How Bush’s HUD responded to the mortgage crisis — or in this case, didn’t

I’ve marveled for years at the apparent corruption and incompetence in Bush’s Department of Housing and Urban Development, but the Washington Post ran a disconcerting front-page item yesterday explaining that mismanagement and criminal investigations arguably weren’t the most offensive part of Bush’s HUD.

In late 2006, as economists warned of an imminent housing market collapse, housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson repeatedly insisted that the mounting wave of mortgage failures was a short-term “correction.”

He pushed for legislation that would make it easier for federally backed lenders to make mortgage loans to risky borrowers who put less money down. He issued a rule that was criticized by law enforcement authorities because it could increase the difficulty of detecting and proving mortgage fraud.

As Jackson leaves office this week, much of the attention on his tenure has been focused on investigations into whether his agency directed housing contracts to his friends and political allies. But critics say an equally significant legacy of his four years as the nation’s top housing officer was gross inattention to the looming housing crisis.

They contend that Jackson ignored warnings from within his agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose inspector general told Congress that some of the secretary’s efforts were “ill-advised policy” and likely to put more families at risk of losing their homes.

Hmm, why does this sound so familiar? Bush puts an unqualified buddy in charge of a major federal agency, the Bush buddy ignores the concerns of qualified aides and experts, the buddy then sees a crisis emerge and chooses to intentionally not act, and when pressed for an explanation, the White House says Bush’s buddy is doing a heckuva job.

It seems to be a running theme with these guys.

And here’s the kicker:

During Jackson’s years on the job, foreclosures for loans insured by HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) have risen and default rates have hit a record high.

All the while, Jackson enjoyed a chef and a full-time security detail that trailed him to Washington social events. His office launched a new $7 million auditorium and cafeteria at HUD’s headquarters, money that some within the agency believed should have been directed toward housing for the poor. His office solicited an emergency bid to obtain oil portraits of Jackson and four other HUD secretaries at a cost to taxpayers of $100,000. (emphasis added)

The tragedy of it all is that Jackson was directed to take on a specific task: increase homeownership. For the White House, it was an end unto itself — if more people bought homes, it would be good for the economy, create more stable communities, etc. When the president would try to tout the “success” of his economic policies, he’d routinely point to increases in home ownership as a key indicator.

The problem, of course, was how Jackson and the Bush administration went about achieving that goal — by loosening regulations on borrowing and exacerbating the mortgage crisis.

But it was Jackson’s decision to honor himself that seals the deal. His portrait was considered an “emergency,” he hired himself a cook at public expense, and was one of the few cabinet secretaries to demand a full-time security detail, despite a low public profile.

And all of this comes on top of the fact that Bush’s HUD secretary has faced investigations from the Justice Department, his own agency’s inspector general, the FBI, and a federal grand jury.

If the housing crisis weren’t so serious, this kind of ridiculousness might even be laughable.

This is the kind of story that tend to bring out my paranoid conspiracy-seeking persona. The Cheney/Bush administration cares so little about the appearances, much less the substance, of its extensive disregard for law, ethics, the common good, etc. that I find it easy to entertain the notion that it doesn’t actually intend to give up power when its term runs out. Instead, it could just stage some sort of national emergency, declare martial law (for which it has laid the groundwork) and stage a coup.

Of course this sounds like lunatic raving – until it happens. A few years ago anyone who opined that the president and his henchmen might indulge in torture would have been scornfully laughed into silence. Whether or not a coup can actually happen, we have never seen any evidence that this administration would balk at attempting one if it thought it could get away with it.

  • It seems to be a running theme with these guys.

    One more chapter to the theme. When Sec Treas Henry Paulson replaced John Snow on 5/31/06, the reason was that Snow wasn’t doing a good job of convincing people how good the economy really was. This from Wapo (5/31/06):

    Paulson’s nomination comes as the economy is exhibiting robust growth and strength, but also some troubling signs. While the economy grew at its fastest rate in 2 1/2 years during the first quarter of 2006 and unemployment remains low, public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans think the economy is in fair or poor shape.

  • How Bush’s HUD responded to the mortgage crisis?

    Fools – they responded by laughing all the way to the bank – some are going to make a FORTUNE out of this, especially those with inside ties to HUD.

  • This morning on BookTV, Mark Skouson, author of “Econopower”, said he was surprised to learn that Keynesian Economics were taught at West Point. Since there are several new textbooks available now that use Friedman/Freemarket theories, he asked why. He was told the White House doesn’t use the latter. Words, words, words.

  • Everything old is new:

    At the heart of the scandal is Samuel Pierce, Reagan’s HUD Secretary. Though Pierce was the only black to serve in Reagan’s Cabinet — and its only member to remain in office throughout both Reagan terms — the former President once greeted him as “Mr. Mayor” at a conference of mayors. Under Pierce’s feckless leadership, HUD’s budget was pared 70% (it stands at $14.9 billion for 1989). Little was done to halt a decline in the nation’s inventory of low- income housing, from which 4.5 million units have disappeared since 1973. Critics charge that programs were dismantled, talented staffers were fired and unqualified managers were promoted. Pierce went along with all of it, earning the nickname “Silent Sam.”

    The GOP sees the Housing post merely as a place to put a reliable crony who will then steal everything that isn’t nailed down. Always has.

  • Of course with the administration using real estate to prop up the rest of the economy and using it to mask our serious structural problems, it’s no wonder he didn’t “do” anything when this started to snowball.

  • To all that are truly interested. This was my response to the Fed’s concerning new laws they are tring to implement. This mortgage crisis has become the blame game, and many Americans do not have the facts. I hope this helps…..

    The requirement that the Originator must determine that the borrower has the ability to repay the mortgage for at least 7 years is asking for a crystal ball reading. I believe this to be unreasonable and impossible to perform. Are you as a borrower willing to guarantee your own ability to repay a loan for seven years?

    I also wanted to bring the following to your attention. In today’s financial and real estate environment, there should be some serious consequences to the consumer that chooses foreclosure as an option in certain situations. I cannot begin to tell you how many calls I have received from potential borrowers who ask, “ Can I buy a house now and just let my other go into foreclosure? I owe more than I can get for it if I sell”. Foreclosure is not a solution to the problem and there are little financial consequences to a person who deliberately makes this choice. In many of these cases, the borrower is able to afford the home they currently own, but can see an opportunity to buy at today’s market a larger or newer home. This allows them to default on a mortgage, although this may affect their credit for some time (2 to 4 years), they will reap the benefits and profits of the new purchase when the market swings upward.

    I know you can see how the consumer must share in the responsibility of the mortgage they gave to the Lender and the promissory note they signed to repay the debt. In whole, not each foreclosure is due to the originator or the lack of disclosure. Implementing more disclosure and restrictions will only add additional burden to the originator’s current requirements that only apply to Mortgage Brokers. There must be equal requirements of all originators to bring the Mortgage industry in balance.

    These were the points I made for each of the changes they were suggesting

    The Manning Financial Group, Inc. State: Florida

    I support the consumer protection goals of the Federal Reserve Board’s proposed amendments to Regulation Z, but respectfully oppose the proposal to restrict compensation for Mortgage Brokers. Consumers can access the wholesale lending market through our offices and obtain lower rates than going to a local bank or an Internet source. We as Mortgage Brokers provide as an intermediary between Borrowers and Lenders, and the value the Broker adds to the real estate transaction by serving BOTH parties, but representing NEITHER.

    We as Brokers must compete with direct lenders, and the distinctions between brokers and lenders have blurred in recent years as lenders themselves typically package and resell loans they originate. The Lenders are in many cases acting as Mortgage Brokers themselves.

    Many consumers are largely unable to distinguish between brokers and lenders, which have similar names, use similar signage, and rely on similar advertising.

    If you apply the new rule, then this disclosure should apply equally to ALL mortgage originators, Banks and Savings & Loan companies not just brokers.

    The yield-spread premiums are much more than just compensation, they are used to pay certain costs and facilitate the loan transaction. Simply, we have all the costs to bring the borrower to the closing table and the Wholesale lender merely offers the rate at a reduction to perform the duties required. There is no other business or industry that requires the amount of profit disclosure or cost disclosure that is currently required in our field. For example: Tell me if the last time anyone who has bought a home and were provided a break-down of all the profits or commissions made to each of the entities, General Contractor/Builder, manager, sales associate or the mark up for the plumbing, electrical, roofing, framing, concrete, appliances, cabinets, the list could go on and on. There is no other business in this free country that is required to provide such disclosure. The consumer merely compares the costs of the home as well as the quality of construction. There are as many options in buying a home as there are in financing.

    In the real world, requiring brokers, but not other loan originators, (Banks, Credit Unions, Lenders) to make compensation disclosures enable the brokers’ competitors to steer consumers away from brokers, even if brokers offer more favorable loans, rates and fees. You are forcing the mortgage industry back 20 years, when the consumer was held hostage to the Banks and Lenders whims. I still recall when the Banks took 60 days to complete a mortgage transaction and they could change to rate, fees and programs at will, without disclosure. The wholesale lending has allowed Mortgage Brokers to bring Banks into a more consumer friendly environment as well as gave them more options and competitive rates and fees to choose from.

    It is impossible to give a reasonably precise dollar estimate of fees a broker will charge in a transaction even before an application is submitted because no Mortgage Professional can know the prospective borrower’s financial status, transaction details, type of product sought, or amount of loan, all of which may vary as the transaction progresses. Something as simple as an appraisal fee can vary based on the purchase price. Two appraisals are required for purchases over a certain amount as well as surveys on larger properties. Title expenses can change based on sales price (Owners Policy), loan amount (Lenders Policy), endorsements to the Lenders Policy (Florida Form 9, Alta’s) and of course the fees from which ever title company is chosen for the Search, Exam and Closing. We as Brokers currently have all the responsibility to disclose everything we can at application, prior to that, requiring full disclosure is impossible!!!

    I am suggesting that the Governors of the Federal Reserve consider alternatives to the proposed regulation that will protect consumers in their dealings with all mortgage originators, and encourage competition on price and service. Please consider any changes to apply to all originators as well as the current required education.

    Keep in mind there are truly only three things to consider when shopping for a mortgage:

    1. Interest Rate

    2. Term of the loan

    3. Total (all) costs

    Many thanks to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve for considering the comments, any questions you may have please feel free to contact me.

    Melody Manning

    Manning Financial Group, Inc.

    772-589-0097 phone

    772-589-9040 fax

    omelody@bellsouth.net

  • Yield Spread Premiums are a rip off that do nothing to help consumers. Nothing. All they do is give brokers a nice little kick back without it having to be disclosed to the borrower.

    They should be banned no matter who does the transaction.

  • The tragedy of it all is that Jackson was directed to take on a specific task: increase homeownership.

    Where’s the problem? All these homes are still owned, aren’t they?

    Whining Marxists.

  • This is to Mark D.

    YEILD SPREAD PREMIUM IS NOT A KICKBACK !!! THIS AMOUNT OF PROFIT IS DISCLOSED AT APPLICATION ON THE GOOD FAITH, BORROWER BROKER DISCLOSURE AND THE HUD 1, SETTLEMENT STATEMENT AT CLOSING.
    Do you call the profit made on the sale of a car to the dealer a kickback? Does a builder give you a complete breakdown of all his profits in the construction of a home? (before you sign the contract) Well the laws that we must abide by require that the consumer know all profits to each and every company when a mortgage is being used to finance real estate. Think about anything you have ever bought, were you shown their profits in advance? No business I can think of does this, except a Mortgage Company, Broker or Lender.

    FYI, Banks & Credit Unions make the same YEILD SPREAD, BUT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE. Seems to be a bit of discremination going on against the Mortgage Companies, don’t you think?

    Get your facts right before you make completly incorrect statements that can mis-inform the public.

  • Comments are closed.