The morality of walking away from debt

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>IrvineRenter, </p>

<p>Your analysis has hit the nail on the head. Lenders know exactly what they are doing, and what risks are involved. </p>

<p>I can also respect those who set a very high "moral" standard for themselves provided they "do as they do, not do as they say". </p>

<p>I am curious if those people also send a check to the CHP everytime they go over the speed limit even when they are not caught. Walking away from a loan is "legal", while speeding is illegal wheather you get caught or not. Since "illegal" is a great offense then "immoral", sending a check a to CHP should be the "moral" thing to do for those people. </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
morality can be looked at both top down and bottom up. from a top down view, the fed could have interventioned earlier (or they could have not encouraged the problem.) investors could have cried foul but they obviously liked the returns. banks and lenders knew the risks they were taking but were making money now so who cares? bonuses are paid annually. let next yr's problems be next yr's. if you look at it from the bottom up, then obviously as individuals we all had a duty as members of society, as participants in an economy, to make responsible decisions. whether you were a home buyer, home seller, realtor, mortgage broker, county treasurer, commercial banker, investment banker, institutional salesperson, risk analyst, money mgr, or the chairman of the fed, you likely benefited. anyone along this chain could have cried foul but who wants to shoot the golden goose?





theres a very famous psychology experiment in which a group of people sit around a table. the table has a pot filled with cash. every few minutes, the remaining cash in the pot will be doubled. once the experiment begins, the participants are free to grab and keep whatever cash they can. it's not hard to see that if everyone resists temptation to serve themselves, the money in the pot will grow exponentially. then everyone could have more than their fair share.


oftentimes the participants figure this out and even agree as a group to follow this strategy. more often than not though, one or more people feel compelled for whatever reason (greed, fear that someone else will break from the plan first) to just make a grab for the money. this causes a free for all which leaves nothing left in the pot to double.





its easy to see how a similar situation happened in this housing/credit debacle. i spoke with a commercial banker who said it was extremely difficult to not get caught up in the wave. if competitors were financing every deal that came across the table and they passed on them, eventually they would have to answer questions from mgmt and investors. it's very hard to explain why you think you'll be right in the long run when everyone at the moment is passing you by and a whole lot of guts to stick with your conviction. it creates self-doubt and in the end, most people just end up going with the crowd.





in short, who's to blame? everyone. morality was compromised at all levels when those who had a stake in the housing and credit markets chose to ride the bubble knowing full well it was a bubble and bound to burst with severe impact on everyone. let's face it, it was obvious.
 
<p>Although this may be irrelevant to the topic...</p>

<p>My brother was in tough situation about 9 years ago. He just graduated from college, but was already in debt with the credit card company for $3000. He then decided to leave the country to explore career opportunities oversease. Came back 6 months later with no hope...then found out that he skipped payments on his credit card bills for 6 months. Obviously.. it ended up in collection. </p>

<p>Long story short, he ended walking away (without filing bankruptcy)..from the debt. Now after 9 years, that credit card debt no longer shows up on his credit report and he has a stellare 750 credit score? </p>

<p>Can this be possible?</p>
 
<p>That's right. Everyone is to blame. And like I have stated. I have no qualms for those who are hit with unforseenable financial hardships to "walk" away from their mortgage obligations.</p>

<p>What I do have a problem with are those individuals who knew full well what they were getting into. They took out 100% financing with the "gamble" that they will have instant equity. Now, they find out that there is no equity. They decide to "walk". Not due to financial hardships. But rather, they "gambled" with the bank's money and they lost. And now find ways to justify not fulfilling their obligations.</p>
 
<p>Per morality - now that's morality. He lives up to his middle name. Basically was willing to throw away everything to help the kid in need. How can one welch on a debt one can afford to pay back where there are examples like that?</p>

<p>Mexican, U.S. officials honor illegal immigrant who rescued boy in Arizona desert </p>

<p><a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20071204-1540-immigrantrescuer.html">http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20071204-1540-immigrantrescuer.html</a></p>
 
Cmon people, lets stop judging! We have all been immoral in our lives in way or another, some of you just justify it because it didnt involve a half a million dollar loan. An act of immorality (dont think this is a word) is an act of immorality, whether there is half a million dollars attached to it or not.





Also, why is it ok for someone who gets divorced, or loses a job, or becomes ill and walks away from their obligation OK, but someone who decides to walk due to making strictly a business decision not OK, the result is the same, the bank gets left holding the bag either way. Didnt the divorcee or unemployed person make a promise to pay the bank back as well?





The banks consider the risk of people walking away and build that risk in to the price of their products.
 
<p>For me the question is do two wrongs make a right.</p>

<p>Credit companies know there is risk in lending money. Higher risk = higher interest. This returns higher yields if the borrower doesn't default or walk. </p>

<p>The creditors were more then willing to extend these loans to people that shouldn't have gotten them. Even if I am an uneducated person that has no idea about finance or borrowing I should be stopped by the lender. Hey TR your credit sucks you can't afford to pay attention let alone the mortgage. Go home pay down your bills, increase your FICO and save some money. That would have been the moral thing to do. Instead in many cases well we all know what happened. </p>

<p>So now these same people are faced with walking....they feel as though the lender wasn't worried about morality why should they.</p>

<p>This could be a chicken and egg argument. As much as we want to say a borrower should know better, they hired people they thought did. Unfortuanely the realtors and the mortgage brokers in many cases traded morality for commissions.</p>
 
"The banks consider the risk of people walking away and build that risk in to the price of their products."





Yes and they did a pretty crappy job over the last 2 to 4yrs and now everyone will pay for it over the coming yrs.
 
<p>The problem is that the banks priced in the risk to them. Not the risk to the SIV investors. These is where regulators need to step in and set some guidelines.</p>

<p>Obviously, it is a fallacy to argue that "oh the banks priced the risks correctly"</p>

<p>If the banks had priced the risks correclty, then the lending standards should have been what they have historically been when the banks kept ALL the loans on their books. The very fact that the lending standards loosened up so much says they did NOT price the risks correctly, and their reasons for doing so is that they were no longer taking all the risks. The risks and returns were whatever the financial whizzes could convince naieve investors to take. </p>

<p>From <a href="http://nakedshorts.typepad.com/nakedshorts/files/EinhornOnCredit.pdf">http://nakedshorts.typepad.com/nakedshorts/files/EinhornOnCredit.pdf</a></p>

<p>“Consider municipal bonds. According to S&P’s long-term data the 10 year default rate on an A rated municipal bond is 1%; while a corporate bond’s default rate is 1.8%; and a CDO’s is 2.7%. An A rated muni has the same chance of default as a AA/AA- rated corporate and a AA+ rated CDO. When municipal bonds default the expected recovery rate is 90% compared to 50% on corporate and CDOs.”</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>I suppose the difference between "unforseenable" hardships and a business decision is? One is intentional and the other one is not.</p>

<p>If someone truly purchased the home as a "business" transaction. The individual made a calculated risk. He or she had intended to make a profit through instant equity. They knew it can go either way. And if they figured the real estate market will go up forever. That's their calculation. Well, they lost in this market. So they can just walk? That's a very good business practice.</p>
 
you're right that banks have priced risk into their products. when they misprice the risk, they miffed at their job. at the same time, consumers have a responsibility to not take more than they can handle. govt and overseeing authorities have the responsibility to make sure people/financial institutions arent getting in over their heads (S&L redux?) spending money you dont have on your credit card, buying a house you can't afford, taking on loans you can't repay, even getting married for the wrong reasons all have to do with personal responsibility... and when its done out of greed, i think it has a lot to do with morality. even losing one's job gets little sympathy when the level of spending was far excessive of what was appropriate when they did have income. "keeping up with the joneses", "because everyone else is doing it", "i was under tremendous pressure to have the things everyone else has". those are all excuses that are linked to greed whether non-intentional and sub-conscious. and it really doesn't matter if the person making the excuse is a homeowner, mortgage broker, ceo of a bank, or alan greenspan.





also i dont think anyone is judging the normal foreclosures and bankruptcies that occur to people who were still living within their means. yes, people lose jobs, get divorced, have medical problems, etc. its the excessive over-spending/over-lending above historical norms that is at issue.
 
<p>I understand the need to blame the banks, the loan officers, the RE agents, etc but ultimately, the person who took on the loan signed for it and is responsible for it. They didn't have a gun to their head and even without reading the fine print, some basic math should have played into this. If I make $50K, how exactly can I pay off $500K? Those kinds of questions should have been going through their heads.</p>

<p>Honestly, if you want to start blaming others, how far can you go back? One can argue that the blame should be on the highschool econ teacher to not teach basic financial principals to these poor debtors. You might say its a stretch but once you start taking away personal responsibility, it becomes really easy to point the fingers.</p>

<p>I am not disagreeing that the other groups were wrong and shouldn't have a free pass but I don't think its fair to let the debtor walk away for the simple reason that they don't feel like paying any more. </p>
 
On the one hand, you have the truly naive person who places his trust in an unscrupulous R/E agent and loan broker. On the other hand, you have the financially astute person who sees opportunity for potential gain with little personal risk. Where do you (where can you) draw the line between these two extremes in offering some sort of work-out/bail-out assistance? You probably can't. As an alternative, I suggest that any form of bail out NOT include those who were less than 100 percent truthful on the loan applications they signed. And I do mean 100 percent! If the loan was made in July of 2005, get a copy of the June, 2005 credit report directly from the credit bureau. Get copies of the 2004 and 2005 tax returns from the IRS. (Note: no reliance on the honesty of borrower or previous loan broker). Make some comparisons and draw conclusions about the borrower from his application, and bounce the licenses from agents and brokers with high percentages of falsifications, because they were evidently encouraging or assisting in the process.
 
<p>I think the situation is different for different people.</p>

<p>I have a friend who bought a new condo in 2006. His girlfriend and he have been making great money in the escrow business for 3 years now. So they decided to buy to save on their taxes. Come 2007, business slows and housing prices drop. Now, they have no equity if they sell and they can't afford to continue paying the mortgage much longer. I don't think it would be wrong if they ended up walking away from the condo.</p>

<p>I have another friend who bought a speculative property. Prices drop so he stops making payments and his credit is destroyed. He made a business decision. But he does have to suffer the consequences of bad credit.</p>

<p>I think it's their fault for not planning well. I also think it's the lender's fault for not being more careful with their lending. Defaults must be calculated into the equation for this line of business.</p>
 
well in both cases i wouldn't say either were acting immorally. i think we've somewhat strayed from the issue of morality into blame. blame is all around but morality is tricker to pin down. i like what gollini suggested. if you weren't 100% honest, tough luck. obviously there were plenty of good law-abiding folk who fibbed a bit on applications since loan agents didnt discourage it but lines have to be drawn somewhere.
 
<p>So what is the difference between a large number of individuals walking away from their debt and a one Large company walking away from their debt?</p>

<p>People make bad decesions for whatever reason, some did it because they really didn't know, some because they wanted to keep up with the joneses, some because they wanted to make tons of money. All different reasons.</p>

<p>When GM, MCI, American Airlines and heck all the other airlines, and millions of business' a year go bankrupt and walk away from debt. Are they immoral? Or are they making a tough business decesion that says with the amount of debt we have now we cannot survive. When we made the decesion to take on this debt it looked like a good idea. Today in retrospect not so good. The asset we invested in tanked and now in order to keep an operational business we need to rid ourselves of that debt.</p>

<p>So is the right thing to do stay in over your head or walk away. I think that is a question each person has to answer on their own. Weigh the pro's and the con's of it and make a decesion.</p>

<p> </p>
 
Indeed, loans have default provisions, and simply allowing those provisions to be activated is not as much a moral issue as a practical one that has penalties for default. But how you manage the default or bankruptcy is a moral issue. Using the airline example, is it moral for the managers to award themselves big bonuses just before declaring BK which voids their worker's union contracts and cuts the worker's pay? In the individual homeowner's case, the moral course is to contact the lender, and work out the best deal the borrower can live with that does the least damage to other concerned parties. That doesn't include 'squatting' on the property until forced out. It doesn't include letting the appearance decline to the detriment of neighborhood property values. It doesn't include preventing (or delaying) the lender from recovering as much as possible through repossession and resale. It doesn't include having committed fraud on a loan application.
 
<p>I will post practical ideas here and moral speculations elsewhere.</p>

<p>We are going to be in a situation in which half a trillion to 2 trillion dollars of value is going to vanish. It is possible that it will be even more if we get into a bad enough downward spiral.</p>

<p>There is a point at which the walking away will cause so much damage that the financial system will crash. Nobody knows what straw will break the camel's back.</p>

<p>There is no question that the banks brokers agents and some borrowers engaged in evil practices; those practices may or may not appear to harm the individuals in question, but they certainly affect the society at large. Therefore, to minimize these evils, it is a good thing that they be punished. You can substitute more politically correct words here. But the ex-catholic here feels that there is a place for words like evil and punishment.</p>

<p>Normally, the punishment here is foreclosure and bad credit, meaning you can't buy stuff that you'd like. Seems appropriate to me. Also brokers and agents involved should lose licenses, banks should go out of business, or pull in horns, and certainly people at the top and middle should lose jobs. And some of that has happened.</p>

<p>People have talked about bail outs and how that will hurt others. Well, the walk away mentality will hurt the rest of us too. Banks didn't factor in enough money to cover losses before. Boy, they're are busily factoring in all that stuff now--to the point where hardly anybody qualifies for a loan. The more walks, the harder it will be for all the diligently saving renters on this blog to get a loan, when the sellers finally capitulate and reduce prices to what blogsters are willing to pay.</p>

<p>Also, the more walkers, the higher the likelihood the system will crash. This is good for nobody. This said, if you bought in good faith in Cape Coral, and there's no work there, and the house is 60 grand underwater (30%), and you've lost your job, and you don't want your wife and baby out on the street. . . you walk.</p>

<p>Other posters, as someone else pointed out, seem to want moral justification for something they want to do but believe deep in their hearts is not right, and which they can afford financially, for quite a while.</p>

<p>At some point, which I don't think any of the posters has reached, this fades into con artistry.</p>

<p>I have known a few con artists in my time and have even represented them in non-con endeavors (being very very careful not to set sucked in). The cons were very successful in lying to themselves. But this came out in much worse health than average, and bad, but tension-relieving behaviors, like smoking many packs a day to playing too much bingo. Many con artists die young as a result. And feel bad, but refuse to recognize why they are feeling bad. Some assured me how honest they were using minor examples of honesty, while conducting their life as a whole in an obviously dishonest manner. And I think they had convinced themselves that I didn't see through them. I have been known to sit people down and tell them they are living in a very wrong manner and doing my mommy thing. But when someone is a hopeless con I either politely tell them to go away, or can just represent them in honest stuff, without contamination, I do so.</p>

<p>So yes, I do see karma happen. But you have to be up close and personal and observant over a reasonably long time to see this gradual working out. This is why people read and write novels. On the surface, people seem to be enjoying ill gotten gains. But in the cases I have observed, they often really weren't enjoying them, it only seemed that way.</p>

<p> </p>
 
Back
Top