iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Selling Homeowners Short: Bank Strategy Backfires In Foreclosure Crisis

Short Sale Rules

First Posted: 01/20/2012 1:24 pm Updated: 01/20/2012 1:28 pm

Housing investors and advocates are embracing a new strategy to keep struggling borrowers in their homes: Purchasing houses from homeowners who can no longer afford to pay the mortgage, then leasing the property back to the previous owner at an affordable rent.

The strategy looks like a winner for both homeowners and banks. The homeowner gets to stay put and the stress of paying what has become an unaffordable mortgage disappears. Meanwhile, the lender doesn't have to foreclose, which is costly and usually results in a vacant home they have to maintain until they can sell.

The problem is the strategy is prohibited. The nation's major banks and mortgage companies, as well as housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, typically bar the previous owners from remaining in their properties after homes are sold for less than the value of the outstanding mortgage -- what is known as a short sale.

With nearly one in every five homeowners owing more on their home than it's worth, and millions of homeowners on the verge of foreclosure, short sales are on the rise. Last year, there were 26,000 more short sales than in 2010, according to Hope Now.

At the same time short sales are increasing, there continues to be an oversupply of vacant homes, with nearly one in every ten houses sitting empty, according to the Census Bureau. The flood of vacant homes is hampering a rebound of the housing market, say economists, by keeping home prices low. It makes sense, then, to try to avoid bringing more empty homes onto the market.

But in fact, the banks refuse to allow these kinds of transactions unless the buyers sign legal documents promising they will not rent the property back to the previous owner. The restrictions are designed to limit fraud: If a struggling homeowner can sell the property for less than what they owe the bank and remain in the home, they could find a partner to buy the home at the reduced price, and together they could then sell the home and split any profits.

However, this seemingly sensible provision is now having an unintended effect, staunching what many experts portray as a promising way to bolster the troubled housing market: inviting investors to buy distressed homes en masse and then rent them out.

"All these government agencies, Fannie, Freddie, the Federal Housing Administration, they all have this policy," said Jorge Newbery, director of American Homeowner Preservation, a company that buys homes and rents them back to the previous owner. "They have all this rhetoric about keeping families in their homes, but then it's just pushed to the side. What they're doing just seems punitive and illogical."

The short sale policy is recent. Freddie Mac and Bank of America adopted it in summer 2010, with Citigroup following in early 2011. Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase declined to comment on the timing of their policies.

Investors say the policy is just bad business. "Short sales are a third of our market, and they'd sell faster if we could just rent them back to the previous owner," said Steve Schmitz, chief executive officer of American Residential Properties, a firm that bought and then rented over 500 foreclosed properties in the Southwest. The firm is also nearing completion on a $100 million deal to acquire an additional 800 foreclosed properties.

According to Schmitz, the prohibition on short sales also makes impossible what could otherwise be a win-win transaction.

"The best deal for everyone is where we can lease it back to the previous owner," he said. "The homeowner isn't being kicked out. Their kids can stay in the same schools. For us, we don't have to pay a leasing commission or have a vacant home. The bank wins because we'd be willing to pay more money for that house if we could lease it back to the previous owner. The community wins because there's never a vacant home in the neighborhood."

Ivy Zelman, chief executive officer at financial analysis firm Zelman and Associates, disagrees with the assertion that the restrictions impede short sales. "I don't think it's an issue for the single-family rental market, as investors rehab homes and have enough tenants to rent them to other than the former mortgage holders."

Last month, the Federal Reserve Board released a 26-page paper that supports converting foreclosed properties to rental units. According to that report, now is an unusually good time for such a strategy because demand for owner-occupied homes remains low, demand for rental properties is rising, and the problem of banks' continued hesitance to offer mortgages to everyday Americans means the situation won't resolve anytime soon. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, is also currently reviewing proposals from potential buyers to convert the two companies' foreclosed properties to rental units.

Though the Fed report and the FHFA program focused on already-foreclosed properties -- as opposed to short sales, which function as an alternative to foreclosure -- the same argument applies to both, said Newbery of the American Homeowner Preservation.

"If you have a borrower who can't afford to own the home anymore, but can afford to rent it, and wants to rent it, why wouldn't you let them?" Newbery said. "Why would you bring another vacant home on to this market if you didn't have to?"

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

Housing investors and advocates are embracing a new strategy to keep struggling borrowers in their homes: Purchasing houses from homeowners who can no longer afford to pay the mortgage, then leasing t...
Housing investors and advocates are embracing a new strategy to keep struggling borrowers in their homes: Purchasing houses from homeowners who can no longer afford to pay the mortgage, then leasing t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 463
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
04:43 AM on 01/26/2012
I am all for keeping homeowners in their homes. However, renting their homes to them after a short sale, is not keeping the homeowners in their homes. It is putting renters in those homes and it is still stealing those homes from their rightful homeowners.

Instead of permitting the banks to steal these homes from their rightful owners, Congress needs to pass a law that forces the banks to refinance these homes at their current value, less 10 percent? Why less 10 percent? Because the true definition of homeownership is owning equity in one's home. But, oh, that's right. Congress won't do a darn thing to help homeowners because then the cash cow that lines their pockets with gold (the banks) will stop paying them.

So it's up to every homeowner in America, whether they are facing foreclosure or not, to push for this. Why should the banks take these losses? Because the banks created this mess. Homes today are worth less than they were when homeowners took out their loans because the banks and their investors inflated home prices, then hoodwinked homeowners into predatory, fraudulent loans.

If you don't believe this, read "The Foreclosure of America: Life Inside Countrywide Home Loans and the Selling of the American Dream" by former Countrywide VP Adam Michaelson. Then read "Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis" by Paul Muolo and Matthew Padilla.
08:01 PM on 01/26/2012
Everyone knew prices were grossly inflated and bought anyways. Stop your pandering.
10:34 AM on 01/24/2012
Banks need to get a clue and restructure loans of underwater homes. Every other solution costs them more money. It seems like they are willing to lose money as long as they can punish the current owner.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
R Andrew Ohge
Writer of Articles, Poetry, Comments & Much More..
12:47 PM on 01/23/2012
For once in the last three decades, it sounds like the Banks actually are moved to do something that could benefit Homeowners caught up in the floundering economy, and do it in a way that actually is a plus for them. This article doesn't even go into the Commercial Accounts in which you have a struggling business that could recover if given time to accelerate income past debt service.

So...who's in the way? Not the Federal Reserve-AMAZINGLY, as these folks have made capricious grabs out of the Business Economy more than once. Nope, it's our Government, in the persons of Fannie, Freddie & FHA.

As Ms. Berlin points out, these folks give lip service to helping homeowners, (though, in fact, the best treatment for Homeowners at the present is through the USDA Rural Development Funds) AND resisting this move by the Banks smacks more of a hegemony issue than anything else.

Of course, if they have a BETTER IDEA...we're all ears.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:52 AM on 01/23/2012
SO why do they not simply re-adjust the mortgages, so people are not backwards on their homes, and that way, people keep their homes, thebanks are not maintaining anything on the tax payers back...and its all done...over , REcovery possible....WTH is wrong with these people that common sense cannot prevail?
06:46 PM on 01/23/2012
Many people used their houses as ATM machines and kept getting home equity loans that they could not afford to pay back when property values were going up . Other people did not take the equity out of their houses It isn't right to reward people who used their houses' equity to go on vacations buy cars etc by lowering the amount owed on their house while giving nothing to their next door neighbors who were more prudent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kwhitney333
Common sense is not common
09:54 PM on 01/23/2012
Here is a question for you, who told them that their homes were worth that, and then suckered them into a equity loan...justsaying...
10:35 AM on 01/24/2012
The banks should share in some of the losses since they were the ones making the loans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kwhitney333
Common sense is not common
09:52 PM on 01/23/2012
Agree if the banks want to make money renting a home why dont they just adjust the mortgage so the home owner does not lose their home...oh I know because then they can own the property and still make money....what a shocker!
11:32 PM on 01/23/2012
They already own the house. It's called collateral.
12:23 AM on 01/23/2012
"Home Prices Declines Accelerating"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-markets-property-usa-poll-idUSTRE80C1KW20120113

The average price of a U.S. home is currently around where it was nine years ago, and the most recent data, from October, showed price declines still accelerating.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:27 PM on 01/22/2012
After a short bout of token resistance, many bankers would love for this to become ... "normal."

Soon, there would be two classes of people in this country: the Serfs, being the vast majority, and the Land Lords ... the ones who actually own land, and, being Landed, the only ones who actually have the right to vote.
08:38 PM on 01/22/2012
"Realtor Defrauds Local Church, Charged With Embezzlement"

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/11/mobile_real_estate_agent_charg.html

Never trust these swindlers.
06:48 PM on 01/23/2012
In California , houses have gone up every year for the past seventy years except for 1991-1995 and 2007 - so it is very rare for housing prices to go down
06:57 PM on 01/23/2012
Adjusted for inflation, housing prices never went up until 1996.
07:53 PM on 01/26/2012
Do your homework . Houses in many parts of Los Angeles are selling today for over two million and many of the owners bought their houses in the 70s for eighty thousand. Where do you live ?
07:59 PM on 01/26/2012
Do your homework. Housing sales are at 14 year lows and falling. Nothing is selling at inflated prices.Why are you misinforming HP readers?
02:29 PM on 01/22/2012
It is so funny how the banks will do everything they can to prevent the buyer from benefitting. The real moral hazard is the banks have too much power in the country.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
demilieu
Texas liberal...with reservations
02:22 PM on 01/22/2012
A little thing called mortgage insurance keeps banks from agreeing to short sales. They already have assurance their money will all be repaid no matter what the homeowner does. With a short sale all bets are off.
02:12 PM on 01/22/2012
This entire housing market is a mess...There is no reason for banks to work with ANY homeowners...The FDIC guarantees them up to 80% of any loss...So seems like a win win for the bank and a loose loose for the homeowner. Until banks are FORCED to work with homeowners this blood bath will continue.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
demilieu
Texas liberal...with reservations
02:23 PM on 01/22/2012
Exactly. There's zero incentive for them to do anything to help people out. If they do nothing, their money remains 100% insured.
09:45 AM on 01/22/2012
The solution is simple. Sell the foreclosed homes at rock bottom prices and exempt them from the neighborhood value of the rest of the homes. That way no one's home value will go down.
I bet the banks do not want this as it will lower the losses they can write off and the gov. handouts.
This is what you get when you allow the banks to control the country.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
demilieu
Texas liberal...with reservations
02:26 PM on 01/22/2012
You still have undervalue homes on the market.
12:22 AM on 01/22/2012
Banks don't want short sales. If they did they would simply renegotiate the loan balance with the current owner. What Bush missed was a chance to head off this problem. He did not demand the paper for the houses when he bailed out the banks. If he had, the house could have been sold back to the owners, at lower amounts, and at least some of the money would have come back, the houses would not be sitting empty, and local governments would still be collecting property tax instead of tearing down vacant homes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justanothergrandma
finding my way
03:38 AM on 01/22/2012
I really like the idea that we should have gotten mortgages in return for the bail out money. How many would have been saved by $700 billion +?
06:48 AM on 01/22/2012
and what about those that took traditional mortgages; 20% down, 3.5x gross, fixed rate, bought a home that was with in their means, didn't take equity out every time the value rose, didn't go out to dinner every week, didn't take big vacations and , generally, lived with in their means? how do you "help" those individuals?
If we were to "help" people in trouble, what are the criteria?
If we "help" people and the value of the house then rises and they sell, who gets the profit, up to yhe original principal amount?
Whilst it all sounds so good, how would it work?
If the fed just started "helping" those that are in arrears, what stops everuone from going into arrears?
Seriously, what is your plan and how would it work?
Lastly, is it just mortgages or is it any "underwater" debt?
If you live in many places, a car is a requirement to live. Do we move this into that realm?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
demilieu
Texas liberal...with reservations
02:30 PM on 01/22/2012
At least a couple. After everyone takes their cut in service fees, that is.
photo
lcr999
scientist
08:32 AM on 01/22/2012
In most cases it is not the "banks" that own the paper. The mortgages were sliced and resliced and sold several times over. In most cases, The "banks" are now just middle men.
06:06 PM on 01/22/2012
That is what they want you to beleive. But when a mortage is sold the paper goes with it. What happened is shoddy bookkeeping and the inablility to find that paper, one reason many foreclosers should be deemed illegal. Too bad...they should have been forced to produce it. Forced to comply with accepted policy concerning mortages.

Again...if Bush had demanded 700B worth of paper in return for the 700b cash the government would have held an asset. There was a rush to distribute the money and for some reason they did not demand any return on the deal they cut. Now, the whole country was failing, it was predicted that without a quick cash inflow the banks would fail and I get it...we needed to move fast. But we should have also put in a rider that said they had 60 days to hand over 700B worth of mortages that they claimed was the reason the banks were about to topple. That never happened.

I don't blame Bush ...we needed it...I do blame him for the way it was done. Both sides of the asile did not think ahead and those that tried to point our faults were ignored. By the time the auto companies needed help, the bailout was a loan...and GM is at the top again. Proof that we could have done the same thing in the housing market if we had only taken more time.
11:14 PM on 01/21/2012
Won't be long that regulation will be kicked to the curb.
10:25 PM on 01/21/2012
not according to the government the housing market is improving
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
08:24 PM on 01/21/2012
Where is this picture from? It looks like a Katrina photo?
rogergoldkin
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance
07:57 AM on 01/22/2012
This is exactly what a lot of neighborhoods look like. In Dayton, OH I've been down streets where at least 2/3 of housing is boarded up or broken into.
11:54 AM on 01/22/2012
I live in Vallejo, California's largest bankrupt city (#9 in the latest census), with a 60% business vacancy rate and hundreds of broken into foreclosures with no pipes or wiring left in them. That's in the SF Bay Area, in case you're not familiar with it, not generally considered an economic disaster area.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
03:11 PM on 01/22/2012
sounds like a disaster by what you wrote