Share

The Santelli Screed Hits Wrong Target on Mortgage Bailout

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
A man carries his family's possessions from his house after being evicted. (Photo: Getty Images)

    Commodity trader Rick Santelli made himself into a national hero of sorts with his televised diatribe about being forced to pay the mortgages of "losers" who could not afford, or would not pay, the full cost of their mortgage. Santelli apparently hit a chord among those who want to blame deadbeat homeowners for the country's economic woes.

    At the risk of spoiling a promising artistic and commercial venture, people should know that Mr. Santelli is firing at the wrong target. The big gainers from the latest plan to help homeowners are not "loser" homeowners, but rather banks and investors, who will earn far more on their loser loans than would otherwise have been possible.

    This is easy to see if we just adhere to the most basic rule in policy analysis: follow the money. When we follow the money, we see that the government checks do not go to homeowners.

    The government checks are all made out to banks and loan servicers. In millions of cases where homeowners were not keeping up with their mortgages, the government will send checks to banks and investors that make up for much of the shortfall. In addition, the government could send them several thousand dollars more for their efforts in allowing people to stay in their homes.

    While this policy is supposed to help homeowners, in many cases the best thing for these homeowners would be to move into one of the millions of vacant housing units. In most markets, they would pay a much lower share of their income for housing if they were renters rather than owners.

    Furthermore, with house prices dropping at more than a 20 percent annual rate, the Cubs have a better chance of winning the World Series than these folks have of accumulating any equity in their home. Most of the homeowners who have their mortgages subsidized under this program are looking at short sales in two, three or four years.

    Santelli's screed is part of a continuing effort to blame the poor and minority communities for the economic meltdown. There are millions of people who think the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was responsible for bad mortgages, when most of these mortgages were either made by institutions that were not covered by the CRA or were loans that would not have been covered by the Act even if the institution was covered. Of course, the idea that government bureaucrats were forcing banks to make loans that were hugely profitable at the time is laughable on its face.

    At some point Santelli and his followers are going to have to deal with reality. The problem is not poor and moderate-income homeowners or African-Americans or Latinos. The perps in this case where rich bankers, the vast majority of whom were white males.

    Their enablers in policy circles were not the bleeding hearts trying to help the poor, but the Wall Street envoys from both political parties; people like Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin and, of course, Alan Greenspan. The people who sank the economy were the rich and powerful, not the poor and minorities.

    If Santelli wants to really be the friend of hardworking homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages, he might try yelling about the bank bailouts. According to the latest news reports, the taxpayers just sent another $30 billion to AIG, almost half as much as President Obama set aside to subsidize mortgage payments.

    The checks to AIG and other financial institutions may be necessary to keep the banking system operating, but we certainly have the right to demand that the shareholders and bank executives don't profit from the bailouts. It would be great if Mr. Santelli would speak up about the real beneficiaries from these scams - the bank executives and wealthy shareholders. But the big-mouthed commodity trader probably doesn't have the courage to attack anyone with real power.

  

»


Dean Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Funny how all these banks

Funny how all these banks and insurance firms are 'too big to fail', but "We the People" aren't? And not only aren't we, they turn things around and say that we're the ones at fault? Amazing...

Although I agree with Mr.

Although I agree with Mr. Baker's disdain for Santelli's comments, and mortage brokers and Wall Street/Bankers in general, surely there is some blame to be metted out to the folks who signed on the dotted line for a mortgage they could not afford. Yes, some were lied to and signed on to a deal that they couldn't realize the consequences of. However, some were undoubtedly just lazy. What we need in this discussion is a clearer represenation of who deserves what portion of the blame for this mess before we start pointing fingers--from the left or the right. I for one would really like to know to what extent this is due to all of the various characters (banks, mortgage brokers, Wall Street, the Fed, the homeowners, etc). In the meantime, maybe we could focus on fixing the problem and save the blame game for when we right our financial/economic ship.

I agree with Mr. Anonymous

I agree with Mr. Anonymous that it would be useful to have a better grip on all who contributed to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, but I disagree that "surely" some blame must be assigned to those who "signed on the dotted line." Some time ago, before the real estate bust was quite so complete, I watched a video of a mortgage broker or banker touting what they were doing. Someone in the back of the room finally asked why, with all the to-be-expected and even-then-increasing number of defaults on sub-prime mortgages, was the industry still issuing them? The answer came back most earnestly: "Oh, those are the ones we make the most money on." By contrast, those "who signed on the dotted line" were most likely first-time buyers who were not greedy, but merely naive. They accepted the broker's assurance that they qualified. Personally, I count these poor folks as collateral victims...

I tend to agree with this

I tend to agree with this argument, but no one has yet produced any numbers, or direct evidence that the banks made out and the borrowers lost out. It seems to me both are at fault, but to different degrees, and no one has come up with a calculation that properly distributes the blame... for what it is worth to toss blame, which is often a good way to avoid solving the problem.

Wait. I thought it was the

Wait. I thought it was the "loser" banks that got us into trouble in the first place for not doing due diligence when handing out loans. It's all in the spin....

I'm one of those who might

I'm one of those who might go under, not for being a "loser" qualified by one of those banks, but because this economic mess has resulted in my salary being cut 20%, while my mtge went up 30%, and property values dropped to the point where refinancing or selling is no longer an option unless I short sell, in which case the bank would be better off having me stay here and pay. The greed on the part of these financial institutions knows no boundaries and there is no incentive for them to work with homeowners when they can rely on an infusion of cash from the government. They are the modern day robber barons, and their gluttony nauseating. For what it's worth, I worked in foreclosures in a bank over 30 years ago, when they were still regulated. People still had homes, banks still made money, and interest rates were about what they are now.

Along with Mr. Baker, I

Along with Mr. Baker, I reserve a deeper resentment for those who mixed and served up the poison Kool-Aid than for those who took the bait and drank it. Santelli's rant was loggerheaded and off target. It can be hard to separate the victims from the greedy, and the greedy from the villains, but it's not hard to separate the villains from the victims and only one of those groups is deserving of a crazed, slobbering diatribe.

Mr. Santelli's comments are

Mr. Santelli's comments are a bit strange in that he implies that home buyers could vet their own loans. Whenever I have taken out a mortgage, the bank always has vetted the loan; that is, they tell me whether or not I could afford it. If it is true that the banks were putting the onus of vetting the loan on the borrower, then something was indeed dramatically out of kilter and that something was not the poor and minorities.

I truly doubt anyone took

I truly doubt anyone took out a mortgage they KNEW they couldn't afford, only to be foreclosed on in two or three years and out on the street. People got mortgages it TIRNED out they couldn't afford when they adjusted, but who would go all the hassle of buying a home expecting to be thrown out,and what that does to your family. These people didn't go out and buy Lamborghinis they couldn't afford. Why? Because the Lambo dealer wasn't offering a way to buy a 300k car for no down and $139.00/month. Mortgage companies were offering the equivalent loans, and people believed the "expert." Not the homeowners fault.

Focusing on the CRA is

Focusing on the CRA is missing the target, both by Democrats, who don't want to deal with the issue of lower average creditworthiness among minorities, and Republicans, who limit themselves to attacking a pet project of the Dems while also avoiding said issue. The politicization of lending in response to supposed redlining extended far beyond the reach of the CRA. Also, mortgage-backed securities brought a great deal of capital down into the home mortgage market, making it possible for less-than-ideal borrowers to share in the American "Dream." Face it -- anyone, at any income level, in any demographic, that got something for nothing shares some of the blame. @Ron: to see if you can afford a mortgage, all you need is the loan amount, the interest rate, and the lifetime of the loan, and then you look up the monthly payment in a table. It's not hard.

Banks and brokers didn't

Banks and brokers didn't start out making NINA loans (No Income/No Assets) It was the frantic packageing and seeling of these loans on Wall Street that dug the hole we are all falling in. The banks and the brokers did these "toxic" loans because they were never intending to hold onto them, they lumped them by the thousands and sold them on the global market. A new wall street commodity was born thanks to deregulation and mortgages went from a home loan to a product to be sold en mass, right away. With a "I if we don't approve the loan someone else will" mentality. How else to explain the deceased people in Ohio who gualified. Though I guess in those cases the people really were deadbeats.

Actually citing the CRA and

Actually citing the CRA and pointing fingers at it is an utter falsehood- the CRA loans were highly regulated and didn't go sour, nor did the banks issuing CRA loans. Those banks weren't allowed to engage in those speculative lending practices because they gave CRA loans. Any souring of CRA loans now is the result of the economy, not of inappropriate lending practices.

AIG is the last line of

AIG is the last line of defense for the entire European banking system. If AIG goes out of business, it will default on $250B of credit default swaps, annihilating the highly-leveraged European Banks. If we don't save the European Banks, we can kiss the economy goodbye for about 10 years or so. So Let's save AIG.

To Robert Pool (who wrote

To Robert Pool (who wrote "AIG is the last line of...") -- The grim day of reckoning will indeed be grim. Nonetheless, some of us are not at all in favor (never have been and never will be) in rescuing the global ruling class. The following link is to an article be Derek Wilson of the New Zealand based NGO Pacific Institute of Resource Management (PIRM). Forget the author's future prognostications if you chose but read carefully the history and in particular the roles of the IMF and World Bank. http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/themagazine/vol4/elite.shtml

I'm lower-middle income,

I'm lower-middle income, living with and caring for an elder parent. There is NO WAY ANYONE could have gotten me to: "sign on the dotted line." even if I was drunk! I know how much money I have and how much I can spend, and no amount of fooling could have gotten me to make this serious error in judgement. If I even got past the door of a mortgage lender in the first place, my last question would have been, "Well, I may be able to make the payments now, BUT, what will they be in 3-5 years when the interest adjusts????" They probably would have ushered me out, for being too smart. So yes, I too believe that these unfortunate people have some responsibility for their own messy situation...sad as it is. For though they didn't make their bed, they most surely laid down in it.

Mr. lower-middle income,

Mr. lower-middle income, what happens if you sign a mortgage that is fully within your means, with no adjustable rate...and then your job disappears? Sell, of course. But what if the value of your home has dropped more than 20%? How much are you going to get if you sell? Actually, how much are you going to have to pay to the mortgage company...out of the earnings from your non-existent job?

As for blaming the victims,

As for blaming the victims, perhaps there is some blame left for them, but... Many of us reading and commenting are reasonably intelligent. I can understand the fine print in a contract well enough to know when something isn't right, and I understand variable rates and balloons, and the future prospects for my income. Many folks aren't this astute- they've been promised "The American Dream" and here this fella on the other side of the desk is telling them "this is how you can get it", and minimizing or misrepresenting how the non-fixed-rate mortgage will work, and assuring the home buyer that their income will go up commensurate with time at an adequate rate to manage the mortgage. The mortgage brokers, to use an old term, could easily "sell refrigerators to eskimos". They are con artists. Can any of us really say we've never fallen for a con-job? Yes, we can accuse the victims of being gullible, but is that really a crime deserving of blame for consequences that they couldn't possibly see or understand?

The original article is a

The original article is a line of thought that very much needed saying. But both the Dean Baker piece and the comments taken as a whole are just verbal assertions that may or may not be correct. Where the hell is the science of economics here? Indeed, where is it in any of the public debate over causes of the crisis, the future course of the crisis, or prescriptions for ending the crisis? It is ridiculous that any fool can spout off about whether tax reductions or spending programs are the most effective interventions for recovery. Thank God engineers have something more definitive than verbal cookbooks to design bridge spans and aircraft wings. If it exists, Dr. Baker, how about at least giving us some statistics that provide an element of proof to each point in your verbal argument. I need this. I'm surrounded by knee-jerk conservatives that parrot the same line you are attacking. But you just give me words to counter their words. Makes a spirited argument, but no winner can emerge. I want numerical PROOF. Please

I like Mr. Baker's

I like Mr. Baker's frankness. We are hearing a lot of spin from everyone about how much better things will be once the government bails out the banks, and it's simply not coming true. Even Obama can't address the scope of the crisis out of fear of further rattling the markets. The financial companies are clearly the ones to blame. They lobbied for the de-regulation in the form of Gramm Leach bill. They made extra billions from the convergence of retail banks and investment houses, the result of a post-Depression bill separating them. The mortgage -backed securities crowd basically borrowed too much, assisted by a home ownership (debt servitude) program encouraged by the Fed and Bush. A decimated regulatory structure led to the failures, and creation of trillions in risky derivatives, whose value can't be determined. Subprime is only a tiny percentage of outstanding derivatives--a red herring set up by the Right in defense of their "pro-business" policies.

Sen Lieberman was protecting

Sen Lieberman was protecting Derivatives when it became public that the deal was causing problems The transfer of our industrial base to China by Bubba Clinton and the Bush Family has yet to be addressed. How can our workforce make house payments if they do not have decent paying jobs? The service economy has amounted to a big zero. No one in Congress has yet to mention the word "China". They are jumping the ship like rats.

"There are millions of

"There are millions of people who think the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was responsible for bad mortgages" I work at ground zero, deep in the heart of Detroit and can guarantee CRA was at the bottom of all of this. We started to clean up this mess in Detroit 3 years ago, way before anyone at the national level had a clue! The amount of corruption that took place in the hood was/is staggering. government was complicit and enabling at all levels. You should see the brand new homes built in the middle of the most violent parts of the city. You and I paid for this and will keep paying for it. Just how do you think the government managed to squander 3 trillion every single year?