Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a wide-reaching swath of financial reforms, designed to reign in the worse excesses of the banking industry. Democratic lawmakers are hailing the bill as a huge victory for consumers. However, one important provision failed to pass: cramdown.
'Cramdown' would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principle balance of the mortgage on a primary residence in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, resulting in lower monthly payments for the filer. It's important to note that bankruptcy judges are already allowed to practice cramdown for a variety of debt, including boats, cars, vacation homes and family farms. In fact, prior to changes in the bankruptcy laws in 1978, they were able to cramdown residential mortgages as well.
Support for cramdown began gaining strength last spring, when the drop in housing prices caused a rise in foreclosures and a spike of people 'under water' in their homes. As the recession got worse, more people became vulnerable. Many Democratic lawmakers argued that cramdown was a necessary provision that would allow more people to stay in their homes. The banking industry countered that it would raise costs for everyone and divert capital from the mortgage market at a time when it desperately needed more, not less funds. Observers pointed out that banker's fears were unrealistic; banks already eat the loss in a foreclosure, so how would this law upset the whole system?
Meanwhile, the Obama industry introduced housing reforms, notably the Making Houses Affordable, a program designed to encourage mortgage companies to voluntarily modify loans and keep people in their homes. While the program does offer some financial incentives, industry observers note that mortgage companies make far more money from the fees involved when a homeowner goes foreclosure.
In April, the House passed cramdown, but it stalled – badly – in the Senate. Twelve Democrats joined with every Republican to defeat it.
This fall, nearly everyone agrees that the MHA program has been a failure. Far fewer loans have been modified than the administration hoped; foreclosure rates continue to rise across the country. It's hard not to see the lack of cramdown as a pertinent factor. Cramdown would offer the homeowner some leverage. If mortgage companies refused to modify loans, the homeowner could have filed bankruptcy and the decision to modify or not would have rested with an independent party, the judge. As it is, judges are unable to modify the loans, which leaves the entire decision in the hands of the mortgage company.
That's why Democrats in the House included cramdown again, in the package of regulatory reforms they voted on last Friday. However, this time – under some pressure from small banks and credit unions – the measure failed to pass even the House.
What's the future for cramdown? It doesn't look good. Without some radical change somewhere, it doesn't look like cramdown will even come up for a vote again. This is too bad; this provision would not only be very helpful to many individual homeowners, it has the potential to send ripples through the housing market as well.