Strategic Defaults and the Foreclosure Crisis

January 19, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (111)

Nearly a year after the Obama administration unveiled its ambitious housing rescue program, foreclosure tallies continue to break records. Foreclosure filings were reported on more than 2.8 million properties in 2009, up 21 percent from the previous year and 120 percent from 2007, according to RealtyTrac. With nearly 10 percent of mortgages now delinquent--which is also a new record--even more homeowners appear headed for foreclosure this year. "A massive supply of delinquent loans continues to loom over the housing market," RealtyTrac CEO James J. Saccacio said in a statement. "Many of those delinquencies will end up in the foreclosure process in 2010 and beyond."

[See Tips for Selling a Home in the Off-Season.]

Homeowners have found themselves in foreclosure for a number of reasons. Some purchased properties they could never really afford. Others lost their jobs--the national unemployment rate remains in the double digits--and had no way to make mortgage payments. But as the crisis rumbles forward, an additional driver of home foreclosures has become clear: Many borrowers have the means to keep paying the mortgage but are simply walking away because they believe it's best for their finances.

The number of so called "strategic defaults" more than doubled, to 588,000, from 2007 to 2008, according to a study by Experian and Oliver Wyman. A separate 2009 survey found that more than a quarter of all existing defaults were strategic. Meanwhile, a growing number of academics are touting the financial benefits of walking away. "Homeowners should be walking away in droves," Brent T. White, a University of Arizona law school professor, said in a recent paper. "The financial costs of foreclosure, while not insignificant, are minimal compared to the financial benefit of strategic default."

[See Obama's Loan Modification Plan: 7 Things You Need to Know]

The case for strategically defaulting is linked to negative equity, or owing more on your home than it is worth. With home prices at the national level having dropped roughly 30 percent from their 2006 peaks—and a great deal more in certain bubble markets—a considerable chunk of property owners are now in this fix. Nearly 1 in 4 borrowers currently have negative equity, according to First American CoreLogic. And rather than continuing to make payments on an investment that's now worth significantly less than what they paid for it, many borrowers are throwing in the towel.

White uses the following example to demonstrate how many borrowers are better off defaulting: A young professional couple with two children pays $585,000 for a three-bedroom, Salinas, Calif.-home in January 2006. At $4,300, monthly payments on their no-money-down, 30-year fixed mortgage with an interest rate of 6.5 percent represent a tad less than 31 percent of their gross monthly income. Toss in taxes, student loans, health care, food, and other essentials, and finances quickly get tight.

After the historic housing bust, their home is now worth $187,000, but they still owe $560,000. Other homes in their neighborhood, of course, have plummeted in value as well. And if the couple was to purchase a similar, nearby house listed at $179,000, their monthly payments would be less than $1,200. That's a huge savings over their current $4,300 monthly mortgage bill. But since a foreclosure on their credit report is likely to prevent them from buying a home in the near-term, they may have to rent. And about $1,000 a month gets them a comparable rental property in their neighborhood.

"Assuming they intend to stay in their home ten years, [the homeowners] would save approximately $340,000 by walking away, including a monthly savings of at least $1,700 on rent verses mortgage payments, even after factoring in the mortgage interest tax reduction," White writes. "If they stay in their home, on the other hand, it will take [the homeowners] over 60 years just to recover their equity—assuming, of course, that they live that long."

The argument against strategically defaulting is much more straightforward: You promised to repay the loan when you took out the mortgage, and it's your responsibility to do everything possible to honor that commitment. Avoiding the guilt and shame that can accompany a foreclosure is one of the top reasons struggling homeowners don't strategically default, White writes. On top of that, a foreclosure significantly damages one's credit—making it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a mortgage for years afterward.

Tags:
housing market,
housing,
real estate

Reader Comments Read all comments (111)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

the biggest issue not seen or understood by most home owners, judges, and lawyers, is the concept that Pooling and Servicing Agreements played in this whole mess. You see, loans (notes) are negotiable instruments. These were pooled into Trusts and sold to the REMIC. They then became converted into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). At the time of the sale, the banking instrument, regulated by the Banking Commission became a stock, and now regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Once it changed form, it did so irrevocably. That means the bank switched roles from lender to Servicer and no longer owns the NOTE. Therefore, they can't foreclose. Furthermore, they got PAID IN FULL at the time of conversion. So by foreclosing they are getting paid 3 times. Firstly, if FHA loan, they get the deficiency value between sale and loan paid 100%. If conventional loan, they get paid 80% by the FDIC. They are getting paid for something the ALREADY got paid for in the first place at the time they sold the loan and pooled to become a stock. So they have no incentive not to foreclose. They could to recover the value of the asset, in whatever price it will fetch, they get to recover the difference, via FDIC or FHA/HUD. They also get to have been paid for it in full at the time of converting the notes into MBS. And to add insult to injury, they got T.A.R.P money and bank executives paid themselves millions of dollars. Does this seem fair to you? So let them eat the loss, not the homeowner. They created the mess, no prosecutions took place, of Sorbanes Oxley Act, and they get to get bailed out.

Alex of NJ 9:39PM December 16, 2011

J. P. Morgan Chase, aka Plymouth Park Tax Services,aka Xspand, and our corrupt public officials have ruined Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Tens of thousands of victims and hundreds of homes - some owned mortgage free for decades- were lost.

J. P Morgan has admitted rigging the tax lien process in over 30 states - including Ohio- and has agreed to pay a $211 Million dollar settlement.

Cuyahoga County is under a massive federal invesigation which publicly began in 2008. The continuing invesigation has resulted in numerous public corruption convictions and pending RICO charges.

It takes two to Tango. Which Cuyahoga County official was Tangoing with Plymouth Park Tax Services?

The No Bid lucrative contract for several years leads me to believe that the admitted rigged delinquent property tax lien process also involves public corruption crimes.

Read my blogs with more information on this admitted crime:

http://realneo.us/content/plymouth-park-tax-services-aka-xspand-cuyahoga-county-victims-corruption-deserve-justice

http://realneo.us/content/jp-morgan-chase-aka-plymouth-park-admits-tax-lien-rigging-ohio-211-million-settlement-cuyaho

Lily Miller of OH 7:15AM September 14, 2011

I have never missed nor been late on any payment on my mortgage of over 15 years. My house in under water to the tune of $100,000.00 give or take. We presently have the house on the market for sale and have had no serious lookers for 90 days. The problem is, the consumer can buy a house just like mine for $150,000.00 even though I am willing to sell my house for $179,000.00 and lose a hundred thousand on the deal. Not good business sense to me so I am looking at walking away as an investment decision. No different that walking away from a losing stock except you credit will suffer. That is not all that important to us because we have everything we need already paid for and do not need credit like those just starting out in life. The idea of owning a home and keeping a home up has lost all of it's appeal to me. I will lot live long enough to see the value of my home in an equity position again and I am not really that old (64) but this down-turn will last another 15 to 20 years in my opinion.

Michael of GA 12:00PM July 14, 2011

advertisement

Latest Video

advertisement