California’s legislature passed changes to state foreclosure law that attempts to require dialog between an unpaid mortgage lender and a homeowner facing loss of his home.

SB1137 adds a requirement that the parties meet and discuss options to foreclosure before a notice of default can be recorded. Lenders must advise the debtor of the availability of HUD certified housing counseling.

What are the constraints on the advice HUD counselors can give? Can they suggest the borrower look for violations of applicable law in their loan transactions? Will they suggest Chapter 13 as an alternative to foreclosure? Do they have contact information for the loan modification staff at the lenders?

I applaud the California politicians who took some action on the problem. (Congress, Mr. Bush, are you listening?). My concerns go to whether any form of “counseling” will make a difference.

The typical problem is that the terms of the existing loan are simply beyond the capacity of the borrowers. The only solution is a modification that includes a fixed interest rate and often a forgiveness of interest or even principal. Otherwise, at the end of a longer foreclosure process, the bank is going to own another home.

The changes to credit card billing practices proposed by the FRB are welcome, but just scratch the surface of the crushing quality of credit card debt. My sense, talking to financially stressed people day after day, is that credit cards have merely postponed for many Bay Area residents the recognition that they cannot live a middle class life in this high cost region.

The cost of living in the Bay Area is some 150% of the national average; our salaries are higher, but not 150% higher. The vital, start up, high tech, high risk economic climate makes huge winners of some, and economic losers of others. The availability of credit cards and the energy with which those cards are marketed have made it easier to mask the fact that a middle class life is more expensive than some can afford.

The other issue that makes credit card debt so poisonous is that it bears interest that a generation ago would have been criminal. California concepts of usury generally prohibit individuals from charging more than 10% on loans, yet banks can regularly charge twice that to borrowers in good standing and twice that again to borrowers in default. The FRB proposed rules don’t deal with that issue.

At base, the problem with an indebted middle class is more profound than accounting rules on how payments are to be applied will solve.