Business

How To Deal With The Mortgage Mess

MayorBob.

Posted to Business on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Among the unfortunate effects of this nation's credit and housing crisis is that it's not just that subprime ARMs are about to shove mortgage payments through the roof.  In some markets, property values have crashed straight through the floor and into the basement.

Things aren't any better in California.  As a matter of fact, they're probably as bad, if not worse, for California property owners from San Francisco to San Diego (and virtually all points in between).  Property owners are increasingly facing a future with no realistic prospects for them.

They bought a house for big bucks within the past few years.  Due to the mortgage crisis, more properties are being foreclosed upon than at any time in memory.  This has the effect of reducing their real estate's value to, sometimes half what they paid for it.  If they are stuck in one of those subprime ARMs, the cost of keeping a roof over their heads is about to go up - way up.  The banks are a bit chary about refinancing large mortgage balances secured by properties worth way less than the amount owed, so what's a person to do?  One person in the Los Angeles area has an answer -- go ahead and foreclose on him.  Leandro Hernandez of Chino Hills says "I'll live in the house for free for 12 months, and I'll save my money and I'll move on."

Of course, Hernandez stands to ruin what exists in the way of his credit rating by doing so.  He's also ducking out on what many consider a fundamental moral compact -- you borrow money for your home and do everything to hold onto it.  But, according to Leo Nordine, a local realtor, Hernandez's decision isn't necessarily illogical:

"When people see appreciation, they fight to hang on to their house.  When they see it going backward, they're more likely to give up."
This is a point driven home during a conference call at Wachovia Bank held recently -- people, who could otherwise afford their mortgage payments, were walking away from their houses because they lost too much equity.  Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis says "there's been a change in social attitudes toward default" with people doing their utmost to keep current on their credit cards but allowing their homes to go to foreclosure.  One such person identified himself as "condoblue" (5th comment down) on LALand, a real estate blog of the LA Times.  He says he found himself with (US)$350K worth of condo was worth $520K about a year and a half ago.  His strategy: "I have purchased a cheaper place in a nearby area now, while my credit is good, and will stop making payments on house #1 after house #2 closes. I know the foreclosure will be on my credit for 7 years, but I will have saved a lot of money."  He says he understands that many people will view this as a "moral lapse" but he just views it as a smart "business decision."

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, credit crisis, mortgage mess, subprime ARMs, foreclosure, California (all tags)

This story: 12 comments (4 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
8

The forgotten victims...

pO157.

Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:27:45 AM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

Of (at best) unlucky families or (at worst) irresponsible jackasses are the cats and dogs that these morons either abandon, or lock in closets leaving the pets to starve for weeks after the foreclosure.

These people should die in a fire. Alone.

Spread it on!

1

I'm not particularly sympathetic

skeeter1.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:32:39 PM EST

4.50 (informative, informative)

There's an old axiom that says "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is".  Too many home buyers ran to get mortgages that probably sounded great for homes that they couldn't have afforded in the first place.  Here's a thought:  try downsizing.  I know that's harsh, but realistic.  Did they really need a 4000 sq. ft. home in LA, or a co-op in uptown Manhattan?  Maybe not.

I'm old-fashioned about financing a home.  My first (fixed) mortgage in 1982 was at 16.5%.  Later on, I refinanced down to 13%, and after that again to 9%.  Now I have a home that's paid for.  

There's plenty of foreclosures here in Cleveland.

Many of the foreclosed houses have become respites for the homeless, and since the utilities are often left on when the owners move out, more power to them.  

The buyers who got sub-prime loans (Did you think that was going to last?) and the lenders who made the loans, all I can say is "tough shit".

there's only one way to find out...

5

^ 1

Re: I'm not particularly sympathetic

wetkarma.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:47:27 PM EST

4.50 (interesting, informative)


I'm old-fashioned about financing a home.  My first (fixed) mortgage in 1982 was at 16.5%.  Later on, I refinanced down to 13%, and after that again to 9%.  Now I have a home that's paid for.  

Holy Christ. For that much interest you probably would have been better off renting. My very first mortgage back in 1999 was 6.8% or something like that and at time I was thinking 'damn this is such a rip'. 16.5%..my god.

In any event my current rate on my place is 4.75% on a 5 year ARM. The brilliant part is that the ARM is about to expire (in august), but with the Fed's nice .75c cut (and the forthcoming .50c I speculate will happen end of January), mortgage rates have been diving to historical lows. For anyone in the market the next few months will be a once in a century opportunity to buy a house cheap as housing prices fall AND finance it for cheap.

I think it would be greatest irony if I refinanced my current 5 year arm into another 5 year ARM for the same rate or less with the same mortgage company I'm currently using.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

2

^ 1

Re: I'm not particularly sympathetic

port1080.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:51:13 PM EST

4.33 (informative, interesting)

My first (fixed) mortgage in 1982 was at 16.5%. Later on, I refinanced down to 13%, and after that again to 9%. Now I have a home that's paid for.

That's fascinating to me, and it really goes to show how cheap credit drove the housing boom. My wife and I just got a fixed rate mortgage last summer for about 7.7% - and that wasn't a particularly good rate (the best rates at the time were about 6.7%, and a few years earlier they were even better than that). We had to get a non-standard (although not sub-prime) mortgage, because most of our income at the time was from inherited investment income (and for whatever reason, banks won't count capital gains or graduate student stipends as "income" - never mind that we get bi-weekly paychecks like everyone else.... go figure). We might have been able to get a cheaper ARM, but we knew better than to do that... and thank god, because I'm sure we'd find it nearly impossible to refinance now.

In any case, I'm glad we got the mortgage, but I can also see how easy the mortgage companies made it to game the system. All we had to do for the mortgage we got was "state an income". They made no effort at all to verify it - we just had to say what it was. The only disadvantage to that method was that they approved us for a relatively low amount, and our interest rate was about a point higher. We told the truth about our income, but there was absolutely nothing to prevent us from lying, and our "mortgage consultant" practically encouraged us to lie to get a higher amount (all in coded language, mind you), because, I assume, his commission was based on the size of the loan amount. Fortunately, we were putting about 50% of the price of the house as a down payment, so we didn't really need a huge loan, but nonetheless... People shouldn't have behaved irresponsibly, but the mortgage companies practically begged them to cheat and game the system. If it wasn't for the effect on the economy, I wouldn't feel bad at all that things are now coming back to bite them in the ass.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

4

^ 2

Re: I'm not particularly sympathetic

skeeter1.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:35:36 PM EST

4.66 (interesting, informative, interesting)

"My first (fixed) mortgage in 1982 was at 16.5%. Later on, I refinanced down to 13%, and after that again to 9%. Now I have a home that's paid for."

That's not a joke.  At the time that was a very good interest rate from a local savings & loan.  The banks around here were charging 18% at the time.  It was a fairly modest house, 1200 sq.ft. bungalow with a 1-car garage that I bought for $52K ($18K down).  It needed quite a bit of work, and I built up some "sweat-equity" in it.  Eight years later I sold it for $68K.  That left me with $33K for the down payment on my current house, which I bought for $99K.  It's currently valued at $178K.

The most important thing (and I can't stress this enough) is to do whatever you have to to get a 20% down payment on any dwelling you want to buy.  Trust me, that puts you in the driver's seat, and lenders will kiss your butt to give you a loan.  

There are a lot of great housing deals out there at the moment (it's certainly a buyer's market), but if you don't have at least a 20% down payment, you're treading on thin ice.

there's only one way to find out...

6

the guy who blew off his credit is a genius

wetkarma.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:53:52 PM EST

4.50 (interesting, interesting)

 Everything has a price. It used to be 7 years was a LONG time to work off a bad credit rating.  However for being able to walk away from a couple hundred grand of debt, that just makes financial sense - few people's credit rating is worth 200k+ to them.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

3

Morals?

thefadd.

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:05:55 PM EST

4.00 (astute, astute)

When a bank makes the fiscally prudent decision, it's just a business decision. When an individual makes the fiscally prudent decision, it's immoral. Don't make me laugh. The fact of the matter is a lot of finance companies thought they could really screw people with these ARM loans. There's just no way you make a loan like that with anything else in mind.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

7

^ 3

Re: Morals?

wetkarma.

Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:24:45 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

I don't give much credence to the moral argument myself. In every collateralized loan there is a deal which basically goes "I'll borrow some money from you and pay you back at this rate. If I don't pay you back, you can take this collateral which is what I'm borrowing the money for". Thats the essence of collateral banking.

Now a significant piece of a bank's interest charge on a loan is to compensate them for the loans that will inevitably go bad. If the bank failed to charge enough interest to offset their risk, they need to fix that and charge higher interest rates in the future/revise their vetting procedures.

The implication that people who walk away from their home loans are somehow acting immorally or even fraudulently ignores the fact that walking away is a right embedded in the loan contract.

I think what we are going to see as a side-effect of the mortgage crisis is that  credit ratings are going to be revised to track people for much longer periods of time. The guy who blows off his loan now, might be surprised come 7 years from now when his bad loan still shows up on his credit profile.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

9

Like I Wrote In The Story.

MayorBob.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

Show me a market niche and I'll show you a company or two ready to jump in to profit off the niche.  Meet You Walk Away, an exciting new service for those of us about to lose our homes.  For a mere $995, you get a half hour with a lawyer who will undoubtedly tell you what you already know: you lose the house (but get to stay rent free for a couple of months) and ruin your credit rating.  Sounds like a waste of $995 to me.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

10

^ 9

Re: Like I Wrote In The Story.

3fingerspointback.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:07:22 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

No, think of the couple of months rent you save!

(is 3fingerspointback)

11

^ 10

That's A Given Whether You Talk To A Lawyer Or Not

MayorBob.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:14:42 PM EST

4.00 (astute)

If you're in such desperate straits that you're actually thinking about walking away from the mortgage, talking to this outfit accomplishes nothing other than putting $995 in their pockets.  You're still going to have some rent free months (I've heard as much as eight to ten, but I'd guess it all depends on the foreclosure activity in your area).  You're still going to have to leave eventually.  Your credit rating will still be shot in the butt.  I'm not arguing that walking out on a mortgage with a balance twice the value of the property is some sort of moral failing on the part of the walker (I'm just thankful I'll never be in such a situation).  All I'm saying is that this "service" does very little in my opinion to go towards earning its $995 fee.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

12

^ 11

Re: That's A Given Whether You Talk To A Lawyer Or

thefadd.

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:07:37 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

It's pretty astounding that anyone who had gone through the process of buying a home would need that much hand-holding getting out of it but obviously they are preying on people's emotions and really aren't offering much beyond self-esteem building. At least call one of those signs on the side of the road that says, "we pay cash for houses!" first.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

This story: 12 comments (4 from subqueue)
Post a Comment