IndyMac the foreclosure crisis and politics

By
Real Estate Agent with John L. Scott Sp34627

In my campaign for Congress in Idaho, I have often focused on the foreclosure crisis. Yesterday, the crisis took down the bank IndyMac. As a real estate agent, I had no love for this particular bank but its demise is frightening. This was an example of a bank that specialized in high risk, irresponsible loans. Unfortunately, when banks fail, people suffer. Depositors who have over $100K will lose half of the uninsured value of their deposits. There are less banks available to extend credit. When credit dries up purchases cannot be made. This reduces the number of people who can buy home. This in turn lowers the value of real estate. When real estate lowers in value, foreclosures increase. This in turn reduces property values further.

Why is this so important?

The wealth of most Americans is in their homes. As our homes decline in value so does our wealth. Every time a homeowner loses their home to foreclosure, the American Dream turns into an American Nightmare for another family. Currently, foreclosures are at record high, and there are more and more of these American nightmares. I don't believe that property prices will stabilize until the foreclosure crisis comes to an end. I've seen too many people hurt by the policies that the Republican majority put in place, and I feel I have a duty to fight for economic change. You can count on me to vote to help solve the foreclosure crisis for both the banks and the homeowner, instead of putting my head in the sand.

It's time for a change in how this country is run and how Idaho is represented, but I'll need your help to make a difference. You can donate to the campaign through
ActBlue
and you can volunteer with my campaign through my
website
. Thank you for your support.

Posted by

 Debbie Holmes

John L. Scott Real Estate

  

(208)761-2551 Email: d5holmes@msn.com

To search Boise Homes visit my website

 

Comments (12)

Matt Heaton
Timu Corp - CEO, ActiveRain - Co-founder - Bothell, WA

And how as a member of Congress would you propose solving the foreclosure crisis?

Jul 12, 2008 09:51 AM
Martin Lopez
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties - Cerritos, CA

I would have the same question; What would be your proposal? At this time any average individual, even with no real estate background can see and feel our current situation and say "we need a solution!" but, that's exactly what we need... a solution!

Jul 12, 2008 10:13 AM
Jason Bhattacharya
ARDENT PROPERTIES - Chesterfield, VA

Debbie,

First, let me point out that the bank is INDYMAC not INDIMAC.  As a member of Congress, these minor mistakes tend to snowball.

As a Republican -- I take personal affront to your statement that this problem is the result of only Republicans.  

So your position is that if the Democrats controlled the Congress and the White House-- That the Real Estate boom would never have occurred?  Is that correct?  

The issue was supply, demand and greed.  This coupled with criminal acts and pressure from Mortgage Lenders and Real Estate agents (like us) --- to "Just get the deal through".  This coupled with Decreasing Supply and Increasing Demand-- prices rocketed upwards. 

Had the average income rose at the level of real estate prices-- then we would be in something that is also familiar to history...  SIGNIFICANT INFLATION.

In regards to the loss of deposits above the FDIC insured limit of $100,000 -- it is unfortuate.  However, those who were smart-- and typically had this much money-- don't keep it sititng in a checking or savings account.  They would either invest it-- or keep it in other, insured assets.  Furthermore, Indymac bank has been in trouble for quite a while-- and a LOT of people saw the writing on the walls.

It might be prudent to mention that SOME at OTS (The Office and Thrift Supervision-- the group that took over Indymac) -- actually attributed their collapse to statements made by Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat-- New York).  His statements about 5 months ago-- which questioned the ability of Indymac to function-- caused a huge wave of depositors-- to withdraw their money.


And if you understand the dynamics behind the issue of liquity (the reason they were shut down)  -- then you would realize that by having over 1 billion dollars withdrawn -- was enough to cause the downward spiral for Indymac.


You never said what party that you belong to.  Are you Democrat? Libertarian? Socialist? Nor did you state what you think the solution is-- except by implying "Get the Republicans out of office".

Let us know your thoughts.

 

-Jason

Jul 12, 2008 10:21 AM
Debbie Holmes
John L. Scott - Boise, ID
Gets the job done!

One idea I have is that I would give aid to the banks on the condidtions that they help the the homeowners. For example a client needs to short sale.  A tax credit or "aid" could be given for a portion of the net difference (say 25%).   We also need programs that allow people who want to and could stay in there homes.  The Congress is on the right track with the foreclosure prevention act but President Bush threatened to veto the act. 

I blame the Republicans because they are the party of financial deregulation that has prevented the oversight of the fincancial sector that would have prevented the loans that led to the speculation that raised housing prices.  These loans allowed speculators to buy homes with very little leverage.  Meanwhile, while prices were rising loans were given to homeowners who could never repay the loans. 

With proper oversight (regulation), which the Feds are now proposing, we would not be in this crisis.  I am sure that even as a Republican you know that prices will not stablilize until the number of foreclosures decline.

By the way I am the Democratic nominee in CD2 of Idaho

 

Jul 12, 2008 10:52 AM
Jason Bhattacharya
ARDENT PROPERTIES - Chesterfield, VA

Debbie,


You didn't address the comments made by Senator Charles Schumer-- The one who a lot blame for the fall of Indymac.  

What about those people who lost 50% of their deposits over the FDIC insured limit of $100k?  Would you help them-- by raising the FDIC insured limit (which has remained the same for as long as I can remember)?  If you raise the limit-- then how would you offset the liability to the government?  Since, of course it is ultimately, the government who is backing these accounts?

With the oversight that you are proposing-- how would you have responded to the calls of the constituents who said "I can not qualify for a loan on a house-- and I want to finally be a homeowner"  Would you tell these people -- Sorry, I as a regulator, believe you are a bad person to lend to?

If you could go back in time, without the benefit of hindsight, would you proposed to have stiffled free trade and commerce by telling banks what types of loans they could and could not make? 

 

-Jason

p.s. FINALLY, ActiveRain is becoming fun again!!! =)

 

 

Jul 12, 2008 11:09 AM
Matt Heaton
Timu Corp - CEO, ActiveRain - Co-founder - Bothell, WA

"With proper oversight (regulation), which the Feds are now proposing, we would not be in this crisis.  I am sure that even as a Republican you know that prices will not stablilize until the number of foreclosures decline."

The problem is that the regulatory agencies have been completely asleep at the wheel and have not enforced the existing regulations for years.  A lot of the proposals I hear bantered around in congress involve trying to give more power to those that have been the most inept at handling the crisis.

The one the really irks me is the attempted power grab going on by the Federal Reserve.  They have been one of the worst offenders in not excersizing their existing regulatory capacity and in fact helping banks circumvent regulations through such things as issueing "23A Exemption Letters). 

Here's a post of a letter I sent to several Congressmen and Senators on the subject of regulation back in Oct.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/237142/My-letter-to-congress

Also my take on IndyMac, regulators and the OTS

http://activerain.com/blogsview/590265/IndyMac-Fight-Schumer-vs

Don't purely blame the Republicans for the financial regulation, lots of it happened under a Democratic controlled congress and one of the worst pieces of financial regulation the repealing of the Glass-Steagall act happened under the watch of the Clinton administration.  No, I'm not a Republican myself, just someone who doesn't like to see partisan politics get in the way of dealing with issues.

Jul 12, 2008 12:20 PM
Jason Bhattacharya
ARDENT PROPERTIES - Chesterfield, VA

Debbie,


Are ya coming back?? :)

Jul 13, 2008 08:48 AM
Debbie Holmes
John L. Scott - Boise, ID
Gets the job done!

Yeah,

 

I had surgery Monday and had to show a few houses today.  I fell asleep afterwords. 

I would be interested in hearing other people's ideas on how to solve the foreclosure crisis.  I've noticed today that the Feds plan to back Fannie and Freddie.  This is obviously good news.  

I'll try to answer tomorrow.  Today was my first day of work out of the house and it knocked me for a loop.

Jul 13, 2008 03:47 PM
Jason Bhattacharya
ARDENT PROPERTIES - Chesterfield, VA

Hey Debbie,


Hope you are feeling better.  But I'd still love to hear your responses to the above issues.  Although, I'm not in your district-- I want to see how an aspiring Senator responds!


Thanks

-Jason

Jul 20, 2008 01:23 PM
William Moran
Millennium Real Estate Services - Calabasas, CA

The government should not do anything to solve any crisis especially when they created it begin with.

It's nice to blame it on republicans, just don't see how you arrive at that conclusion unless you are delusional.

I seem to remember Democrats getting control of the congress in 2002 and we were told everything was going be ok, what happened? 

This housing problem was for the most part was brought on by Liberal democrat policies to provide homeownership to people who couldn't afford homes. and yes some republicans went along with it.

But I believe it was Barney Frank , the hero of many democrats who said when warned about the road Freddie and Fannie were headed down was disastrous that "there was no problem and that Freddie and Fannie weren't going anywhere" are were rock solid. and was it not democrat congressman Meeks who at hearings about the potential problem asked "what are we even doing here" there's no problem and was it not congress woman Maxine Waters who said "we don't have a crisis particularly at Fannie Mae"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Before you ask for support to run for elected office and offer no ideas on what you will do to change things, other then the same tired line "I will fight for change" you should first get your facts straight. 

This is the internet its not MSNBC ,CBS,NBC  we deal with facts. 

Why don't you start your own bank and lend money to all the people you feel so sorry for? 

Why is it that all the "do gooders" never can offer a solution other then to regulate a business someone else created. Create something yourself!!

Jan 08, 2009 06:01 AM
Anonymous
70cuda

homes that are "underwater" are becoming the next big forclosure problem without any type of a bailout, even if the homeowner can afford the payments many are letting their homes go. this is just an idea and maybe I'm not thinking of all the drawbacks but here it is.   say you owe $200,000 on your home, the homes market value is $100,000 you let it forclose and the bank takes possesion and sells the home for $100,000. The bank has lost $100,000 plus the forclosure and realator fees and who knows how long it will set empty or if it will become vandalized. IF the banks would rewrite the mortgages in a win/win modification like this.  The bank lowers the principal to the market value $100,000 @ 6%, (no forclosure, no realtor fees) the home is not abandoned. by doing this the bank becomes a beneficiary of any appreciation the home might incur over the $100,000 upto the $200,000 of the original principal, when and if it is sold. The homeowner would be liable for any forbearance taxes at the time the home sells. this would keep anyone from abusing the program,  for instance= house sells 5 years later for $145,000  the bank gets the $45,000 and the homeowner pays forbearance taxes on $65,000 , or 15 years latter the house sells for $230,000 the bank gets its $100,000 and the homeowner gets the $30,000, this is also taking into account that the bank would be credited with the payoff of the modified mortgage.  In this scenario the homeowner keeps his house and his credit. the banks come out far ahead of a forclosure and the government hasn't spent any money other than to regulate the industry.                                                                                                                         

Feb 24, 2010 06:17 AM
#12

What's the reason you're reporting this blog entry?

Are you sure you want to report this blog entry as spam?