Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Underwater Mortgage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Underwater Mortgage

    EquineCPA started an interesting thread, or rant, about clients who are contemplating bankruptcy, or are unable to make payroll, or are otherwise in financial distress. Or those were some of the topics that came up in the thread, anyway. EquineCPA's original post referred to clients that were "negotiating through an attorney to see if they could just let the banks take [the properties]." This idea became the source of a lot of indignation. What happened to integrity, why don't people feel obligated to pay their debts, etc.

    EquineCPA didn't say whether the borrowers (her clients) were underwater, i.e., whether they owe more than the property is currently worth. So my comments are not directed specifically toward EquineCPA, or her clients.

    But when it comes to borrowers who are deep underwater on their primary residence, or even on rental/investment properties, there is something that I think has gone largely unnoticed, or unaddressed...

    In many areas of the US, it is not uncommon to see cases where someone bought a property for, say, $300K, and it is now worth only $200K, due to the collapse of the real estate market. These people cannot sell without doing a short sale, or coughing up the difference in value, and they can't refinance, because they are too far away from the standard benchmark, i.e., the amount borrowed generally should not exceed 125% of the value of the property.

    Most people who work with money, taxes, or accounting are familiar with these situations. But what you may not realize is this:

    The unlawful and deceitful behavior of the banks contributed to, and in fact was one of the main causes, of the collapse of the real estate market.

    The dramatic drop in property values was caused by the actions of the world's largest banks.

    And I'm not just talking about banks that did a lot of loans to people that shouldn't have qualified for them. That was certainly a significant factor. But there's more to it.

    The banks packaged the loans into securities that were sold on the secondary market, called CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations. And they flat-out lied about the quality of the loans that were in these packages. And they got the ratings agencies, such as Moody's and Standard and Poor's, to back up their lies.

    When the world discovered that these CDOs were loaded with low quality, high risk, subprime loans, and not the safe, "investment-grade" loans that the banks had claimed, this triggered a chain reaction, which ultimately resulted in a massive drop in property values.

    The entire affair is a lot more complicated than this. What I have presented here is a tiny snapshot. I don't think I understand it all. But I do think that the big banks, through their unlawful and deceptive practices, are directly responsible for the drop in property values.

    Several different mechanisms are used to get borrowers out of an underwater mortgage. One is foreclosure, followed by sale of the property at auction. Another is the "deed in lieu of foreclosure," where the bank agrees to "just take the property." Another is the short sale. Another is modification of the loan, with a principal reduction. This mechanism is theoretically available through HAMP, the Home Affordable Modification Program. But most banks are not doing principal reductions. Another option is bankruptcy.

    All of these mechanisms have roughly the same outcome. The bank can only recover what the property is worth, or in some cases, up to 125% of the property value.

    Many borrowers who avail themselves of these processes are entitled to some form of relief from their debt, under basic principles of fairness and equity. The banks do not have clean hands. The banks are getting what they deserve. The banks caused this mess, and now they have to live with the consequences.

    I'm have a feeling this post is going to generate a very lively discussion...





    BMK
    Last edited by Koss; 10-24-2011, 09:30 PM.
    Burton M. Koss
    koss@usakoss.net

    ____________________________________
    The map is not the territory...
    and the instruction book is not the process.

    #2
    \Let's not blame just the financial communityl The name of that game is G R E E D , and there was more than enough to go around, from individual tax client speculators, to real estate agents/brokers hungry for those commissions, to professional landlords.

    Bubbles of course are nothing new: the Dutch tulip bubble comes to mind.
    And more recently in my memory was the dot com bubble ; boy, do I remember THAT one. (I rode Oracle all the way up, and then almost all the way down.)

    Just what will the next bubble be?
    ChEAr$,
    Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

    Comment


      #3
      Much deceit

      Originally posted by Koss View Post
      EquineCPA
      Most people who work with money, taxes, or accounting are familiar with these situations. But what you may not realize is this:

      The unlawful and deceitful behavior of the banks contributed to, and in fact was one of the main causes, of the collapse of the real estate market.

      The dramatic drop in property values was caused by the actions of the world's largest banks.




      BMK
      to go around. Let's not forget the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which started in the 90s lowering standards for loans. Politically driven to help low and moderate income borrowers to aquire homes which they normally would not have qualified for.

      Another example of the government involved in something they have no business being in.

      Comment


        #4
        [QUOTE=Koss;126960]The unlawful and deceitful behavior of the banks contributed to, and in fact was one of the main causes, of the collapse of the real estate market.

        The banks were forced to make bad loans or face penalties for discriminatory lending practices. When it became clear that Fannie and Freddie would cover any losses with taxpayer dollars, the banks jumped on the bandwagon. The bandwagon got bigger and bigger over time. Who wouldn't take a deal where you keep the profits and someone else takes the losses?

        Please forgive the appearance of partisanship. Encouraging homeownership was a Dem goal. A good goal. It is unfortunate that the unintended consequences fell on them.

        This problem was created a beefed up Community Reinvestment Act and a new charter for the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) from 1993 - 1995:

        AN ANECDOTE WITH RESONANCE Re: Reid Collins’s?The MRI and I: Having my years of “heavy age,” I’ve had to endure a number of medical tests — especially after the discovery of cancer. I, too, have had an MRI. I have...


        This problem was recognized, and attempts to impose regulations beginning in 2001 were thwarted:

        Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late. "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade." (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," The Washington Times, 10/9/08)


        Congressional hearings were held in 2004. You can watch here:



        See here how our elected officials get abnormal returns on their investments:



        Crony capitalism is defined here:



        No business can indulge in unlawful and deceitful behavior for very long in the absence of cronyism. No banker would have made these loans without the GSE guarantee. When the scheme overheated, it was up to the regulators to cool it down. The Cong. hearings show what happened when they tried.
        Last edited by BHoffman; 10-25-2011, 12:29 PM.

        Comment


          #5
          [QUOTE=BHoffman;126982]
          Originally posted by Koss View Post
          The unlawful and deceitful behavior of the banks contributed to, and in fact was one of the main causes, of the collapse of the real estate market.

          The banks were forced to make bad loans or face penalties for discriminatory lending practices. When it became clear that Fannie and Freddie would cover any losses with taxpayer dollars, the banks jumped on the bandwagon. The bandwagon got bigger and bigger over time. Who wouldn't take a deal where you keep the profits and someone else takes the losses?

          This problem was created a beefed up Community Reinvestment Act and a new charter for the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) from 1993 - 1995:

          AN ANECDOTE WITH RESONANCE Re: Reid Collins’s?The MRI and I: Having my years of “heavy age,” I’ve had to endure a number of medical tests — especially after the discovery of cancer. I, too, have had an MRI. I have...


          This problem was recognized, and attempts to impose regulations beginning in 2001 were thwarted:

          Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late. "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade." (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," The Washington Times, 10/9/08)


          Congressional hearings were held in 2004. You can watch here:



          See here how our elected officials get abnormal returns on their investments:



          Crony capitalism is defined here:



          No business can indulge in unlawful and deceitful behavior for very long in the absence of cronyism. No banker would have made these loans without the GSE guarantee. When the scheme overheated, it was up to the regulators to cool it down. The Cong. hearings show what happened when they tried.
          Bingo! I saw these hearings a couple of years ago. Interesting how Congress conveniently forgets and points fingers away from themselves.

          Comment


            #6
            And as the original posted of the other thread about inegrity I should mention I in no way absolve the banks of any blame for where they are today and do not feel sorry for them in any shape or form.

            My case was an entirely different scenario where a couple were trying to benefit from todays deflated real estate prices while not taking a hit on existing properties they own by turning them over to the bank. Basically having their cake and eating it to!

            They went into this transaction (the acquisition of the third property) with their eyes wide open. They haven't been able to sell so just want to bail.

            I'm closing on a personal property acquisition tomorrow and can't believe the bells whistles and hoops I had to jump through to make it happen. I think if I wasn't a figure person I probably would have given up trying to get this property purchased. The banks have gone from one extreme to the other in the lending spectrum and the one thing that is still not used in granting a loan is good ole common sense. They just try to ram the square peg into the round hole, and it if doesn't fit you don't get the loan.

            Comment


              #7
              I'll chime in with an anecdote: good friend who sold house at the top of the market and took the cash and put half into new house. They put $80k down on a $400,000 house. No funny loans, just a fixed 30 year. Fast forward a few years...can't do a conventional refi because the house is now worth about $160k; they are so underwater they don't qualify for any program. They were only trying to get an interest rate reduction.....they are paying 6.5%, but Wells Fargo won't budge, even though a 2% reduction would still put them above current interest rates. Never miss a payment though. They won't do a loan mod since he HASN'T missed a payment.

              Wife up and leaves (the last fight was about money & budget), says 'Just let it go into foreclosure'. He can't pay on his salary, and then loses his job anyways. Misses the Oct payment.

              NOW they announce a new program....but it's only for people that haven't missed a payment. So maybe WF will approve a short sale, or it goes into foreclosure, but because partly of that refusal to modify, reduce or otherwise bargain, they get a $150k loss, he loses his house, wrecks his credit, and ends up ?????

              Comment

              Working...
              X