iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Taxpayer-Owned Fannie Mae Attacks Struggling Homeowners


First Posted: 06/24/10 12:03 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:50 PM ET

Taxpayer-owned mortgage giant Fannie Mae is targeting families by going after struggling homeowners who strategically default on their mortgage, the firm announced Wednesday.

A default is considered strategic when homeowners have the capacity to pay, yet choose to walk away from their mortgage. The trigger, researchers say, is negative equity: When the value of a home is less than what the lender is owed on it, borrowers are more likely to strategically default.

About 11.3 million homeowners with a mortgage, or 24 percent, owe more on their mortgage than the home is worth, according to real estate research firm CoreLogic. Another 2.3 million have less than 5 percent equity in their homes. All told, about 29 percent of all homeowners with a mortgage are either underwater or very close to it. The firm estimates that the typical underwater homeowner won't return to positive equity until late 2015 or early 2016.

And Fannie Mae, an arm of the federal government and a big part of the Obama administration's housing policy, wants to make sure that if struggling families walk away, they suffer for it.

Homeowners who strategically default or did not work "in good faith" to avert foreclosure through other means will be ineligible for new Fannie Mae-backed mortgages for seven years. The firm said it will also pursue homeowners in court, seeking so-called "deficiency judgments" to recoup outstanding debt by seizing borrowers' other assets. Thirty-nine states do not limit the ability of lenders to recover what they're owed.

Fannie Mae said that next month the firm "will be instructing its servicers to monitor delinquent loans facing foreclosure and put forth recommendations for cases that warrant the pursuit of deficiency judgments."

"Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting," Terence Edwards, Fannie's executive vice president for credit portfolio management, said in a statement.

Strategic defaults among homeowners have been on the rise. More than a million homeowners went that route last year, nearly double the amount in 2008 and more than four times the level in 2007, according to a recent analysis by the credit reporting company Experian and Oliver Wyman, a management consulting firm. A study by a team of academics from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University estimated that nearly a third of home mortgage defaults in March were strategic. The deeper underwater homeowners are, the more likely they are to walk away from their mortgage, the researchers noted.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a bill barring strategic defaulters from obtaining home mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration. The agency guarantees nearly one in four new mortgages.

"I can't help but notice that every group now frantically calling for tough penalties for homeowners who walk away was virulently opposed to judicial modification of mortgages in bankruptcy," Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, told the Huffington Post.

Bank of America and Citigroup, the nation's largest and third-largest banks by assets, respectively, support changing existing law to give federal judges the power to modify mortgages in bankruptcy, otherwise known as "cramdown." Proponents argue that if homeowners were able to modify their mortgages in bankruptcy, the number of strategic defaults would substantially decrease, if not nosedive.

About 3 million homes will receive foreclosure notices this year, real estate research firm RealtyTrac estimates. More than 1 million will be repossessed by lenders, adding to the nearly 2.2 million homes that lenders took over from 2007 to 2009.

Fannie Mae and its sister firm Freddie Mac guarantee nearly three out of every four new mortgages, according to leading industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance. The two firms control about $5.5 trillion in home mortgages, according to their federal regulator. That's nearly half of all outstanding mortgage debt in the U.S. Their share of the mortgage market is nearly double what it was 20 years ago.

Because Fannie controls such a large portion of new mortgage issuance, the freezing out of homeowners for seven years could prove devastating.

Brent T. White, a law professor at the University of Arizona, recently wrote in an academic paper that most homeowners can recover from a foreclosure within two years. In fact, defaulting on a mortgage is not as bad as most people think, White notes.

"Lenders are unlikely to pursue a deficiency judgment even in recourse states because it is economically inefficient to do so; there is no tax liability on 'forgiven portions' of home mortgages under current federal tax law in effect until 2012; defaulting on one's mortgage does not mean that one's other credit lines will be revoked; and most people can expect to recover from the negative impact of foreclosure on their credit score within two years (and, meanwhile, two years of poor credit need not seriously impact one's life)," he writes.

There is a "huge financial upside" for seriously underwater homeowners to strategically default on their mortgages, White said.

While it's still taboo among most homeowners, it's common behavior among corporations.

In December, Morgan Stanley, the nation's sixth-biggest bank by assets, walked away from five San Francisco office buildings the $820-billion firm purchased as part of a landmark $2.43-billion deal near the height of the real estate boom. A group led by Tishman Speyer Properties gave up a 56-building apartment complex in Manhattan in January after defaulting on some $4.4 billion in debt. A spokesman for the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the nation's biggest municipal pension fund and one of several investors in the venture, told the Huffington Post that they "basically walked away from it."

Fannie was effectively nationalized in September 2008. Taxpayers own 79.9 percent of Fannie and Freddie. The Obama administration announced on Christmas Eve that it would provide unlimited financial assistance to the firms, disregarding what was a $400 billion cap on taxpayer bailouts. Their debt is backed by the U.S. government.

The two firms, facing growing losses on sour mortgages in perhaps a worsening housing market, have already taken $145 billion from taxpayers. Fannie Mae is responsible for $83.6 billion of that bailout.

Freddie Mac did not say it would take a similar position on strategic defaulters.

"Such so-called strategic defaults, once rare, are now common enough to jeopardize the already-weak housing and mortgage markets," wrote economists Celia Chen and Cristian deRitis of Moody's Economy.com in an April 13 note. "If the trend continues, strategic defaults could both accelerate the pace of home foreclosures and also make it harder for new borrowers to obtain mortgages. Both factors would in turn worsen the decline in house prices."

JPMorgan Chase, the nation's second-largest bank by assets with more than $2.1 trillion, warned investors last month that underwater homeowners may not continue to make their payments even when they're able to, according to a May 10 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A top executive at Freddie Mac posted a note on the firm's website pleading with homeowners to not intentionally walk away from their homes.

"Knowing the costs and factoring in the time horizon, some borrowers have made the calculation that it is better to purposely default on the mortgage. While I understand how that might well be a good decision for certain borrowers, that doesn't make it good social policy," Freddie Executive Vice President Don Bisenius argued in a May 3 note.

The firm warned investors and analysts about the risk of increased strategic defaults in March 2008. Referring to it as "ruthlessness," Dick Syron, Freddie's former chairman and CEO, said the firm was "seeing an increase in ruthlessness" that had "the potential for changing consumer behavior."

Fannie Mae said Wednesday that borrowers who have "extenuating circumstances may be eligible for new loan in a shorter timeframe" than the seven-year period it's warning about.

Republicans in the House recently tried to rein in the twin mortgage giants. Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, attempted Wednesday to amend the financial reform bill under consideration by the House and Senate to mandate that the federal government appoint an inspector general to oversee Fannie and Freddie. The mortgage behemoths' federal regulator has been operating without an independent watchdog looking over it and Fannie and Freddie since 2008.

Republicans have also tried to amend the bill to subject Fannie and Freddie to the Freedom of Information Act so members of the public can keep tabs on the firms by compelling the disclosure of documents and records.

Both efforts were thwarted by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who ruled that they were not "germane" to the legislation under consideration.

Emails sent after normal business hours to spokesmen for the White House and Treasury Department requesting comment were not returned.

Ryan Grim contributed reporting.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
Taxpayer-owned mortgage giant Fannie Mae is targeting families by going after struggling homeowners who strategically default on their mortgage, the firm announced Wednesday. A default is considered ...
Taxpayer-owned mortgage giant Fannie Mae is targeting families by going after struggling homeowners who strategically default on their mortgage, the firm announced Wednesday. A default is considered ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,765
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (51 total)
photo
Sweetcheeks53
Spring is in the air ...
12:51 PM on 07/08/2010
BANKS and CORPORATIONS walk away from their mortgage obligations all the time with no penalty whatsoever. They have protections... Who protects us? As for throwing the moral and ethical card out..tell me this....when has big business played fair and equitable with Main Street? someone mentioned that your car goes down in value the minute you drive it off the lot and you still pay..this is true...and while a car (like a house) can be a secure debt it does not and never has appreciated in value the way a house does... in 10-12 years you could double your investment! and unlike a car you can claim the interest paid on a mortgage...unless you're talking AUDI but if you can afford an AUDI you don't share these issues... As for non secure debts, there was a time when you could claim the interest you paid on your CC and they saw fit to take that away too... I wonder when they are going to take away the interest paid on our homes?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:16 AM on 07/01/2010
On the hand, per the headline, I am glad that the "taxpayer owned" entitiy is going after deadbeats.

On the other hand, per the headline, calling these people home "owners" is a mistake. They are glorified renters.
08:26 PM on 06/27/2010
Freddie's Fannie is a looooooooser.
photo
drbob601
Soylent Green is People
01:51 PM on 06/27/2010
Bogus headline.

First of all, they're NOT homeOWNERS. They never were. Even before they "strategically" defaulted, most of these folks had little or no equity. That is, they actually owned only a small portion of these houses.

And most definitely they own NONE of it after they default. How can you refer to them as homeowners?

Probably "borrowers" would be a more accurate term.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
3neuticals
01:27 PM on 06/26/2010
Gotta love that socialized housing market. What a charade. The fed is broke, so where is this money coming from exactly?
10:46 AM on 06/26/2010
Another government agency that never should have been established.

Dissolve this boondoggle. The sooner the better! End Freddie along with it!
11:39 AM on 06/26/2010
I suppose you also opposed direct student loans as well. We must keep giving free money to the banks. Do you also oppose Social Security and Medicare? How about the Interstate highway system and air traffic control? Maybe even fire fighters and police? where would you draw the line?
12:50 AM on 07/01/2010
I suppose you think those agencies you listed are doing superlative jobs? First, they're all tied in with the banks and corporations, not opposed to them. Second, do you realize easy student loans have bid up prices until graduates have enormous debts. Social Security and Medicare are facing bankruptcy and ways to cut payments are being considered; how about those great highways that encouraged gas consumption, plus the government takeover of Amtrak that killed rail travel? Air traffic control -- ok decent on air safety, but how about the Nazi check points to fly? Fire fighters aren't federal yet. Local police look and act more and more like Military Invaders than peacekeepers. Fannie & Freddie: more Fed. agencies that failed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ThePeoplesKey
Writer/General Disreputable Rogue
12:22 AM on 06/26/2010
"While I understand how that might well be a good decision for certain borrowers, that doesn't make it good social policy." Right. It's only good social policy if corporations, and banks walk away from their obligations. right? Unbelievable . . .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Just another hostage of the poopy heads
10:52 PM on 06/25/2010
According to economist Luigi Zingales, strategic defaults now account for a third of all foreclosures in the U.S., a significant increase from just a year ago.

LUIGI ZINGALES, economist, University of Chicago Booth School of Business: People who know other people who walk away are more willing to walk away, so this points in the direction of a contagion.

PAUL SOLMAN: And that, says Zingales, could made a bad situation even worse.

LUIGI ZINGALES: But, if most of the people who are underwater walk away, then house prices will drop even more, and then that will induce more people to walk away. So, we can have sort of vicious circles in a lot of real estate markets, local real estate markets, that are going to be very dangerous.

KEVIN JARRETT: If you buy a car, it loses value as soon as you drive it off a lot, but you still keep making the payments for that vehicle.

I don't see the difference with the homes. What right do you have to say, well, I'm going to not pay, because now you're taking money from other people, because, oh, I want to take care of my family. Well, somewhere along the line, some ethics have to come into play, you know? And I just don't think it's right to do that.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june10/mortgage_04-20.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Just another hostage of the poopy heads
10:54 PM on 06/25/2010
Okay, let's ALL JUST WALK AWAY.

What the he-ll, right?

Why should YOU care that you are bringing down the value of MY house, which I bought with $140K DOWN and only have a small mortgage on?

HUH? AFter all, I'm just 62 and it's my ONLY SAVINGS LEFT IN THE WORLD and they STOLE MY SOCIAL SECURITY MONEY AND DON'T WANT TO PAY IT BACK.

YOU SEL-FISH THIRTY-SOMETHINGS.
01:42 PM on 06/25/2010
Well Jayk444 good point-
Concerning your post on Strategic default why does the buyer walk away if he can still afford to pay.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I have never understood why someone would pay $20,000 for a car and 4 years later
trade it in or sell it for $14,000.

So Jayk444 what is the difference if you buy your house for $200,000 and say 5 years later sell it $140,000?

Well Jayk444 there is your answer the home owner is not going to pay on a house that drops 30 per cent in value- but he will pay for a car that drops 30 per cent in value.

The home owner had no control over the economy- once the Banker destroyed the economy
the house values went down. I guess people thought that their home would at least maintain its original value all things being equal.

Conversely without any rights the borrower’s options are limited- Walk-Away which can be tricky with deficient balances and second mortgage balances and taxes or the best is to file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy ( liabilities exceed assets).

Remember that old adage Jayk444- if you can’t trust your Banker who can you trust?
or
Why would anybody borrow mortgage money if there were no laws to protect their rights?

Michael LittleBig
Cleveland Ohio
Foreclosure case 584018
photo
Bluemax1
As thoughts manifest your Universe is created.
06:06 PM on 06/25/2010
Michael, I wish you the best with your case. Many people in Florida with perfect credit were talked into these loans. The loan officers, realtors, and the media were advising that the best way to borrow money was with an adjustable loan and at when the rates became high that the person could sell. WaMu paid huge bonuses to their mortgage brokers for these bad loans. The real problem now lies with the citizens who have excellent credit and a house they could afford to buy that has no equity in value for them. Should these individuals want the freedom to sell they cannot afford to do so. Anyone can get sick, lose a job, or any of life's problems can occur. It is estimated that 50% of all home mortgages are expected to become underwater before the market stabilizes.

The Financial Institutions created this recession with their creative financing and then the taxpayer's bailed them out. The help that was to follow for the homeowners that would stabilize the economy never came. Walt Disney went bankrupt 8 times and most people still love him and enjoy his parks. The Government and the Banking Institutions caused the collapse of our economy for their personal gain and are now offering little help to the people. There should be no stigma in this country for a person saving themselves and their family.
09:25 PM on 06/25/2010
Amen
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carolab
Just another hostage of the poopy heads
11:32 PM on 06/25/2010
Those people had no business getting into adjustables. They are always bad news.

Greenspan himself said he always gets a fixed loan.

People who get adjustables are buying more house than they can reasonably afford.

Don't excuse the borrowers who were "gambling" they could sell and make a quick buck.

Now they realize they made a mistake and want to back out of it, causing the property values of responsible buyers to plummet not to mention putting the burden on the taxpayers all across the nation and forcing property taxes up because there are fewer of us to generate that revenue.

The bankers are shys-ters, certainly.

But people who bought what they were selling are equally to blame.
photo
kamachanda
Mr. President, Tear this Wall Street down!
01:13 PM on 06/25/2010
Looking at the nature of some of these post, I'm reposting this:
"Homeowners who strategically default or did not work "in good faith" to avert foreclosure"...
If our legal system is going to target those who act in bad faith, then the investment bankers, wall street speculators and mortgage brokers who pushed bad paper to generate fees and bonuses should be pursued every bit as aggressively as a homeowner undergoing a strategic foreclosure. After all, the Supreme Court has granted corporations legal personhood and "while (strategic default) is still taboo among most homeowners, it's common behavior among corporations." If all men are equal before the law, then each of us is legally equal to any corporation in court.
furthermore (new):

The motivations of people who are considering strategically defaulting are as varied as those people. Granted, some may be walking away from an investment they got into to obtain a profit, but some may well have be experiencing loss of income in this recession. A mortgage is a contract and under that contract if the buyer can not or does not fulfill their end, the collateral, in this case a house, is returned to the bank. It is within the buyers right to do so, to make the better decision for their future and for their family's future.

There is plenty of bad faith to go around and a good portion of it has been paid for with the taxpayers "dime".
03:35 PM on 06/25/2010
Well said-
09:03 PM on 06/30/2010
Excellent point!
11:37 AM on 06/25/2010
Get ready. Soon it will be the IRS then it will be some government goon in the health care word that will oppress you.

Libs, you asked for this.
08:45 AM on 06/25/2010
The people described in this blog post are not struggling homeowners, these people can afford to pay their mortgages but choose not to. They made an investment that hasn't paid off in the way they thought it would so they're breaking their contracts and abandoning their responsibility. I am one of those people whose mortgage is more than my home value, but I will not ruin my credit or abandon the home that I've invested in. Eventually the value will increase again and I have to live somehwere.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MisteRational
09:49 AM on 06/25/2010
I cetainly do not mean to be unsympathetic to your situation. There are thousands (millions?) like you out there who are in the same boat through nothing other than market fluctuations and , indeed, as long as you are not looking for a fast return, you will ultimately fare just fine no doubt.

It is the ones who were angling for profit who are now unwilling to accept the fact that they bet and lost who are trying to weasel out of responsibilty.
06:34 PM on 06/25/2010
No sympathy required, I'm perfectly able to pay my mortgage just like those homeowners being targeted by Fannie Mae. The point I was trying to make is that these are not struggling homeowners. These are people who just don't want to pay their mortgages anymore which makes no sense to me. At least if they continue to pay their mortgages there is the possibility that the value will increase again, and they get the tax right off. If thye pay someone else rent they get nothing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
medic628
08:28 AM on 06/25/2010
They lend to people that should not have. They and others created the problem. (GREED) They rip off the tax payer to keep their heads above water and now they put the final nail in the coffin of the people they put in there from the start. There has got to be a better way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MisteRational
08:21 AM on 06/25/2010
I love HuffPost but sometimes the headlines are not really indicative of the reality of the article.

The issue here is, Fannie and Freddie are going after people who CAN aford their loans but, because the economic tide has turned against them (read, paid too much) and the house they bought is not worth what they owe, they choose to default. These are "strategic" defaults as the operative term here is CHOOSE.

Sure, there are a lot of people out there who are victims of predatory lending practices but these are NOT what this article is about.

I am a nice , liberal progressive but I have not, and probably never will , have too much sympathy for people who bought moe house than they can afford so they coudl live in the "Right" neighborhood or have the McMansion.I remember watching prices skyrocketing as my friends were looking to buy about 4 or 5 years ago and I could not beleive what people were paying for a house. It was obvious to me ( open to criticism here) that there was NO way these prices could possibly continue to rise and that there would surely be an adjustment and lo and behold, here we are.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
mrcontinental
Expat Extraordinaire.
08:28 AM on 06/25/2010
Indeed. There is no such thing as perpetual growth and they ran the "houses always go up" scam for so long that people actually believed it. California and New York are about to pay the ultimate price for basing much of their economies on this fiction.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
golferman
GOP --- Gree­dy One Percent
08:41 AM on 06/25/2010
That's the part I don't understand. I bought my 2nd home in Florida 5 years ago. I pay my monthly payment. The value of the house could drop $100,000 but I am going to still make my payments because I want my winter home. I guess if I wanted to sell it it would make a difference to me. But I don't and I don't really care what it is worth now. I bought the house for a 2nd home. I will probably die in that house. But if you bought the house as an investment then you would really care. And if they walk away from a bad investment they are not doing anything more than what a corporation would do. It's just a financial decision people have to make. I don't feel sorry for these banks. These banks charge you the highest interest rate that they can get away with. They will bury you in interest in a heartbeat if they could. These people are only making the same decision that the company would make if they made a bad investment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:28 AM on 06/25/2010
If you truly want to understand what is going on, take the time to watch this video about money. It will really open your eyes to the banking system. Very serious stuff here:(

http://www.filmsforaction.org/film/?Film=247&Title=Money_As_Debt