Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When the Good Default

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

  • When the Good Default

    Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

    By DAVID STREITFELD

    Published: July 8, 2010



    A family bungalow in the Los Altos Hills

    LOS ALTOS, Calif. — No need for tears, but the well-off are losing their master suites and saying goodbye to their wine cellars.

    The housing bust that began among the working class in remote subdivisions and quickly progressed to the suburban middle class is striking the upper class in privileged enclaves like this one in Silicon Valley.

    Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.

    More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.

    By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.



    CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.

    “The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” said Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist.

    Five properties here in Los Altos were scheduled for foreclosure auctions in a recent issue of The Los Altos Town Crier, the weekly newspaper where local legal notices are posted. Four have unpaid mortgage debt of more than $1 million, with the highest amount $2.8 million.

    Not so long ago, said Chris Redden, the paper’s advertising services director, “it was a surprise if we had one foreclosure a month.”

    The sheriff in Cook County, Ill., is increasingly in demand to evict foreclosed owners in the upscale suburbs to the north and west of Chicago — like Wilmette, La Grange and Glencoe. The occupants are always gone by the time a deputy gets there, a spokesman said, but just barely.

    In Las Vegas, Ken Lowman, a longtime agent for luxury properties, said four of the 11 sales he brokered in June were distressed properties.

    “I’ve never seen the wealthy hit like this before,” Mr. Lowman said. “They made their plans based on the best of all possible scenarios — that their incomes would continue to grow, that real estate would never drop. Not many had a plan B.”

    The defaulting owners, he said, often remain as long as they can. “They’re in denial,” he said. (actually, Denial had its name changed to Las Vegas years ago...)


    Lenders are fearful that many of the 11 million or so homeowners who owe more than their house is worth will walk away from them, especially if the real estate market begins to weaken again. The so-called strategic defaults have become a matter of intense debate in recent months.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two quasi-governmental mortgage finance companies that own most of the mortgages in America with a value of less than $500,000, are alternately pleading with distressed homeowners not to be bad citizens and brandishing a stick at them.

    In a recent column on Freddie Mac’s Web site, the company’s executive vice president, Don Bisenius, acknowledged that walking away “might well be a good decision for certain borrowers” but argues that those who do it are trashing their communities.

    The CoreLogic data suggest that the rich do not seem to have concerns about the civic good uppermost in their mind, especially when it comes to investment and second homes. Nor do they appear to be particularly worried about being sued by their lender or frozen out of future loans by Fannie Mae, possible consequences of default.

    The delinquency rate on investment homes where the original mortgage was more than $1 million is now 23 percent. For cheaper investment homes, it is about 10 percent.








    “I just decided to let it go, give it back to the bank, I just didn’t feel like it was a good investment.”



    With second homes, the delinquency rate for both types of owners was rising in concert until the stock market crashed in September 2008. That sent the percentage of troubled million-dollar loans spiraling up much faster than the smaller loans.

    “Those with high net worth have other resources to lean on if they get in trouble,” said Mr. Khater, the analyst. “If they’re going delinquent faster than anyone else, that tells me they are doing so willingly.”



    The rich and successful often come naturally to this sort of attitude, said Brent T. White, a law professor at the University of Arizona who has studied strategic defaults.

    “They may be less susceptible to the shame and fear-mongering used by the government and the mortgage banking industry to keep underwater homeowners from acting in their financial best interest,” Mr. White said.



    In the middle of a workday, one troubled homeowner here leaned over his laptop at the kitchen table, trying to maneuver his way out from under his debt and figure out the next big thing.

    His five-bedroom house, drained of hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity over the last 13 years, is scheduled for auction July 20. Nine months ago, after his latest business (he has had several) failed in what he called “the global meltdown,” the man, a technology entrepreneur, said he quit making his $9,000 monthly payments.

    “I’m going to be downsizing,” he said.

    The man spoke on the condition of anonymity because, he said, he did not want his current problems to interfere with his coming reinvention. “I’m a businessman,” he explained. “I have to be upbeat.”






  • #2
    Re: When the Good Default

    I am waiting with cash in hand for the bottom in my area. I will wait two to three more years, saving the difference between rent and potential mortgage so long as selling prices continue to drop, which that surely are. Who knows, maybe I will be able to pay cash for a waterfront property by then.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: When the Good Default

      In general, people who have accumulated capital understand the need to preserve capital better than those that have accumulated nothing but debt. What is so surprising about that?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: When the Good Default

        Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
        In general, people who have accumulated capital understand the need to preserve capital better than those that have accumulated nothing but debt. What is so surprising about that?
        Exactly, its a business decision, it doesn't make sense to continually lose money....... As Einstein once said - "the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result..."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: When the Good Default

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...2388&#38182388

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: When the Good Default

            I think these guys are just the high end monthly payment consumers, trying to figure out how much house they can get with a certain income. Now that incomes have gone down, their out. From what I've seen the really rich buy houses in excess of the $1 million prices in the article.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: When the Good Default

              So let me get this straight. When a low income person with no savings signed up for a mortgage he couldn't afford to "buy" a house he couldn't afford, he was being all civic minded. But when a rich person who does have some savings signs up for a mortgage he can afford but walks away when the market and economy melts down, he is condemned for not caring about the community.

              Only altruism could lead to this perverse set of responses. The poor are victims and the rich are ruthless exploiters. This is the predetermined conclusion from altruism. Until we get rid of this bankrupt moral code, we can never address the problems we face.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: When the Good Default

                Originally posted by Bearster
                When a low income person with no savings signed up for a mortgage he couldn't afford to "buy" a house he couldn't afford, he was being all civic minded. But when a rich person who does have some savings signs up for a mortgage he can afford but walks away when the market and economy melts down, he is condemned for not caring about the community.
                I don't think that is the point of either the article or the commentary.

                My understanding is that those with money - even a monthly payment type in a $1M+ house has money - are far more likely to walk away from a negative equity situation than someone who buys a $200K house.

                This is ironic because those with more money are more likely to be able to continue payments - but choose not to because of their analysis of the financial situation.

                Whereas those paying hundreds more a month on a negative equity house are holding on for sheer pride? stubborness? stupidity? morality? something more than a pure financial analysis.

                It is also possible that some are holding on because a jingle mail or bankruptcy would lead to cancellation of credit cards, which in turn means a loss of what little credit is available.

                Either way the core message is that those with more money act differently than those with less. Hardly earthshattering but contradictory to modern economic belief.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: When the Good Default

                  "They call it their “Seven-Year Lockout Policy for Strategic Defaulters,” and if you haven’t realized it already… look what’s been accomplished here: Homeowners have scared the heck out of industry giant, Fannie Mae. I mean… these guys are shaking like leaves, absolutely running scared. I know homeowners have been feeling like they have no power against the bankers, but this should prove otherwise. It’s like we pushed the bully, and the bully ran home and got his Mom to come lay down a new rule in response"

                  When Joe Six-Pack acts like his betters....


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: When the Good Default

                    Originally posted by don View Post
                    Homeowners have scared the heck out of industry giant, Fannie Mae. I mean… these guys are shaking like leaves, absolutely running scared.

                    See also the thread I started in the sub forum "Housing Bubble" - California Bankruptcy Court Holds That MERS Cannot Transfer Note

                    This should have them even more scared

                    The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California has issued a ruling dated May 20, 2010 in the matter of In Re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656-E-11 which found that MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp. The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    Read that again: “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.” This conclusion was based upon California law cited in the opinion that the note and the mortgage are inseparable,
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: When the Good Default

                      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                      ... but contradictory to modern economic belief.
                      Actually it's very common knowledge in the banking world and not really contradictory to those that truly know how to underwrite credit. Unfortunately, over the last five years, the best credit officers were viewed as obstacles to exponential balance sheet growth... and thus the best were pushed aside for more "commercial" folks.

                      It's contradictory to most people's prejudices that's for sure.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: When the Good Default

                        Originally posted by WildSpitzE
                        Actually it's very common knowledge in the banking world and not really contradictory to those that truly know how to underwrite credit.
                        That may well be true, but it certainly isn't true for the modern school of Economics.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: When the Good Default

                          I may have misinterpreted when the article cited some guy who called the rich "ruthless" and when the author said: "The CoreLogic data suggest that the rich do not seem to have concerns about the civic good uppermost in their mind". I read that as a bit of blame on the rich, as a group, that's not applicable to other groups of people who defaulted (or who will soon default).

                          Ironically, "data" as such does not suggest anything about anyone's alleged concerns about the "civic good" (whatever that means). The best you can get is to ask someone, but I think the louder someone proclaims his selfless desire to serve the civic good, the more I would look to see how he is profiting from the civic treasury!

                          Make no mistake, I think everyone who took on debt that he couldn't or didn't feel like paying deserves blame equally.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: When the Good Default

                            The rich do it too – Los Angeles County and million dollar distressed properties. 1,947 homes in L.A. County valued at $1 million or more are three payments behind or in foreclosure. Beverly Hills prices down 31 percent from one year ago. 14 out 100 homes on the MLS are priced at $1 million and up.


                            Foreclosures are characterized by the media as a financial downfall that only hits the poor in our society. Recent media stories have focused on the higher end market and it shouldn’t come as a shock that many who appeared to be living in the new gilded age were merely mortgaged to the hilt with toxic loans. In fact, the data reveals that those with higher mortgages are all the more willing to walk away from their underwater properties than those with lesser means. Here you have the government berating people for strategically defaulting while the wealthiest among us run from their mortgage commitments as soon as their best rendition of Dallas fails. Instead of taking it at face value, what better place to examine the million dollar foreclosure market than here in Southern California? I wanted to closely examine the Los Angeles County market and see what is going on with high level distressed property. Let us first look at zip codes with median sales prices of $1 million or more:



                            309 homes were sold in the above zip codes. This doesn’t mean 309 homes sold with a price tag of more than a million. Take for example Hermosa Beach. The median is $1 million meaning half of the homes sold above that price and half sold below it. The above however gives us a good sense of what is happening out in the market. We know at the very lower end, that at least 154 homes sold in L.A. County for $1 million or more last month. But look at the price changes listed above. Many of the cities have seen drastic cuts in their median price. For example, the famous 90210 zip code has seen a median price drop of 31 percent. The most dramatic is Malibu with a 64 percent price drop. These markets are highly volatile (look at Marina Del Rey with a 68 percent year over year price increase).

                            The idea that there is little trouble in the high priced market is absolutely incorrect. In fact, we are seeing a lot of properties entering into problems. The wealthy have more money by definition but many also bought into the housing propaganda and over paid for homes:



                            In total there are 1,947 homes in L.A. County valued at one million dollars or more with at least 3 missed payments all the way up to being bank owned. If these homes were valued at higher prices, you would expect that the owner would simply sell the home and take whatever equity remains and move on with their life. Yet that is where the conflict arises because many of these homes are massively underwater like millions of other Americans. Unlike most Americans facing housing trouble, these homes can be underwater in the millions of dollars. It would appear that many of the rich were only rich in their ability to access debt to purchase the property and lease the European make of car. A large number of them really lived a life of all hat and no cattle.

                            1 in 7 homeowners with a loan in excess of one million dollars is now seriously delinquent. This is compared to 1 in 12 for mortgage values of fewer than one million dollars. The assumption would be that those working class and middle class Americans would have a harder time paying their mortgage in these economically challenging times. Yet as it turns out the zip code rich on a per capita basis have more trouble paying their mortgage than the majority of Americans (or better put, have more means to selectively not pay their mortgage). In L.A. County appearances can be absolutely deceptive. Let us look at total MLS inventory and compare it to million dollar listings:



                            14 homes out of 100 are priced at $1 million or more in the county. This is really where you still see evidence that California in many areas is still showing signs of a housing bubble. In order to purchase a $1 million dollar home, you would need a substantial income. Let us assume you buy at this price range with 20 percent down:

                            Home price: $1 million
                            Down payment: $200,000
                            Mortgage: $800,000
                            PITI: $6,097 (30 year fixed 6.5% jumbo loan)

                            As a good rule, you should not take a loan out that exceeds 3 times your annual gross household income. So for this purchase, a household would need to bring in at least $266,500 a year. This is the lower end. Here is where the bubble is evident. Only 7 percent of L.A. County households make $200,000 a year or more (so those that make $266,000 or more is less). Yet current MLS listings show 14 percent of all inventory priced over $1 million! And you wonder why housing is still in a funk.

                            Let us look at a direct example in the glitzy 90210 Beverly Hills zip code:



                            The above is a bank owned home that is currently listed for sale for $4,575,000. It is a 6 bedrooms and 4 baths home in a very exclusive neighborhood. That by itself does not seclude this home from jumping into the toxic mortgage world that engulfed the region for years. The home was taken over in late March but has been listed for 160 days. Let us look at the actual note history:



                            Washington Mutual made a loan back in 2007 for close to $3 million on this place. Not even a year later, a second mortgage was secured on the property for $1 million. All it took was another year and in 2009 the notice of default was filed in June. Three months later it was scheduled for auction. Even though it is listed as bank owned it is showing up as being postponed due to mutual agreement. This is probably why the home is up for sale for the current price. How many people do you think are ready to shell out $4.5 million in this market? Whoever is selling this home is trying to have a safe exit in the worst housing market since the Great Depression.

                            When I look at the data it is amazing how many of these homes are secured with Alt-A and option ARM products. Banks are hoping and praying the market will turn around but they are fooling each other. Many of the people that bought these places never were wealthy enough to own the home. Sure, their incomes were higher than the average but it is another level to afford a million dollar loan.

                            Apparently the “rich” strategically default as well and have deep housing problems like millions of Americans. Still think it is a wise idea to push home buying for everyone before we patch up these massive kinds of loopholes? Keep in mind tax dollars are going to bailing out these owners indirectly by funneling money to the banks that made these absurd loans. After all, even the rich need a bailout to keep the Jacuzzi running.

                            http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/l...closures-high/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: When the Good Default

                              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                              That may well be true, but it certainly isn't true for the modern school of Economics.
                              What is the modern school of economics?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X