|
Find NY real estate agents and Hauppauge real estate on ActiveRain.
Disclaimer: ActiveRain Corp. does not necessarily endorse the real estate agents, loan officers and brokers listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs and blog entries are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a house. ActiveRain Corp. takes no responsibility for the content in these profiles, that are written by the members of this community.
© 2013 ActiveRain Corp. All Rights Reserved
44 Comments on Force Banks to Modify Their Behavior
I agree, something, some alternative to the lengthy muddled process that we have now.
Paul, Great post. I can tell you first hand that I dealt with a number of clients that had modifications offered to them from the banks in 2008 and these so called " modifications" did result in higher payments. I think the Bankruptcy idea is a good idea, and could really get things moving. What we need is MOVEMENT, the banks are taking way too long to get the modifications done, I have one client who has been negotiating a modification for 24 months. Imagine living in a home and not making a payment for 2 years! Regardless of the loss the modification would result with this homeowner the bank would have been in a much better position 18 months ago to cut the principal 40% and begin taking payments on the new loan. The lost revenue from 24 months will not be recovered and should the bank foreclose and take the property back they will lose 60% of the principal balance plus selling expenses. The sooner the modification gets done the better off everyone will be. Thanks again for a great post.
ROCK ON!
I totally agree...the sooner banks do not have the possiblity of a bail-out may change the way they do business and do us all a favor.
I have been saying this for a long time now - we need more of real check and balances for the government and more education for the population. Corrupt and stupid make a very good case for a disaster.
Good Post Paul,
I totally agree with you in that banks at least high in the food chain operate for self interest rather than greatest good for all. Anyone interested in getting a bit of insight into the banking industry, bail outs and other tricks of the banking trade should check out the following book.
http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986212
However, I do think Paul has valid points as well. I'm not sure that coming up with the short sale concept as that great of an idea. A deal is a deal. Pay "X" amount of dollars a month until the loan is paid off or loose the property. Everyone agrees to the terms. All the parties loan officiers, agents, escrow folks and the buyer have ample time to fully understand the commitment and what they need to do. It's not that I don't have empathy for those in trouble. I just think ones word and integrity is much more valuable than real estate or money. I don't see anything "wrong" with following the terms of the original agreement. It may not be the best solution but it sure would handle the short sale bottle neck - no more short sales.
In the long run, your cure would be worse than the disease. Instead, we need to make sure that nobody is too big to fail...
Hi Paul -- Great post and it struck a nerve with many intriguing comments. I think cram downs should be explored, it might make the holders a bit more responsive, it's worth testing out.
Glad you changed your mind. The banks should have been taking steps in this direction a long time ago.
James and Jeremy-The cram down procedure was always a tool for a bankruptcy judge until 6-7 years ago when Congress reformed the bankruptcy laws. No reason it cannot be put back.
Lisa-It was not the bail out itself that was wrong. It was that that we allowed the banks to do whatever they wanted with the money. The bail out should have come with strings attached, but with steel cables.
Dan-In bankruptcy court, a judge already has the power to modify contracts. It is done all the time right now. That is the whole point of going into bankruptcy. As I said before, the power to modify first mortgages was just recently taken away by Congress. It is time to put it back.
Lane-I used to think the same way. We now have a system which encourages borrowers to walk away from their homes rather than fight to keep them. The cure is no longer worse than the disease.
Chris-We used to allow judicial cram downs so it has been tested and the world did not come to an end.
Nathan-You are right. We have to take steps now.
Paul,
I find the call to forcefully influence businesses outrageous at best. And please, when you say WE NEED TO FORCE BANKS... do not count me in. I am sure there are others who wouldn't want to be in either.
Or, BTW, when the banks agree to take less, will you return your commission for that bad deal?
Weren't that us, the agents behind each such "bad" deal, who stood right there, with eyes wide open and had no problem whatsoever with the mess that we so happily helped to create?
Am I day dreaming for some decency here?
I think you're right. Unless they change we'll be in much worse shape!
Paul,
Just to clarify -- I'm not blaming anybody. Saw what was going on years ago so I'm well past the blame game stage. The blame game is pointless at this stage.
Very informative post here. As we all know this is a big mess that seems to be spiraling out of control. Hopefully within the next few years we can see the light at then end of the tunnel.
Paul - While I am a "free market" person, I support the concept of lenders reducing principle balances on mortgages facing foreclosure where the mortgage exceeds a home's value, and if having bankruptcy judges do so is required, then that may be the only course.
Many seem to overlook the fact that this is not a "traditional" recession; we face a collapse of the entire housing market if we fail to act. Whatever action we take will have lasting consequences, but failure to act could be the most devastating.
And to respond to Paul Francis, there have been numerous reports of modifications resulting in higher payments from CNN Money, the Wall Street Journal, and others. I've provided some links below.
PR Web
CNN Money
WSJ
Comment #9 is right on the mark and the sooner we come to terms with reality the sooner we get the country on a positive track.
Bankruptcy cram downs will work and it will give bank the motivation to be more proactive with loan modifications.
So, if banks start being forced to cram down mortgages... and raise rates to cover those losses... fewer people will be able to buy homes. This will lead to lower prices. The lower prices will put more people upside-down... leading to more modifications and cram-downs.
Jon-Forcing a bank to take a cram down through the bankruptcy procedure is nothing new. It has been done in the past and the world did not come to end. It is still done for many other secured debts, just first mortgages are treated as sacred cows. I may not have to return my past fees on mortgages but I am sure paying for it now. It is much harder to get mortgages approved takes about 4 times as long, I am now subject to much more government regulations and restrictions and my fees are less.
Paul-I agree that looking back and blaming gets us nowhere. I only hope we learn from our mistakes. Unfortunately sometimes we learn the wrong lessons. Going back to your previous comment, if you search "Peter Schiff" on You Tube, what you see is unbelievable. Over two years ago he predicted almost exactly what was going to happen and here are those "geniuses" on CNBC making fun of him back then.
John-Thnaks for the links. I forgot to post them in my previous comments. Boy there is a lot to cover!
Mark-I totally agree.
Lane-If the house goes into foreclosure aren't the lenders going to suffer a bigger loss? Not only are banks going to suffer a bigger loss, but because now you have a foreclosure, the house values in the neighbor are going to go down. A foreclosed house will also contine to go down in value as it sits vacant and the downward spiral continues. A cram down forces the lender or servicer into the reality that if you have a $400,000 mortgage secured by a $300,000 house, you no longer have a $400,000 mortgage. Let us try to keep home owners in their house and stop the bleeding.
My two cents worth on Paul Francis's calling BS on loan modifications resulting in higher payments. While, like the original poster, I do not have data resources to quote, I have personally seen loan modifications result in higher payments.
Here's how the scenario goes:
Homeowner sees they are heading into trouble if they don't do something about their mortgage payment. They do the responsible thing and approach their bank about a loan modification. If they are tenacious about it, they MIGHT actually get a response, almost always saying (until very recently), "We don't do modifications when the homeowner is not in default on the loan."
So the homeowner, in order to fit into their bank's program guidelines, stops making payments. And after a few more months of tenacious efforts to initiate negotiations with their bank, they get a loan modification that might drop their payments by $100/mo. But then they have all these delinquent payments and fees that are not addressed within the modification. So the lender "does the homeowner a favor" and lets them finance those late payments and fees into a small short-term unsecured note that ends up, not with the lender, but with a small debt administration company. And so the payment on that note is maybe $150/mo. Net result - A $50/mo payment increase.
So sure! . . . When you look JUST at the loan mod, it looks like the bank saved the homeowner $100/mo, because the other $150/mo is swept out of sight and shuffled off to someone else so as to appear it's not part of the modification.
This is no longer typical. But back in 2008 it was the norm, especially with Wells Fargo. That type of data does not appear in large data studies. But let me assure that I know FIRST HAND from homeowners that it did occur.
Paul, in many cases (I don't have inside information, but I have read from those that say they do) it seems that the banks takes the whole loss if there is a modification. But, if there is a foreclosure, the PMI company takes the hit on part of the loss... So, it isn't in the banks interest to take the mod.
Fix that little issue, and more mods get done. Get the insurance companies involved.
David-your example is typical
Lane-This gets back to my original point. Who gets hurt here, not the banks or the servicer. It is the investor, probably inviolation of the servicing agreement and the borrower who get hurt.