Senate Approves Safe Harbor Mortgage Modification; Property Rights? What’s That?
Posted by Larry Doyle on May 6, 2009 3:55 PM |
The assault on property rights continues as the Senate just passed the Safe Harbor Mortgage Modification legislation. Recall how I wrote the other day in Mortgage Magic or Mortgage Mayhem that this legislation would protect mortgage servicers from suit by mortgage investors.
Why would investors sue servicers? Servicers are charged with processing monthly principal and interest payments of mortgages and distributing the cash flow to investors. If they do not perform, then to this point they would and should be sued. Investors have the right to those payments for which they committed their funds.
The Safe Harbor Mortgage Modification legislation will protect servicers from lawsuits in the cases where mortgages have been modified and investors’ interests supposedly remain protected. One would think that covers all the bases. As I highlighted, however, the legislation may very well promote self-dealing amongst a number of the larger banks which both service mortgages and hold second mortgages.
From Bloomberg’s article, Senate Defeats TARP Measures To Move Safe-Harbor Bill:
The Mortgage Bankers Association and consumer advocates have endorsed the safe-harbor provision to protect mortgage servicing companies from being sued by mortgage-bond investors if they modify loans in accordance with President Barack Obama’s Making Home Affordable anti-foreclosure program.
“Safe harbor is something that you want as a servicer,” said Ajay Rajadhyaksha, the head of fixed-income strategy at Barclays Capital in New York. “Without the safe harbor, you’re far more skittish about doing anything.”
Corker said in a speech on the floor that the measure is a boon to larger servicers including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America Corp. An amendment Corker sponsored that would have required borrowers to seek other forms of aid before their loans could be modified failed.
Mortgage bond buyers including Clayton DeGiacinto of Tower Research Capital in New York said allowing the safe harbor provisions removes any accountability servicers have to minimize investor losses and may make the process more susceptible to political pressure and more costly for borrowers.
“It ultimately makes bond investors skeptical and adds an additional layer of risk that will need to be priced into the securities,” said DeGiacinto, who manages a distressed mortgage fund.
I am all for credible and equitable legislation which promotes decreasing foreclosures. In the process, however, the legislation should be airtight in making sure there is no self-dealing and conflicts of interest. That question regarding this legislation remains outstanding.
While this legislation may help limit foreclosures in the near term, the real cost may be borne in the years ahead in the form of higher mortgage rates. Why might that happen? If banks which service mortgages are influenced and incentivized not to protect the investors’ property rights and thus don’t, the investors will sell their holdings, and take their bat and ball to another field.