One of my greatest reservations when I voted for President Barack Obama was his plan for addressing foreclosures specifically, that bankruptcy courts could determine new home values for those in danger of foreclosure. From my October 7, 2008 column:
Case in point, a statement made by Sen. Biden in last Thursday night's vice-presidential debate:
BIDEN: "We should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to readjust, not just the interest rate you are paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but in -- be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that, that you owe. That would keep people in their homes; actually help banks by keeping them from going under..."
Still unclear as to why this strategy has not only the potential for major economic fallout, but would establish flawed judicial precedents? Refer to that column; I broke it down in plain and simple terms.
When I read Matthew Pavlevky's piece on The Huffington Post lamenting the lack of mortgage modifications even in light of continued foreclosures, I was glad. Not because I side with the banks, nor because I'm insensitive to others' financial struggles. I'm glad because while it sounds like a viable short-term solution, the long-term impact is decidedly negative.
"Loan modifications occur when a lender agrees to change terms of a troubled borrower’s mortgage; the most common approach is to reduce the loan’s interest rate. Cutting the amount of principal owed — an option that could be of more help to a borrower — is rare because it means homeowners pay less money back to the bank over time."
Cutting the amount of principal owed is exactly the modification I argued against in my previous column. But Pavlevsky, Morgenson, and White are all still in favor of reducing the principal as a means of avoiding foreclosure, and the data and reasoning given by White seems compelling:
"There is 100 times as much money lost in foreclosure sales as there was in writing down balances in modifications,” Mr. White said. “That is not rational economic behavior."
Yes, foreclosures cost banks money -- a lot of money. Much more money than they'd lose if they cut principal balances. The bailout(s) aren't even going to make up for the foreclosure losses.
But reducing the principal means altering the mortgage contract. As I wrote before:
"If mortgage contracts are fluid -- that is, their value: the principal owed, plus the interest, can be adjusted by a bankruptcy judge -- then they will be an even riskier investment in the future than the sub-prime mortgages of the past... That means the investor loses money, so they won't buy more mortgages from that bank. In turn, because the bank is unable to sell their mortgages, they run out of cash and can't approve more mortgages."
The banks are taking a major short-term loss by allowing foreclosures to proceed, but they're avoiding far more significant long-term losses -- both for themselves and for homeowners seeking loans -- in the future.
"These families' primary complaint has been the dearth of information regarding how likely they are to receive a modification. They want to know if they should sell their house now and possibly go into bankruptcy, or hold out for a modification."
This attitude frustrates me greatly. It's downright childish. The responsibility of home ownership belongs to the homeowner, not the government. It sounds almost as if these families are looking for someone else to blame in the event that they end up in foreclosure, instead of taking steps on their own -- that is, without government assistance -- to avoid that end.
"Do not rely on the government to protect you. Do not rely on the good faith of your friendly real estate agent or mortgage broker. Do not depend upon your attorney or title carrier to help you avoid pitfalls. EDUCATE YOURSELF."
I couldn't agree more. And that's why, in spite of my sympathy for those who face losing their homes, I refuse to support absolving them of their personal responsibilities.
Julie is a former Air Force officer and professional project manager turned web writer. She spent four years at the Pentagon and five years in New York City, and her suburban life in Colorado seems pastoral by comparison. She's no political pundit, but she is an objective thinker in a sea of partisan propagandists. She writes for The Mom Slant, Cool Mom Picks, and is co-founder of The Parent Bloggers Network.
"Try as hard as we may for perfection, the net result of our labors is an amazing variety of imperfectness. We are surprised at our own versatility in being able to fail in so many different ways." -- Samuel McChord Crothers
The views, opinions and information expressed in articles and blog posts published on imperfectparent.com and all subdomains are those of the authors alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of The Imperfect Parent or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of any entity of, or affiliated with, Imperfect Parent. The Imperfect Parent
is designed for entertainment
purposes only and is not meant to be a substitute for medical, health,
legal, or financial advice from a professional.
of material from any of Imperfect Parent's pages without written
permission is strictly prohibited.