Root of current finaincal turmoil due to "deadbeats" being allowed to own homes

If you want to use retail as an analogy, you’ve got it backwards. The bank is the one making the purchase, writing the big check, and the borrower is the store, who is then responsible for providing the bank with the back end of the deal.

What the bank actually did was buy a gigantic gift certificate from Caldor (at a nice discount), when any idiot could see that Caldor was struggling to survive. Caldor goes under, the bank is scrambling to get some value back from the certificate, and you want to blame Caldor for accepting the money.

Sampiro was also willing to give some blame to the borrower, but I have to agree with him that the majority of blame has to go to the bank. One other way to think about sub-prime mortgages is that banks were approving these loans for people who, by the very definition of “sub-prime” made bad financial decisions in the past. Select a group of people who are not financially “with it” and let a banker tell them it’s OK for them to take on this loan, what do you think will happen?

I was using the retail analogy as an example of a bad business model in another type of business, not a direct comparison.

Also, I was talking with someone who runs a small service business (blue collar) who bought a second home in Florida. He said he wanted a fixed rate mortgage and let the lender talk him into an ARM. Of course, the payments blew up, he wanted to negotiate a fair rate and the lender wouldn’t listen, probably because the lender no longer owned the loan. He can’t find anyone that will refinance him. He is considering walking away from the purchase. This is an honorable person, not some deadbeat.

Just an example of how and why we have a big mess on our hands. There’s plenty of blame to spread around.

Thanks for those anecdotes, and thanks for providing some of the more alarming/depressing reading I’ve had in a long time . . . .

In addition to what Cheesesteak said (it is the lender’s fault for loaning money to someone who can’t pay it back - the bank is either the chump or the negligent one here), at the end of the day, when the financial company comes to me hat in hand begging for 85-billion dollars of my taxpayer money to help it recover from its thoughtless greed, I am going to be blaming the financial company, not the people whom it did business with.

How about the loan officers who conspired with buyers-to flip houses back and fourth-untill the value rose to astronomical levels? This is known (in retail) as a “bustout”. Its a scam that has been going on for years.
Loan officers are PAID to get true valuations on prperties…can we assume that some unethical behavior was involved?

About 1980 or so, mortgage rates soared into the double digits. Someone with a 6% mortgage wanting to sell in a depressed market found that buyers were going to have to pay 15%. If the seller was will to let the buyer assume the mortgage, he had a big advantage in selling.

I did this, but my loan was from my father (big $40K house.) He was fully aware of it, of course. I made out quite well, the buyer was fanatically good at making payments, and we had a deal that if interest rates fell under 12.5% he’d get alternate financing. He did, and this turned out to be an excellent trigger for us buying a house.

I don’t recall hearing about this blowing up in anyone’s face, but I’m sure it did at some point.

And no, my father did not want the difference in the mortgages, though I offered it. I did have to pay tax on it.

When I was buying my apartment I initially was using a mortgage broker referred by a friend, and this woman tried to rip me off, big time, in exchange for a larger commission.

Basically she stalled me on the loan papers, promising me a rate “somewhere around 5.75”. Then, when I was running out of time she sent me paper on a really crappy subprime loan. I went ballastic when I saw it…some sort of ARM that started out at 6.75. The thing is, the paper they have to send you on these loans is really detailed if you read it and it was obvious to me that this loan was a POS. I went to my local bank the next day and got a real loan at 5.75.

So, the brokers will try to sell you whatever is best for them with no thought to you. But the buyer should be able to tell this.

The total payout on the home loan I took (not the amount financed but the amount you would pay over the life of the loan) was around 400K. For the bad loan she tried to sell me the total payout would have been over a milion.

I am still mad that this woman would’ve taken me for over a half million in order to me a few thousand for herself.

Karma kicked in a bit, though, last I heard she was tending bar somewhere although I would’ve rather seen her homeless.

Sure. And in an ideal world no one would ever fall for the Nigerian scam not to mention a host of others, many of which don’t require the ability to skim a stack of paper to find the hidden problem.

I don’t know if the kind of bait and switch they tried to pull on you should be illegal, but a licensed professional should face some major penalties somehow for doing it.

Yes. It’s the fault of the financial companies for sure. It definitely doesn’t fall at all on the shoulders of those who took loans they couldn’t afford to repay. Not at all.

What the fuck ever.
Regarding Assumptions -
Almost all Mortgages or Deeds filed by a financial institution these days contains covenants which do not allow the loan to be assumed. If you are having someone assume your mortgage, or assuming someone else’s mortgage, it’s almost certainly a violation of the “Due on Sale” clause and a cause for calling the mortgage into default.

No, Loan Officers are not paid to get valuations on properties. Appraisers are paid to get an appraised value on properties.
If loan officers are making up nmbers, or participating in something unethical or illegal, that’s one thing. If they’re following what the appraiser says (and have a current, valid, appraisa), than they’re following the FIRREA regulations and within the law both by spirit and letter.
Everyone shares blame in this. The mortgage companies, the government, the buyers, the sellers, the builders, the banks, etc. There aren’t any innocent parties.

When I bought my house in 2002 in LA, I wanted to put down the traditional 20%, but I just couldn’t swing it, because prices were already going wacky. So I told the loan officer with some hesitation that I was only putting down 10%.

The guy said, “Really? Are you sure you want to put that much down?”

He was accustomed to people putting 0-3% down, or even taking money out at the closing (i.e. a negative down payment). That would have been a smart thing to do if I had a crystal ball at the time, because my house ended up doubling in value in four years, and I sold at the top. So there was no need for me to tie my savings up in the house all that time.

Now that prices are crashing, all those people who didn’t put any money down have no equity, or negative equity, so they’re just walking away from the loan and letting the bank take the house. If they had equity, they’d have more motivation to try to ride things out. Banks used to understand this, but somewhere along the line they forgot about it, or believed prices would never go down, or something.

By the way, the bank I was dealing with was Washington Mutual. I think my net worth is higher than theirs right now.

I personally think the majority of the blame falls on the lenders and only a little falls on those that default on the mortgages. Here is an analogy: if you loan 100 bucks to your deadbeat cousin who has problems holding down a job I think we can both agree that you deserve what you get… Now what if a “friend” of yours comes and says he wants you to loan 100 bucks to somebody and you don’t do any due diligence on who is getting the money? Your friend is getting 5 bucks out of the deal and is doing very little to assure you that this person is on the up and up. Whose fault is it that you got screwed? Sure your “friend” is a jerk, but hey, they were just trying to make a quick five spot. The person is as much as a deadbeat as your cousin, but what did you expect? Lipstick doesn’t change a pig even though you payed your friend 5 bucks to vouch for him. The majority of the blame still lies with you IMHO, you lent your money to someone you didn’t check out.

Anyway, when my wife and I bought our current house our real estate agent, and his friend our lending agent, kept trying to talk us into a 700 k+ house. They both were strongly of the opinion that we could afford it, especially if we kept the interest down with a 5/1 arm on a conventional and a second to make up the slack. He spun a good story, showing us numbers that were in a range we could afford. Near the end though, my wife and I got scared and went for a house we could get with a conventional (not jumbo) 30 year fixed with no second. Thank Og we did. We can afford this house and the monthly payment, but we are definitely house poor. If something happens to one of us, we could maybe last for 6 months before being totally screwed. If we had bought the 750k house we were being talked into, we would have been working 4 jobs between us and never seeing our kids or been one of those families that are contributing to this whole mess.

I took cash back at closing for both of my houses, although the cash back was the money I’d already spent for some of the closing pre-requisites such as insurance. In 1998 and in 2004, I swung the deals so that the seller would pay 100% of the closing costs, and since the pre-pays are closing costs, I got those back at closing.

My office represents the banks in about 1,000 new foreclosure files each month here in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and I conduct foreclosures all over the state.

In a majority of cases, we don’t even get a response to our lawsuit (the logic being, that if you can’t afford to pay a mortgage, then you can’t afford a lawyer*). Of those who respond, many do so “pro se”, or unrepresented, and the vast majority of those letters are poorly worded (if I have to read one more person tell me they don’t want to “loose” a house, I may lose it), handwritten, and often from someone who speaks minimal English (our crass intraoffice joke is to calmly tell the judge, “don’t worry, I’ll translate”, then turn to the defendant and say, “no dinero, no casa!”

So, to answer the OP, I wouldn’t say it’s “deadbeats”; it’s the uneducated.

I also worked for 2 years as a closing agent/title attorney, where I did a number of closings at the end of the real estate bubble. I certainly had my share of sophisticated, wealthy buyers, or speculative investors.

One such speculative investor would give cash to poor people to get then to sign over quit claim deeds, then refinance them as “hard money” loans, which are based on the equity in the property and not the qualifications of the buyer. These were 1 year, interest only, balloon notes, where the total principal was due again at maturation. They also typically had 15% interest.

The reason they worked was because they also had no pre-payment penalty. Since properties were appreciating faster then 15% a year, he could “flip” them for a profit. When the bubble burst, though, he was left with a bunch of balances coming due, and he couldn’t flip his way out of it. That guy died shortly thereafter (I heard they found him in a car).

But I also saw a stream of unsophticated borrowers, who’s hand was being led by a pushy realtor or mortgage broker. The promise was that you’d build good credit by taking this adjustable rate mortgage for a year, then you would have the credit to refinance into a better loan in a year. That sounded good to the borrower, who assumed he or she was on their way toward a higher socioeconomic status (“this is the best investment you’ll ever make”, we all reassuringly told them as they signed the note). And it sounded really good to the broker, who was getting another hefty comission in 12 months.

Interestingly, the problem isn’t really the adjustable rate. Practically all of the loans I see in default were originated in 2005 or later. (I would be astonished to see a loan from the 1990s or earlier). These loans are usually fixed for a few years, so the rate hasn’t begun to adjust. This means that these people weren’t even really qualified to keep up with the introductory rate (usually about 6%).

Or, some big shot was pulling the equity out of his house to finance his nice car, his big house, and his plasma tv. Lots of people fell victim to the sales pitch that, because their house was now worthy more than what it once was, they just had to sign some papers, and the could pay off all of their credit cards and have some money for a nice shopping spree, to boot.

While house values are no longer going up go, what often does go up is insurance rates (at least in Florida, where hurricanes have been all too common), and taxes (although Florida’s homestead laws meant homestead property taxes couldn’t go up more than 3% per year). Also, people lost their jobs (many in real estate, such as roofing or construction), or had an unexpected medical emergency.

The result is that properties aren’t able to sell for what these loans are worth, so these people can’t sell the properties (and are asking the banks to accept sales contracts $50K or $100K less then the amount they owe). So they are being foreclosed, and are forced to move. The good news, for them, is that it takes anywhere from 7 to 14 months for them to be evicted after they stop paying, so they have time to save up some money for moving expenses.

Clearly, blame also has to exist at the highest levels. The mortgage brokers were all doing very well, but they were subsisting at the teat of big banks, who were happy to market these loans, without really caring if they were sustainable, since they were just going to sell them anyway. The plaintiff in a foreclosure is never a bank; it is a bank, acting as a trustee for an asset backed security. They, in turn, hire servicers, who are responsible for collecting the payments and negotiating alterations of the terms.

And that bring me to my final point. These servicers are negotiating the payments, and many people do end up on payment plans. It can be frustrating to work so hard for a judgment of foreclosure, only to have your client cancel the sale, but orders to cancel or postpone foreclosures to work on a payment plan are always crossing my desk, and I always encourage people to be persistent with the bank, providing them all the financial disclosures they request, because I do see compromise happen (certainly, though, these are rare in the grand scheme of all the foreclosures that do go to sale).

Then again, if you’re paying your mortgage, and staying within your means, you might be annoyed that these people never pay their bill and never have to leave their house. One judge told me, “nobody from the bank calls me to ask how my mortgage payment is doing.” I recently handled a case with a guy who made 3 mortgage payments before defaulting, but is still living in the property 16 months later.

For the record, I rent.

I’m working 60+ hours a week, and my office is half-full on Saturday and Sundays, even among our support staff. We are still knee-deep in foreclosing these bad loans.
*faulty wisdom, since there is low cost or free legal advice available, something I often tell people on the phone

You know what, I get what you’re saying. I can’t disagree with you, but…
What ever happened to personal acocuntability. Really, I don’t get it.

And actually, a better analogy would be…

My friend comes over and asks me to lend someone I don’t know $100. I do it and have the guy sign an IOU for 10% APR. In fact, I loan 10 people $100 due in one year at 10%

Now, you’re ready to invest in the market, so I take 10 of these IOUs that I gave to different people, and I sell them to you for $1050 the next day. Even though if I hold them for a year, I would get $50 more.

Works great for me, I get an immediate 5% return. Works for you, you get a 5% return… unless just one of those guys defualts.

Now multiply that whole thing buy hundreds of thousands… milllions, and that’s what happened.