Mortgages: More Support for Principal Reduction 9 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The Saturday NY Times had an OP-ED piece titled, “Why Own When You Can Lease?” It was written by Daniel Alpert, who is described as a ‘managing partner in an investment bank’. Mr. Alpert admits to having an axe to grind in this. His thoughts should be read by lenders, borrowers and D.C. Mr. Alpert is another voice out there that is promoting the idea of broad based debt relief.
In brief, the proposal is to create a sale and lease-back opportunity for underwater borrowers. The sale would be a deed in lieu of the mortgage. The lease would be based on fair market rentals. The borrower would walk on the old mortgage with little or no impact on their credit. They would continue to live in the home but at a much lower monthly cost. Sweet deal for a lot of troubled borrowers.This idea is going to be part of the solution. How big a part remains to be seen.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that various forms of principal reduction are going to have to be part of the solution to the mortgage mess. As Mr. Alpert and others have pointed out, “If the government made it work that way with GM, why not me?”
What might this mean? There is no data, so a range of estimates. At this point the number of underwater borrowers is greater than 10%. I think it is equal to as much as 30%. Assume the number is 20%. That would imply a number between $2.5-3 trillion of mortgages that are affected.
The next question is, “By how much are these mortgage underwater?" Another assumption, 30%. If this is in the ball-park then that would imply a mark to market on all of this of $1 trillion. Approximately 55% of all mortgages outstanding are held or guaranteed by Washington. Therefore the cost would be born equally by the public and private sector.
As crazy as this might sound, $1 trillion would be a very cheap price to pay to get this behind us. As far as economic stimulus goes, this one would send the economy and the market to much better levels.
My concern is that little or no action will be taken to provide true debt relief for underwater borrowers. We will continue to modify loans with better terms but no principal reduction. The results of this are already clear. More than 50% of modified loans re-default in less than six months. Over time that number will go toward 100%. We need to end the cycle of default. The current modification approaches are not achieving that.
The risk that we face is that the cycle continues and deepens. If my estimate of 20%/30% for underwater total/embedded losses moves to 40%/40% the cost jumps to more than $2 trillion. It is unlikely that the private sector could afford this large a write down without another TARP bailout. It is equally unsure that the public sector balance sheet could absorb another $1 trillion hit.
This problem is better addressed sooner versus later. Japan tried the ’bury your head in the sand approach'. Twenty years later and they are still paying for it.
Related Articles
|






















Also, reagarding your comment about over 50% of loan mods redefaulting within 6 months shows you've fallen for the banks' propaganda. That "stat" came out of a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study taht skewed the number by only using loan mods done in 2008. That same study showed that only 26% of the loan mods included in the study actually LOWERED payments. for more on the TRUTH about that study read: drewsmortgagenews.blog....
I expect you will get some flack for this article, but you have raised some good discussion points. A big problem is that there are so many different individual scenarios among the underwater mortgagees that no one (or even a few) canned plan(s) will likley work. If a canned plan that works for one doesn't work for 19 others, even a minor misapplication (say to 2% of mortgages when it only works for 1%) produces a 50% failure rate. Implementation of such actions as you propose does require significant effort and capital write-downs. If 50% fail, is it worth the effort?
these morons running the show realize they have no choice.
But to reduce the principal on upside down homes.