More

Homeowners With Second Mortgages Twice As Likely To Be Underwater

Second Mortgage

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 06/07/11 11:54 AM ET Updated: 08/07/11 06:12 AM ET

Having one mortgage is hard enough amid a historic housing slump, but Americans with two mortgages have it even harder.

Homeowners who treated their homes as ATMs by taking out a second loan are more than twice as likely as single-mortgage homeowners to owe more on their home than it's worth, the Wall Street Journal reports. That condition, known as having an underwater mortgage, afflicts 38 percent of borrowers with second mortgages, compared to just 18 percent of borrowers without second mortgages, the WSJ says, citing data from CoreLogic.

Overall, 28.4 percent of all single-family homes with mortgages were underwater in the first three months of the year, according to data-provider Zillow, up from 27 percent in the previous quarter.

This isn't the result that the nation's economic leaders had envisioned. During the housing market's boom years, Alan Greenspan, then chair of the Federal Reserve, touted second mortgages, or home-equity loans, as a way for homeowners to tap their most valuable asset to pay bills or buy a new car.

But then the bubble popped. And with home values still falling, those loans have now amounted to just another burdensome payment.

Declining home values erode homeowners' stake in a property, pushing them closer to default and foreclosure. During the first three months of this year, home prices fell 4.2 percent, and March was the eighth straight month of decline, according to the Case-Shiller index, which tracks home values nationally. And the pace of decline is only accelerating, data from Zillow suggest.

Figuring out what to do with delinquent second mortgages hasn't been simple for regulators or banks. Unlike first mortgages, many of which were sold and packaged into residential mortgage-backed securities, the majority of second mortgages have stayed on banks' balance sheets. That means writing down the value of those loans could involve a loss for banks, the WSJ notes.

A plan for these second-mortgage loans emerged as part of ongoing negotiations to settle allegations of illegal foreclosures. All 50 state attorneys general along with the Obama administration are working to strike a deal with the nation's biggest banks. In March, the preliminary agreement included a proposal that concerned second mortgages.

But that March proposal defied the rules typically governing second mortgages. These loans are subordinate to firsts, meaning the value of the loan is typically wiped out when the first mortgage experiences a write-down. However, the language of the proposed deal had second mortgages being written down "at least proportionately to the first," ProPublica reported in March. That would give second liens more priority than usual.

From a homeowner's perspective, a second mortgage can compound the challenges presented already by a first mortgage, adding an additional bill, perhaps with higher interest. When a homeowner increases the value of the debt against a property, a relatively small price decline is all it takes to wipe out the equity and push the property underwater.

When a house is underwater, "it's harder to get a credit card or a car loan, you can't put your home up for a small business loan," Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told the WSJ. "There are all sorts of little, pernicious effects that you don't necessarily think about."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
Having one mortgage is hard enough amid a historic housing slump, but Americans with two mortgages have it even harder. Homeowners who treated their homes as ATMs by taking out a second loan are mo...
Having one mortgage is hard enough amid a historic housing slump, but Americans with two mortgages have it even harder. Homeowners who treated their homes as ATMs by taking out a second loan are mo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 138
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
07:38 PM on 06/09/2011
Stop The Madness Please sign the Petition in the link bellow

http://www­.ipetition­s.com/peti­tion/smoke­andmers911­/

GIVE THE POLITICIAN­S THE TOOLS TO STOP THIS MADNESS
02:43 PM on 06/09/2011
For the I D I O T who says that if u did a 80/20 loan, u couldn't be afford the home anyway, is all LIES just like WALL STREET! What we need is for u to jump in an abyss, and never be seen or heard of again. When people purchase homes, they turnover tons of documents in order to qualify. The Bank's underwriting team would never approve the loan if the borrower didn't meet the lending requirements. Who is at fault here the I.R.S., WALL STREET, and the GOVERNMENT.
At the end of the day they make all the calls. What needs to happen is the 2nd liens need to be forgiven IMMEDIATELY, The primary home loans need to be modified with principal reduction. If this is not done, the housing market will never level off. People will stop spending, buying and the housing market will permanently fall off a cliff! Americans will lose 100% trust in the government. Since everyone is being laid off, these are signs of the time where things are getting critical.
I have never read some many idiotic comments on a chat board before. A lot of you people really need to be seen and not heard. SMDH
02:03 AM on 06/09/2011
While this appears to be a rational, well thought out report, tis not.

What you totally missed was the huge differences between HELOCs in California and the other bubble states. And, you did not differentiate between The Sand States - Cal, Nev, Fla & AZ - where between 03 and 06 Countrywide, WAMU, Wichovis & New Century "originated" US$ 2.5 Trillion in bad ARMs and subprime RE loans.

The assumption that everyone made was that "appreciation" would cover all of the ills. The assumption that MANY made was that they could, safely, pull that equity out of their homes either with at full REFI or by making a HELOC, or multiples of both. CNBC told then that was what they should do, and they did it.

The Problem is: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Since the number, size and percentage of HELOCs in California are vastly larger than in Nev, Az and Fla.; and that, now, when the problem of underwater-ness is vastly larger in Nev, Az and Fla; you MAY - economically permissive - need to find another explanation. Such as one that fits the facts.
03:11 PM on 06/08/2011
A lot of second mortgage lienholders are coming to the table and working with homeowners. If they continue to allow them to pay smaller installments, two things will happen: (a) Homeowners will take heart and see that there may be "light at the end fo the tunnel." (b) The homeowners may be able to adjust theie expenses over time to resume the original payment. Many homeowners can fix their problems if they have sufficient time. The flexibility of second mortgage lienholders may be the key to underwater homeowners hanging on or giving up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IndyFem
09:30 AM on 06/08/2011
Many 2nd Mortgages were initiated in conjuntion with the original 1st at the time of purchase. It was a way to provide 100% financing during the "bubble." Banks did this all day long:
* 80% 1st
* 20% 2nd (at a higher interest rate of course)
Not all 2nd Mortgages were from Homeowners using their homes as an ATM.
This article implies this....but it is not true.
photo
Lemmy
There Are Americans, then there are Liberals . .
12:44 PM on 06/08/2011
For those who needed two mortgages to buy thier house, they couldn't afford it in the first place. They took a risk and lost.
02:17 PM on 06/09/2011
You are making a huge generalization here. Some people took on a second mortgage because to put a large amount of cash down on a home is not necessarily a wise investment, and that actually paid off because they did not lose that saved money when the bubble burst. Also, throwing away money into a PMI payment is ridiculous because that's just another scam by the insurance companies. So, even if people could afford their homes, they were probably not willing to put a huge savings into a home and also didn't want to pay PMI...so don't make assumptions for everyone's situation is different.
02:24 PM on 06/22/2011
Who took the risk? Certainly not the home buyer. The ignorant bankster fronted 100% of the investment and took on all the risk and now wants us tax payers to bail him out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Milwaukeetj1
Keep your $$ in your neighborhood.
08:26 AM on 06/08/2011
2nd Mortgages should be outlawed considering home values tanked. I know its easier said than done but something has got to give.
photo
European1919
I am the Pigmâ’¶n
08:00 AM on 06/08/2011
Stupid is as stupid does. Not everything is the banks' fault.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
07:58 AM on 06/08/2011
CNBC constantly pushed and said a SECOND MORTGAGE is a SMART MOVE!

ALL THE BIG BANKS USED CONSTANT M S M PUSHING TO ENCOURAGE SECOND MORTGAGES!

BANKSTER saw this as another easy way to COLLECT MASSIVE FEES and LOTS of FRESH INTEREST!
photo
Lemmy
There Are Americans, then there are Liberals . .
12:46 PM on 06/08/2011
Second mortgages can be advatageous for those who have half a brain and have financial discipline. The interest is deductible and the after-tax rate can be cheaper than other loans.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
therightzwrong
re-elect al gore
07:42 AM on 06/08/2011
Ya gotta love how the article tosses blame to the homeowner.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
99% -Don't do what they tell you !
04:33 AM on 06/08/2011
Too many in here do not know what they are talking about but think they should talk anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
99% -Don't do what they tell you !
04:30 AM on 06/08/2011
Homeowners with second mortgages can get rid of their second mortgage twice as fast as homeowners with a first .
MWA1111
I'll let you set the tone for our conversation
07:19 AM on 06/08/2011
So you're going to drop that tidbit without expanding as to how?
photo
Lemmy
There Are Americans, then there are Liberals . .
12:48 PM on 06/08/2011
Just don't pay it. It's a way of dealing with financial obligations for those who don't want to take responsibility for thier actions. The rest of us will pick up the tab.
02:39 AM on 06/08/2011
I bought my house in 2000, after working two jobs for the downpayment. My lender required tax returns; proof of employment; a letter guaranteeing continued employment, and bank records. I assumed all mortgages worked that way. I remember wondering how friends and coworkers could afford the houses they were buying. Turns out they couldn't. Co-workers who bought when I did refinanced many times, pulling out money for vacations; new cars; to remodel their homes; electronic toys, or credit card debts. They ate out several times a week. They laughed at me because I saved money, never took vacations, and prepaid on my mortgage every month. They called me boring and old-fashioned.

Well, my boring and old-fashioned self will have the 30-year mortgage paid off in 2015, seven years before I retire. Meanwhile, several of those people with more "exciting" lives are facing foreclosure and bankruptcy. They have their cars and gadgets, and can't sleep at night. I live in my boring little un-remodeled house and sleep like a baby.

I have one credit card, and have used it twice in the past 5 years for emergency vet bills. My house is a home, not an ATM. I take my lunch to work every day and eat dinner at home 99% of the time. My vacations will come once the house is paid off.

Until people relearn the meaning of the words "delayed gratification" we will repeat this cycle of debt-and-default over and over.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Rozgonyi
Writer and traveler
03:36 AM on 06/08/2011
Congrats! And I mean it. I do the same thing, basically if my means are 100%, I live at sixty. I sock a bunch of cash away each year, and it ain't because I have a massive salary. I choose to live simply, and enjoy every minute of it. Finding entertainment without spending money is a lost art, especially in the states.
11:27 AM on 06/08/2011
Thanks! Congrats to you too. It's not how much you make (I make an average salary) it's how much you spend. I live on about 55-60% of what I make. I figure it's good practice for retirement, when I'll be on a fixed income. And it means I will actually be ABLE to retire, without a mortgage, which makes all the sacrifices worth it.
photo
Lemmy
There Are Americans, then there are Liberals . .
12:43 PM on 06/08/2011
Excellent post and congats on your fiscal discipline! You are a beacon in this sea of disparity. The folks who were reckless now play the victim and expect to be bailed out. I have two letters for them: F and U.
02:18 AM on 06/08/2011
'Homeowners With Second Mortgages Twice As Likely To Be Underwater'

File this under 'Duh'
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Rozgonyi
Writer and traveler
01:33 AM on 06/08/2011
"Homeowners who treated their homes as ATMs by taking out a second loan are more than twice as likely as single-mortgage homeowners to owe more on their home than it's worth"

Gee, thanks, WSJ. I really needed help figuring this one out!
01:23 AM on 06/08/2011
It is quite possible to use a second mortgage reasonably. It may be needed for major medical expenses. In my case I had 2 daughters get married. I limited the hit, but was still out 20K. When I bought my wife's car ( a corolla), I paid from the second mortgage because the rate was lower. But I have been steadily paying it down. I remember 17% interest rates 30 years ago.

My house value is down a lot, but I bought it 7 years ago with a 15 year fixed rate mortgage, so I have already paid off over a third of the principal. 2/3 of my payments are now against the principal. At this point my payoff will soon surpass the depreciation.

Now my wife has been giving me grief about being house poor for years, as our payments and repayments have eaten most of our income.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Rozgonyi
Writer and traveler
01:36 AM on 06/08/2011
Sorry, my brother. Using a home equity line to pay for two lavish weddings is not exactly reasonable. Many people make do with smaller weddings if they can't make a big one happen.

And that we live in a country where the term "medical bankruptcy" was invented (Europeans can't even understand the concept, nor how cruel it is) is sad.
11:03 AM on 06/08/2011
Actually, I simply gave them 10K each. If they spent less, they could use the remainder for something useful like a downpayment. And if they wanted to spend more, they had to come up with the cash themselves. Their choice.

Incidentally, 10K is a downpayment to a lavish wedding. One of the two daughters now does commercial wedding photography. She spent a lot more than 10K on her wedding, but I suspect that it was money well spent - she has done a lot of wedding jobs among the guests to the wedding. Overall, I suspect she has turned a good profit on it.