June 17, 2008

Experts: Foreclosures Have Hit Bottom, Let’s Bail Out the Borrowers

2178405451 613593f655 m Experts: Foreclosures Have Hit Bottom, Lets Bail Out the BorrowersAccording to an article in The New York Times, foreclosures are near or at the bottom in the United States. Oh, just one thing: it’s a 1992 article. Some very interesting parallels between then and now:

“The foreclosures reflect the mortgage policy of the mid-80′s. They were allowed to liberally get large mortgages, but now the economic pressures for many, brought on by the recession—such as loss of jobs, loss of income—make it impossible for a lot of them to come up with their mortgage payments,” Roger H. Sirlin, a lawyer in Mamaroneck who represented the lenders in the foreclosures, told the Times.

Sound familiar?

“Many banks are now willing to avoid foreclosure,” he said, “by restructuring mortgages that had originated at a much higher interest rate and by attaching amounts in arrears to the end of the mortgage.” (So why can’t they do this now—attach the amount in arrears to the end of the mortgage? Or is that being done and I just haven’t read about it?)

‘Lenders are more than willing to work with delinquents,” Mr. Sirlin said, “because the last thing they want is to own residential real estate.” When possible, they favor work-outs, which means loans tailored to individual needs. It’s in the banks’ interest to help borrowers avoid foreclosure.

If this is the case, smart readers, why are so many of you indignant about such arrangements? Isn’t it better for the economy? Help me out here. (Photo: Mike Licht.)


  • Ah, I see - yes, that's a big difference. If it doesn't affect our pocketbooks, fine, let them go ahead and work it out with the borrower. That's probably better for the bank, too, yes? The bank doesn't want to have to go to the trouble to evict the foreclosed borrower and sell the house.
  • Susan Kuchinskas
    As someone who can't muster too much sympathy for people who bought expensive houses with no money down, I will say that I think it's an excellent idea for the banks to work it out with borrowers. I'm all for it. In fact, I think that's exactly what they should do.

    What I'm against is using my tax dollars to bail out the borrowers and the banks themselves.
  • Dang, Red. When you hot, you hot. Thanks for the awesome explanation. Let's see if I'm understanding you correctly. So the idea is that if a bank was getting 11 percent interest from someone initially, that's a substantive monthly payment, eh? Plus the bank had gotten a 20 percent down payment from the buyer. So the bank could afford to let a buyer skip a few payments, extending the length of time in which the loan could be paid, because they had already collected a fair amount of money.

    Whereas today in many cases the bank has collected very little from buyers who benefited from exotic instruments such as zero-down, zero-interest adjustable loans? Hence your description of a workout as a gift to borrowers who have put very little into the house.

    Sure appreciate your expertise.
  • Red
    The banks had room to move in 1992; most loans were 20% down, fully amortized 30 year. Rates peaked in 1988 at about 11%, and had dropped to about 8% in 1992. So the Bank could increase the balance and extend the amortization, while lowering the interest, and come out roughly even, without the balance being hugely greater than the value of the home.
    Now the loans going belly up are neg am, 95 to 100% of the value at origination, (now seriously - like 20, 30% underwater) - with currently low teaser interest rates.
    Almost any workout possible ends up making a big gift to the delinquent mortgagee.
    The folks who were diligently saving their 20% downs to buy a home they could afford were outbid by speculators with liar loans who expected the appreciation to make them rich when they flipped the house. Or maybe, by young families who were told to buy now or never be able to, that real estate always goes up, not to worry because buying was cheaper than renting, that their income would go up before that seller buy down ran out. You pick.
blog comments powered by Disqus
close