Since the market collapsed back in 2008 we’ve seen the real estate market take a nosedive. People who bought at the height of the market (assuming that real estate would always appreciate) found themselves in a situation where their homes had dropped significantly in value. My wife and I are a part of the group who have taken a significant hit, our home value has dropped by over $40,000.
Many people, especially those who bought homes without a down payment, or with a sub-prime loan are now finding that they also owe more on the home than it is currently worth. According to a report by First American Core Logic, a real-estate data firm, more than 11 million families are in “negative equity”, that is, they owe more on their home than it is worth.
Thankfully we aren’t underwater, but what about those people who are? What are they to do? A growing group of people are saying that for most of those people it would make complete sense to just walk away from their mortgage, stop paying, and take the credit score impact of a foreclosure. They call it a “strategic default“.
My question is this. Is it OK to walk away from your mortgage if you have the money to pay, just because you’re underwater and have negative equity?
Credit Score Impact Of Foreclosure
There are a lot of things to consider when you’re thinking about walking away from your home. First of all, you need to consider the financial impact of walking away from your mortgage.
One of the most obvious impacts a foreclosure will have on your financial life is on your credit score. Now, I’m not one of those people who will tell you to constantly check your credit score and rely on it for everything, but the fact is that it does play a part in a lot of things these days, so you can’t completely ignore it. So what impact does a foreclosure or delinquent payment have on your credit? Fair Isaac pulled back the curtain a bit and revealed a little bit about what kind of a credit score impact those things might have:
30 days late: 40 – 110 points
90 days late: 70 – 135 points
Foreclosure, short sale or deed-in-lieu: 85 – 160
Bankruptcy: 130 – 240
So having a late payment, a short sale, foreclosure or bankruptcy can have a pretty significant impact on your credit score, and mean you’ll have to improve credit score later. In any of those situations it is going to show up on your account and have pretty negative impact. What does a lower FICO score potentially mean?
Absorbing a big credit-score hit can make many transactions more costly. It’s not just paying more for credit card debt and auto loans, insurance can cost more as well.
The average savings for someone with a good versus mediocre credit score is about $115 a year for auto insurance and $60 for home, according to Loretta Sorters, of the Insurance Information Institute.
A low credit score can even make it harder to rent a home because landlords often use credit scores to weed out prospective renters.
So having a foreclosure, short sale or even late payments can mean you’ll end up paying more for a variety of things. Definitely a huge impact to consider when you’re thinking about walking away.
Moral Dilemma Or Just A Contractual Transaction?
While walking away from your mortgage will obviously have a negative financial impact, especially as it relates to your credit score, this still isn’t enough for many people to not consider it. There are still those who are just having a hard time making ends meet, and while they can still make the payments, they would prefer to just walk away from the hefty mortgage on their underwater home, because they don’t want to lose upwards of $50-100,000 (or more) on their home value. Why take the hit when the bank can better absorb the blow?
It does seem to make sense on the surface, but now we need to ask the question, is backing out of a mortgage contract an OK thing for a homeowner to do, or is it morally wrong to back out of a contract you are still able to fulfill?
Personally I tend to come down on the side of paying your obligations if you’re able. I like to think that a contract is something you live up to. You knew the terms of the deal when you signed up, and now you should live up to it if you can. We need to be responsible for the obligations that we’ve made.
Others would counter that a strategic default is a legitimate option that is even spelled out in the mortgage contract, where specific ramifications of a foreclosure or short sale are spelled out for the homeowner. To exercise those options is just a a part of the legal transaction.
I understand that argument, but don’t agree with it. Just because the ramifications of missing payments or defaulting are spelled out in a contract, doesn’t mean it is an acceptable or desirable thing to do. Also, there is nothing in the mortgage agreement that makes your continued payment contingent upon the value of the home going up! It is a risk that you take!
What do you think? Should morality come into play when making a decision about a strategic default? Is it just a contractual transaction, and should we not feel bad about defaulting or going into foreclosure? Tell us what you think in the comments!
Tagged as: Ethics, Foreclosure, Mortgages
CapWest Mortgage: Best Rates + Costco Discounts! Details Here
Related Posts
Mortgage Rates Are Low, But Are The Homes Affordable? [Infographic]
Obama Administration Offers $1.5 Billion In Foreclosure Funding For Hardest Hit States
Banks Will Pay You To Avoid A Drawn Out Foreclosure Process: Short Sale Incentives
Congress Considering Scrapping Mortgage Aid Programs Due To Ineffectiveness








{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
There are a lot of good comments here.
I am struggling with the moral dilemma vs the financial survival. It made total sense to buy the house (actually build) at the time. My plan was simple. I had plenty of income to make payments, plus bonus money was promised that would allow me to pay down the mortgage, live in it for 8 to 10 years, sell and make a killing, then downsize and live happily ever after.
To my surprise the company I was working for went bankrupt so I was out of a job and no bonus money. I drained all my savings to keep up cobra and mortgage payments until I found work with health insurance at 34% pay cut plus no bonus action (A group health plan was needed because of my wife’s pre-existing cancer). So now I struggle to make mortgage payments but I am not paying on other debt right now because there isn’t enough to go around. The house is worth maybe 60% of what I paid for it and the interest is going up in a few months so I won’t be able to make the payments.
What else can I do but walk? The bank isn’t interested in lowering the payments. The sad thing is it will sit forever before they clear up all the legal mess, then someone will get it for around 40% of what I paid. The bank will lose a chunk on it.
Like someone else said, the 2012 law is going away so now I will be stuck with a tax bill on top of my other losses.
I have not walked yet but I see no way around it in the next few months.
Another thing thing missing here (at least I didn’t see it in the other replies) is that the whole system was setup allowing for walking away in the late 1800 to ensure that those who have the power to control and move the market have a vested reason to intervene during any type of speculative market with a negative effect directly undermining the positive effect of fueling the run up for quick profits. They did have the power. They appraised my house and countless millions at speculative values that they knew of and encouraged. Non-recourse is the only check mechanism that works against this and gives them an incentive to balk at speculative valuations and lose credit standards and the argument that once these players (financial institutions) have forgone this risk and participated in the run up that we should now remove the main mechanism for ensuring they don’t do it again is absurd.
The laws were not put in place to be nice they were put in place to protect the market from just what happened. I think the players should be put in jail but at the very least the financial institutions should have to suffer the consequences of trashing the market for their own gain with an eventuality that was spelled out long ago if they did do so.
It really surprises me that folks that write these post do not do some research on the origins of the non-recourse laws before they espouse an opinion on them and go off into moral responsibility. The individual buyers have no power to halt a runaway market and THATS what caused the deficiency in the first place and now its time for these institutions to get exactly what the laws envisioned.
← Previous Comments