loan modification

More Burdensome to Pay Rent Than to Be a Mortgage Deadbeat

by Hans Bader on November 28, 2010 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

Under government mortgage bailout/modification programs, the mortgage payments of many delinquent borrowers were cut to 31 percent of income, even for borrowers with high incomes and big houses. That cut was based on the false assumption that anything over that percentage was unaffordable (and perhaps even predatory lending). But people often pay far more than that in rent and mortgage payments, especially in prosperous regions like Washington, D.C. So mortgage deadbeats are sometimes getting their payments cut well below what their responsible neighbors have to pay — not merely getting relief from a bad deal.

“One in five renters and one in seven homeowners in the Washington area spend more than half their income on housing, according to census figures,” notes a recent Washington Post story.  Much of the population in the counties surrounding Washington, D.C. spent more than 30 percent: “In Fairfax County, for example, more than half the renters with household incomes of $50,000 to $75,000 spent more than 30 percent of their income last year to keep a roof over their heads,” as did “more than six out of 10 homeowners in that income bracket in Prince George’s and Prince William counties,” and “more than half” in Washington, D.C. itself.

Senior government officials, who mostly purchased their homes long ago, long before the housing bubble (and thus often have mortgage payments that are just a tiny fraction of their income), seem oblivious to this reality.

Many borrowers aren’t making any payments at all. They’re just defaulting on their mortgages, knowing that it will take years for the bank to evict them for non-payment: 492 days is the average number of days since the typical borrower in foreclosure last made a mortgage payment.  As law professor Glenn Reynolds notes, this all “seems calculated to make people who are struggling to make their payments feel like suckers.”

These mortgage bailout programs are harming the economy, say some economists and real estate experts.

I understated things a bit when I noted earlier that some mortgage deadbeats had their mortgage payments cut to just 31 percent of income. Actually, it’s lower than that. That 31 percent figure includes not just mortgage payments but also real estate taxes.  So if a delinquent borrower has a mortgage that’s 20 percent of income, and property taxes that are another 15 percent of income (for a total of 35 percent of income), that borrower could have gotten a reduction in mortgage payments under the 31 percent test, despite having a modest mortgage.

Obama’s Futile Attempts at Foreclosure Avoidance

by John Berlau on February 18, 2009 · 10 comments

in Bailout Watch, Features, Labor, Mobility, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

The new $75 billion foreclosure avoidance plan to be unveiled today by President Obama, from initial reports, continues the misguided efforts of the Bush administration and Congress to “keep people in their homes” at all costs. Such policies only end up disserving taxpayers, the economy, and frequently troubled borrowers themselves.

There are many reasons for foreclosures, from borrowers getting into a house than they couldn’t afford to a job loss or other factors that cause loss of a family’s income. Whatever the cause of the homeowners’ troubles, the focus should not be primarily on keeping people in their homes, but on opportunities to improve their economic situation. If the government wants to spend $75 billion to help troubled homeowners, it would be better off giving a tax holiday to families subject to foreclosure, rather than attempts to stop the foreclosure from occurring that often have unintended consequences.

While all foreclosures are difficult, they are sometimes the least bad option for an individual borrower. They allow borrowers to walk away from both the home and the loan, at a cost to their credit rating, but not nearly as big a hit as they would take if they declared a personal bankruptcy.

Having borrowers continue to pay into a bad loan, even with reduced payments, takes away money they could be using to start over. Redefault rates from existing government-backed loan modification programs indicate that they are often ineffective. And in the case of borrowers facing job losses, staying in one’s home while being saddled with a mortgage can delay the necessary step of moving to an area with more job opportunities.

It would also be unfortunate if, as reports indicate, President Obama endorses legislation in Congress creating a bankruptcy “cramdown” or other efforts to abrogate mortgage contracts. Mortgage-backed securities frequently aren’t owned by banks, but by investors, and those investors include pensions and mutual funds that belong to middle-class families. The government’s forcing or encouraging the abrogation of mortgage contracts could cause a hit to middle-class retirement savings. And it could also further tighten credit and drive up borrowing costs for American businesses and consumers due to the possibility of contract abrogation in the future.

Democrats and Republicans should focus on the truly “progressive” goal of helping victims of the financial crisis improve their economic situation, rather than ambitious efforts to keep people in their homes that can often lead to negative consequences for taxpayers, mobility in the economy, and borrowers themselves.