News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by JumpCrisscross on Sunday October 06, 2013 @05:51AM (#6503628)
Richmond has decided to tear up a private contract to one side's advantage based on no pre-existing law. This is, generally, contrary to the principles of rule of law. The upside will be a short-term bump in Richmond's residents' balance sheets.

Courts are likely to strike this down. This will trash Richmond's public balance sheet. If courts allow this one would eventually expect private sector credit availability, to anyone in a low income neighbourhood, to dramatically re-price or freeze. It could also trigger a national housing credit, and price, pull-back.

Ironically either outcome will further impair Richmond property values, pushing more borrowers underwater and the city's tax income lower.

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by toomuchtodo on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:03AM (#6503647)
You're right. You know what would be easier? For all of Richmond to default on their mortgages.

Sidetrack: I put $50K into a townhouse in 2007 (my mistake!). I lost it all when the real estate market flopped. I walked away from the property because I wasn't willing to work for several years just to pay the principle down.

End result: No matter what, the real estate lost value. Either write it down now, or enjoy the pain as you write it off later (ie "extend and pretend": http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/megabanks-extend-and...).

What's that? Default judgement? Oh no. Bankruptcy. I still get to keep $1MM plus in retirement accounts, and I just can't buy another house for ~7 years. How horrible.

Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by JumpCrisscross on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:06AM (#6503653)
Couldn't agree more - default is the proper way to do this. Others include Richmond (a) buying underwater mortgages off investors and tearing them up or (b) making mortgage payments for its residents (an ersatz bail-out to investors).
Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by toomuchtodo on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:11AM (#6503659)
Agree. But! You're going to need to find a way to untangle which investor owns which mortgage (these are derivatives after all). I'd say you get 90 days as an investor to respond; after that, the city gets to take unilateral action.
Re:Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall... by JumpCrisscross on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:15AM (#6503666)
"But! You're going to need to find a way to untangle which investor owns which mortgage (these are derivatives after all)."

Mortgages are not derivatives, they are debts. Tracing the owner of a mortgage should not be challenging. In the event that it is, that becomes the mortgage servicer's fault, an issue between the investor and the servicer.