Strategic Defaults
 

A strategic default occurs when a borrower decides to stop making loan payments despite being financially capable of making payments. It happens for any number of reasons. For example, a person who owes more on their house than it's actually worth might simply cease making payments, let the bank foreclose and rent for a while (probably want to sign that lease before your credit rating is shot).

I think that if we're going to accept the view that homes are primarily investments, one of the views which fed the recent housing boom and bust, then it only makes sense to treat them like an investment and cut your losses when it makes sense to do so. It's what competent investors do.

This doesn't necessarily answer the question of ethics, though. For some folks, this poses an interesting ethical dilemma. How much of our personal honor is at stake in our financial dealing with large institutions? Is signing a loan agreement with a bank a personal promise, cross your heart and hope to die?

I don't think it is, and I wouldn't think twice about strategically defaulting if I felt like it made sense in the context of my personal and financial goals. I don't subscribe to the notion of corporate person hood, and so I don't think that it makes sense to think of a loan as statement of personal integrity. Certainly, the bank isn't likely to make any exceptions to their normal practices out of a sense of personal responsibility to you.

What are your thoughts? Would you walk away from a loan for reasons other than an inability to pay it back? Have you? Do you think it ethical?

My first thought is that if you're talking about your primary residence---and especially if you have no other residence---then it isn't the best of ideas to consider that an investment. It should be considered your home. I think a lot of the problem with foreclosures and other financial difficulties is when people look at homes as investments or financial assets. This is why I think HELOCs in principle are a bad idea. People have used them to use their homes as leverage to enter the stock market, and many still made risky bets based on what they were reading in the news or what their friends or kids' pianos teachers were "advising" them on.

Besides that, I don't think defaulting is a question of ethics so much as it is a question of responsibility. You signed an agreement and are bound to the terms of the agreement---period. It would be unethical to somehow defraud the agreement to otherwise avoid the responsibility associated with it.

I've heard the stories of people walking away from houses because of mortgage interest issues. However, defaulting will have an impact on your credit score. So you have to weigh the consequences. Do you want to save money or do you want to maintain a good credit rating, which may help you down the road?

There can be tough decisions. I understand that. But I don't think these are ethical dilemmas generally. If I held a $300,000 mortgage on a $150,000 house, I don't know what I'd do. It's another issue to see your $1,000/month mortgage payment spike to $1,500 or more as well.

I'd have to do a lot of research and figure out where I see things going over the long term. I'd then ask myself, is this an investment or is this my home?

I look at a loan as my personal commitment to repay the loan unless circumstances prevent it. If you're borrowing money to finance an investment, you're the one that should be assuming the risk of the investment going bad, not the lender. If your investment goes bad, you take the loss.

I would not intentionally walk away from a loan. I also don't think walking away from a loan is ethical.

As long as it can be legally done, I don't see any ethical problem with it. But practically, I think lenders should implement systems to make such defaults much less attractive. It seems to me that this practice makes loans more expensive for all the other borrowers since either the lender or their insurance or whoever have to cover the costs and still make money or the system flops.

The question reminds me of contracts, for example in sports, where both parties sign but later one party decides they don't like the contract and insists on renegotiating it.

If lenders implemented a loan qualification such that anyone who took a strategic default would not be eligible for another mortgage loan for some significant period, say 10 years, and then at higher cost, there would be more serious consequences for doing this.

It is a difficult thing for me to answer this. On one side my gut tells me that I think you should not be able to break a contractual agreement and should have to abide by your word. That being said if your value is decreased to such a degree where there is no reasonable hope that you will make your money back, just like the bank took the risk on the loan and is making profit on your mortgage, it is collateral agreement and I can not honestly say don't walk. If it was me I do not know if I could just waste money for 20 years knowing I will be throwing away money.

This is an issue I have thought about since I follow real estate a lot and I know of a number of communities where this is a big issue.

You trust the bank to lend you money to buy a house, the bank trusts you to pay them back. It is a win/win if both parties follow through on their word.

I would consider most strategic defaults to be unethical as a result.

However, I know many situations where a bank becomes unreasonable and leaves the borrower little choice other than to strategically default.

I like the idea, but in many places, people were getting loans for the cheap homes after the crash, and then walking away from the really high one.

I think the bank needs to take into consideration how underwater you are in terms of loan amount vs. value before issuing any other loans.

On a bigger scale, it might cause problems with having way too many renters being financially stable, yet unable to buy a home for 10 years. Then in 10 years, you will get a huge wave of people who have been saving lots of money (good), yet the market supply won't be there and prices will shoot up.

There are ways to do it legally and in good faith. I had a friend who could make the payments, but was really just wasting money on a bad loan. She went to the bank, turned over the house and got out of the loan. There was quite a bit of paperwork involved, but it was legal and the bank worked with her on the process. She made her payments until she turned over the house.

However, I have several acquaintances (not friends, as my friends wouldn't pull shit like this) who have just stopped paying and pocketed the mortgage payments for a year until forclosure. That situation bugs the hell out of me.

I'm pretty sure that even with a legal strategic default you still get hit with a 1099 for the difference is value between the house and the loan. So aside from the credit hit, there are definite tax penalties.

so, if i default on a loan, strategically or otherwise, who covers the loss? the lending facility? looks to me like john q. consumer ultimately pays the price in the end, whether through higher interest rates, government bailouts, or higher mortgage insurance premiums...

unethical, to my mind...

I would try working with the lender first but if I felt the deal wasn't in my best interest long term, I would have no problem walking away from the loan.
Corporations look out for their own financial interest and have no problems discarding customers who aren't making them money. I see no reason why I should keep myself in a bad financial situation with a corporation.

Concur.

I'm with others who stated I agreed to repay money I borrowed. End of story. If that makes my life less fun or I have to work harder to do so, as long as I can do so I will. That includes eating rice and beans and living like a broke ass college students until times get better.

You know, this situation happens all the time in auto loans. Many people have car loans that exceed the value of their car. And seldom if ever do you hear about them walking away from their car. A car would have no hope of appreciating in value unlike a house. The value of the house could eventually appreciate enough to exceed the outstanding balance of the mortgage. It would probably take some time, but it probably will at some point.

So, let's say this happens thousands of times. Several thousands of times. Individually the home owner is going to be very challenged to get credit for years to come. And I wouldn't be surprised if the mortgage industry wouldn't change as a result. And not changes for the good. Much more severe underwriting standards, increased down payment requirements, etc. There will be a reaction if strategice defaults become widespread.

Lots of questions here.
Is stealing ethical, as long as you only steal from the very, very, rich financial institutions?:confused: How about if it is your local credit union?
If it's OK to steal from the very, very, rich and give to the poor, a la Robin Hood is it then also OK to steal from the very, very, rich and keep it for yourself?:confused:
Did the very, very, rich financial institutions not (with heavy government encouragement) write risky mortgages with risky terms for risky people that shouldn't even have been buying homes and then seek to sidestep that risk?:confused::confused:

Lindy

You signed up for a loan.
You can pay it.
You should pay it.

Anything else IS unethical.

Strategic defaults aren't stealing, so your questions don't really make sense.

I'm not saying that strategic defaults are always justified, or that the wide scale use of SDs would be a good thing for the housing market- though it might force banks to be even more vigilant about who they give loans to, which might not be a bad thing. What I am saying is that I don't find SDs ethically questionable.

I don't have an MBA, but I'm fairly certain that the act of ceasing loan payments subjects a person to the applicable penalties set forth in the loan agreement and that these penalties are meant to deter defaults (whether strategic or not). So, provided a person is acting within the scope of their loan agreement, i.e. if payments cease, the bank gets the house, I don't see what the problem is. I wouldn't begrudge a bank using their power within the scope of the law to get what's theirs according to the agreement.

For instance, if I stop making car payments, my bank will take my car (along with some other unpleasant things- probably no more free checking ;)) because that's the agreement I have with them. There isn't necessarily anything immoral about me exercising the "I stop paying and you get my car" part of our agreement. Capitalism is amoral, right? There certainly isn't anything illegal about me defaulting. Further, if they're doing their jobs, they should be charging interest rates at levels set to absorb my default and make a profit on their collection of loans in the long run.

I think it's interesting how some folks sense of personal worth and responsibility are extended to agreements with organizations designed to squeeze from them every last drop of available money. It's like a hooker not wanting to rip off his/her pimp out of some sort of sense of honor. Clearly, your bank won't think twice about ripping you off at every turn via adjusting the sequence in which your checks clear or charging you money to access your money. This is because not only does your bank understand that it can subject you to the terms of whatever fucked up contract it can get you to sign, but it also isn't beholden to quaint notions of interpersonal responsibility and honor.

Plenty of articles published on strategic defaults, even a few websites that will provide guidance (I assume for a fee).

This one pretty much sums it up the best...

Oh, Dear. I'm guilty of quaint notions. When I make a financial agreement with filtherton, (or Wells Fargo Mortgage, American Express, SouthWest National Bank, whatever.)
I also make an agreement with myself to honor my agreement with you. Absent coercion or misrepresentation of course. If I feel mistreated, I don't hesitate to sever ANY relationship, personal or financial.
I've never felt mistreated by any of my creditors, but then I've almost always held up my end of the stick. I don't write checks that exceed my balance, so I don't need to quibble about what order the bank pays them in. I pay my AmEx bill on time. On a couple of rare late payments, they were more than happy to waive the penalty, all I had to do was ask.:) I pay an annual fee and an occasional currency exchange fee, that's it. When I lost my AmEx in Bulgaria, I had a replacement the next day.:) My free credit union debit card took three weeks.:sad: I don't mind paying fees for good service, and hardly ever pay a penalty.

Lindy

Why do you think this isn't stealing? You borrowed money from the bank. You have the financial means to pay the bank back but you choose not to. The bank doesn't get its money back. I don't see that as any different than robbing the bank.
I think banks do factor losses into their interest rates. So far, I don't think they factor in large numbers of people defaulting on loans. Why should banks raise interest rates even higher because you and others don't want to pay back their loans?

That's why in the cases where I took out a mortgage and a car loan I read the agreement and made sure I understood it. I had a lawyer at my closing to ensure things were done right. If I signed the agreement, then the bank agreed to loan me the money and I agreed to pay it back. Corporate nonpersonhood notwithstanding, I made a commitment I have to keep.

Here is what's listed under "Ethical Issues" in the Strategic Default entry in Wikipedia (see entry for sources):
Strategic default - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a bit of a moral grey area if you take everything into consideration.

Since when are moral grey areas off limits within the capitalist system?

I tend to agree with filtherton.

I can understand if a person feels a personal duty to throw good money after bad for years because they signed a piece of paper previously (perhaps many years ago when things were different) in which they agreed to do so.
But I can also understand if a person feels differently and sees throwing their money down the drain for years as insane. If they have a legal means of getting out of it, why should they feel ashamed?

Your "agreement" has been traded 100 times already to investors. Why should they jump in/out of an investment and you not be able to?

The fact is a house should never have been viewed as an investment... but the Mortgage people sold it to us as is. The second it became an investment, stopping payments on a house that's underwater (and getting 9mo of payment free living) became an incentive the smart person takes.

The general public got taken by mortgage brokers, and suddenly they turn around and start pushing the "obligation" the second it turns to bite them back.

Let your underwater house get taken. If you're $80+K underwater, the highest credit score ever will never make up that differential. Lett your 9mo mortgage free living build up some savings so you can instead do a 40% cash purchase and make up for the bad credit next go round.

Well, when you steal something, you typically take it without its owner's permission. When you enter into a loan agreement, part of that agreement is that if you fail to repay, the bank gets your shit. That's the agreement. How is failure to repay equate to stealing? If I loan you money and we agree that if you fail to pay me back, I get something of yours and you then fail to pay me back, that doesn't mean you stole that money from me. I gave it to you knowing full well that you might not pay me back. It's not really stealing, though you can call it that if it makes you feel morally superior.

To cover their expected losses, of course. Hopefully, your credit score will help the bank decide whether you're a risky bet or not.

That's the thing, you agreed to let them repo your stuff if you failed to repay. That's the commitment you made. Stop paying, let them take the house, and you've still met your commitments.

lets not forget that banks take out insurance on their loans in case loans turn bad.

im assuming that the banks have their asses covered in all aspects and dont really lose out in the end.

Where's our resident insurance expert to help with this question?

Actually if the downpayment is less than 20%, the individual not the bank pays for the insurance. I'm not sure banks insure the remaining loans.

Lets also not forget the people dealing the mortgages they expected to fail made profit on them failing.....