Mortgage-backed security model is infirm

It should now be clear the mortgage-backed security (MBS) model is fundamentally infirm, and only undoing it will suffice, but that will be a major undertaking and has serious implications for the entire financial sector, which is going to have to get used to not being able to raise unlimited capital using smoke and mirrors.

The only effective way to sort out this mess is to separate out each mortgage note and evaluate and manage each separately. The problem is the loss of information and control that has come from first bundling mortgage notes into securities, then selling shares of the bundles in further bundles, without conveying the details of each note and the collateral that secures it.

The result of this layered bundling is that it becomes difficult to credit payments to each note, work out delinquencies with the debtors, or execute foreclosures if that becomes necessary. It is not just failures to pay that is resulting in foreclosures, but failures to credit payments made, and having service agents go out of business leaving a question of whether there are uncredited payments, and whether payments received but not credited should be considered unsecured claims of the debtor or the mortgage holder.

Most of this debacle could have been avoided had courts not allowed foreclosures without presenting the original signed note instrument in court, and required the one owner and holder of it to personally appear in court to testify. The practice of accepting "affidavits of ownership" in lieu of the physical original note paved the way for the entire catastrophe.

If local lending institutions need to raise capital to make more loans, their proper solution is to continue to be the owner, holder, collector, and manager of each note, and sell stock in their institution, or at least in bundles they retain, not selling the notes, bundled or otherwise. It has never made sense to trade in bundles containing assets that come and go as they are paid off or not. What is the value of a bundle containing paid-off notes? Or of another consisting entirely of foreclosed properties being torn apart by vandals?

There is a problem with how it can be done, constitutionally, without violating the Contracts Clause (and the Tenth Amendment, since the Contracts Clause is only a restriction on the states). I have proposed creating jurisdictions for federal Art. III or bankruptcy courts to challenge foreclosures if the original signed note, a complete record of payments received by the servicing agent, and the owner and holder of the note (not just his attorney) be required to personally testify in court (for a corporation that would be a senior official). That would require disaggregation of all those MBS, if not as securities then as transparent administrative processes that could enable evaluation not just of bundles but of each component of them, in nearly real time.

The federal jurisdictions need not overburden the federal courts, as I would expect it to impose similar judicial reform in state courts, something that has already begun.

I do not, as a libertarian, favor regulatory interventions in the sense of administrative agents directing the actions of people, setting standards, or requiring them to report on their activities. The Nondelegation Doctrine needs to be revived, not further buried. However, it would be appropriate to use grand juries to investigate the inner workings of organizations too large or well-connected to be allowed to fail. Their role would not be to enforce rules written (and probably misconceived) from the last bubble burst, but to uncover things like conflicts of interest and actions between managers and their principals. Grand juries can keep trade secrets while making things transparent that must be known for investors to make rational decisions. Unbound by specific rules, grand juries could freely seek out dysfunctions that can arise from clever managers evading any rules that bureaucrats or legislators can devise, and prick emerging bubbles that regulators are likely to be discouraged from doing.

It is worth studying the history of money and finance, going back to John Law. This kind of thing has happened before. It is what led the U.S. Founders to require in the Constitution that only gold or silver coin be legal tender (on state territory). We can question today whether gold or silver are still suited for backing currency, but it should not just be the "full faith and credit" of national governments and their ability to withdraw enough currency from circulation through taxation to offset the amount they print to pay their bills. Perhaps the world should go to backing by something like kilowatt-hours of energy or its equivalent. But not by credit instruments whose value essentially depends on continued economic growth, which will eventually falter, bringing down all or most national currencies.


Angela said...

Say Yes to indigenous power and individual sovereignty! Check out COMMON SENSE; Revisited, a short pamphlet written with one purpose in mind: to light the fire of liberty that burns within every human heart. It explains how a return to founding principles can help us solve the many problems that face our country today. We believe it does justice to its predecessor, COMMON SENSE, written by Thomas Paine in 1776, which changed the course of the world. You can download the entire PDF for any price you choose (or purchase physical copies) at www.commonsenserevisited.org

ariah said...

The website constitution.org, which states it is affiliated with this blog, looks like it was built in 1995 and never redesigned. It's pathetic - I wish it weren't, but I've seen more professional looking anime fansites. The site seems like a wonderful resource, but its lame green visitor counter and use of the outdated term "weblog" send the message to visitors that they should not take the site seriously. Keep in mind that content is not enough. I recommend hiring a web designer or taking a class in webdesign. At least learn what style sheets are.

jroland said...

Thanks, ariah, for your concern about our website. As it happens, I am a web designer who knows how to make a site look good. I plan to build some related sites that are more "slick", but it does take time, and I have to sleep sometime. This one, or at least the homepage, needs to be readable by anyone in the world, many of whom are still using primitive browsers that can't handle stylesheets. It is a content site, not a marketing site. If people are put off by cosmetic factors, they are probably not promising students of the subject matter.

Lede said...

I love Constitution.org!! I have used it since college back in 1999! Don't listen to critics like Ariah, many countless Constitutional devotees favor the timeless impact and simple format. Liberty, freedom, does not require the newest HTML codes!

In Liberty,

1776. Reborn.

Lede said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lede said...

John- in your opinion can corporations be recognized as legal persons? I have a constitionalist friend who argues that they cannot.

allcustom said...

I must say that overall I am really impressed with this blog.It is easy to see that you are passionate about your writing. If only I had your writing ability I look forward to more updates and will be returning.

Term Papers

Research said...

Nice, keep it up.. Thanks for the info..your article is excellent,i really love it. hoping to read your following post.

Term Papers

Willie Sager said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Follow by Email

Search this and affiliated sites

Blog Archive