Professor Christopher L. Peterson at > http://search.earthlink.net/search?q=Two+Faces%3A+Demystifying+the+Mortgage&area=earthlink-ws&channel=sbt_sgin&abtcgid=219&abtli=1

 

In late 2010 in a hearing before a Congressional Banking Committee the acting U.S. Controller of The Currency, John Walsh, stated that results from a multi-agency investigation of MERS would be released in early January of 2011. (The investigation was led by The Office of the Controller of The Currency. I never could find the results of that investigation).

 

A bit off-point, but still interesting, current California Governor, Jerry Brown, was the Attorney General of the State of California from 2007-2011. For much of that same period Jerry Brown’s sister, Kathleen Brown, was a member of the Board-of-Directors of Countrywide Financial [Henry Cisneros former Director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), during President Bill Clinton’s first term in office, was also on the board at Countrywide during that time]. Kathleen Brown resigned from that board of directors shortly after information about the depth of Countrywide’s financial problems became public and only weeks before Bank of America acquired Countrywide. A few months later, when Jerry Brown was elected governor of California, Kathleen Brown almost immediately moved her Goldman Sachs municipal finance consulting office from Los Angeles, CA to Chicago, IL ‘to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest’ with her brother’s gubernatorial administration. (See, “The Tragedy of Countrywide and Angelo Mozilo” at > http://news.muckety.com/2008/06/26/the-tragedy-of-countrywide-financial-and-angelo-mozilo/3712 and see Kathleen Brown's Wikipedia at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Brown