Foreclosures Aren’t New
REO properties have been part of the real estate landscape for many, many years. Foreclosure loomed large in melodramas in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Typically a rascal with a handle bar mustache offered to postpone the seizure of the family homestead in exchange for the the virtue of the heroine ( Wow- talk about loan workouts and modification!). But melodrama aside, most people were not involved in the drama of foreclosure and bank owned real estate.
Even so, these properties have been a part of the real estate landscape for many years, peaking in times of economic distress, and diminishing in times of economic plenty. From the REO inventory created by economic issues in the COLT states(Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas) in the early 90’s to the disposition of the S&L debacle’s real property through the RTC, to the very limited REO inventory of the last real estate boom, foreclosed properties have been with us consistently.
The Four Horsemen
In most cases, during normal markets, it seemed that the loss of most properties were due in a large part to four causes, Death (or illness), Drugs (or Alcohol), Divorce, or Disenfranchisement (actually this should be unemployment- or business failure, but I really wanted to be alliterative here).
While it was possible to be sympathetic to the borrowers who were overwhelmed by their personal issues or tragedies, the fact was that the majority of people who faced similar trials were able to continue making payments on their obligations. Therefore we all understood that when you borrowed money for a mortgage you had an obligation to pay that money back. For many years I explained the mortgage obligation with the rhyme, “If you pay you stay, If you don’t you won’t”, and so people who were foreclosed upon were not perceived as victims of the mortgage company, they were people who defaulted on an agreement and paid the consequences.
People lost homes, and they moved on. It wasn’t easy, but most people accepted that if they borrowed money, and did not live up to their obligation, they were going to lose the property that they pledged as security. In some cases, they rented, on others they moved in with friends or family, but they moved forward and tried to address their problems. In some instances they ended up buying a home a few years later.
Now the Rules Have Changed
Recently, I noticed a spate of news stories about people who were picketing the homes of mortgage company employees and executives. The “protests” were arranged by the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) , who, according to their web site are a “a non-profit community advocacy and home ownership membership organization”.
NACA has created what they call an accountability campaign. Their web site explains it this way.
Executives of financial institutions have amassed huge fortunes on the backs of hardworking American families. While living in their many luxurious homes, they have refused to restructure mortgages that would allow families to stay in their homes. We need to make them accountable for their actions. Join the fight.
While NACA has agreements with many lenders to make your mortgage affordable, the below executives refused. Click on the lender/servicer below to see how they live and how to contact them directly.
As a result of this accountability campaign, Industry executives and employees of the non-cooperative lenders have had people protesting in front of their homes and their privacy violated. OK, I get it. The people who borrowed the money are not wealthy and the people who are executives of large companies make large salaries and live well. And I understand the anger and frustration of the people who are caught in this massive economic turmoil, and are trying to take what they perceive to be active steps to remediate their problem. But isn’t this , in at least some of the cases, misdirected anger or inappropriate behavior?
Is the Lender Automatically the Bad Guy?
Who is to say the the President or Vice President of the company was in fact aware of or responsible for (except in the most general manner) possibly predatory actions by a loan officer hundreds or thousands of miles from their office, and light years away from direct communication with these individuals? Does the economic plight of the borrower mean that this person’s family should be traumatized by such aggressive actions, and that their homes should be inundated by this course of action? Couldn’t the same effect be achieved by protests at the company’s offices or some other venue?
I know that the former mortgagor is the more sympathetic figure in the foreclosure, but does that mean that all of the individuals that worked in the mortgage industry during the boom are directly and solely responsible for the current situation? At some point the consumer took money from a lender and used it for their own perceived best interest. Shouldn’t they have some accountability?
I watched a television show recently which featured a story about a distressed homeowner. The woman was an elderly woman who had refinanced her home four times in four years. Each time she had taken $20,000 in equity out of her house. The story cast the loan officer as unscrupulous, and talked about improprieties in the loan process, like using her husband’s income for the loans after her husband’s death.
This poor older woman, obviously unsophisticated, looked and talked like a victim. As as she talked with the newswoman about losing her house, and the need for her to be helped, I didn’t hear her say that she would return the $80,000 in equity she had taken. Though anyone would feel sorry for this little old lady, it did make me wonder what happened to that $80,000? Was it spent? What did she use it for? Why shouldn’t she have to pay it? Could she really have been that unaware that she would need to make payments when she borrowed the money?
I Don’t Have Any Answers – Only Questions
I struggle with the whole issue of relief for defaulting borrowers.
I am completely sympathetic to their plight, and understand how anyone in that situation can want to seek relief. I am sure there are a percentage of people who borrowed money who anticipated appreciation that didn’t occur, pay increases that didn’t happen, others who lost their jobs in this recession, or did not fully understand the terms of the loan they took. Obviously people who borrowed more than the current value of their home need to have some incentive for remaining in the property, and paying that loan balance off. But all of that having been said, do you think borrowers should bear some responsibility for the repayment of the loan?
What do you think about these foreclosure situations? What about people that are making their payments? Aren’t they being penalized when these guys get a break? Should they be given some assistance? Is there a way to reward them for doing the right thing? Now is the time for your input. You have the questions – Do you have any answers?
Is the real estate industry endorsing Carson’s nomination to HUD?
(BUSINESS NEWS) Ben Carson’s initial appointment to HUD was controversial given his lack of experience in housing, but what is the pulse now?
NAR strongly backs Dr. Carson’s nomination
When President-Elect Donald Trump put forth Dr. Ben Carson’s name as the nominee for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, NAR President William E. Brown said, “While we’ve made great strides in recent years, far more can be done to put the dream of homeownership in reach for more Americans.”
At the time of nomination, the National Association of Realtors (the largest trade organization in the nation) offered a positive tone regarding Dr. Carson and said the industry looks forward to working with him. But does that hold true today?
The confirmation hearings yesterday were far less controversial than one would expect, especially in light of how many initially reacted to his nomination. Given his lack of experience in housing, questions seemed to often center around protecting the LGBT community and veterans, both of which he pledged to support.
In fact, Dr. Carson said the Fair Housing Act is “one of the best pieces of legislation we’ve ever had in this country,” promising to issue a “world-class plan” for housing upon his confirmation…
Job openings hit 14-year high, signaling economic improvement
The volume of job openings is improving, but not across all industries. The overall economy is improving, but not evenly across all career paths.
Job openings hit a high point
To understand the overall business climate, the U.S. Labor Department studies employment, today releasing data specific to job vacancies. According to the department’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLT) for April, job openings rose to 5.38 million, the highest seen since December 2000, and a significant jump from March’s 5.11 million vacancies. Although a lagging indicator, it shows strength in the labor market.
The Labor Department reports that the number of hires in April fell to 5 million, which indicates a weak point in the strong report, and although the volume remains near recent highs, this indicates a talent gap and highlights the number of people who have left the labor market and given up on looking for a job.
Good news, bad news, depending on your profession
That said, another recent Department report notes that employers added 221,000 jobs in April and 280,000 in May, but the additions are not evenly spread across industries. Construction jobs rose in April, but dipped in professional and business services, hospitality, trade, and transportation utilities. In other words, white collar jobs are down, blue collar jobs are up, which is good or bad news depending on your profession.
Additionally, the volume of people quitting their jobs was 2.7 million in April compared to the seven-year high of 2.8 million in March. Economists follow this number as a metric for gauging employee confidence in finding their next job.
If you’re in the market for a job, there are an increasing number of openings, so your chance of getting hired is improving, but there is a caveat – not all industries are enjoying improvement.
If you’re hiring talent, you’ll still get endless resumes, but there appears to be a growing talent gap for non-labor jobs, so you’re not alone in struggling to find the right candidate.
Economists suspect the jobs market will continue to improve as a whole, but this data does not pertain to every industry.
Gas prices are down, so are gas taxes about to go up?
Do low gas prices mean higher gas taxes are on the way? Budgeting for 2015 just got a bit more complicated, if some politicians have their way.
Gas taxes and your bottom line
Many industries rely heavily on time in their vehicle, not just truck drivers and delivery trucks. Sales professionals hop in their vehicles throughout the day, as do many other types of professionals (service providers like plumbers, and so forth). For that reason, gas prices and taxes are a relevant line item that must be budgeted for 2015, but with politicians making the rounds to push for higher gas taxes, budgeting becomes more complicated.
Gas prices are down roughly 50 cents per gallon compared to a year ago, which some analysts say have contributed to more money in consumers’ pockets. Some believe that this will improve holiday sales, but others believe the timing is just right to increase federal taxes on gas. The current tax on gas is 18.40 cents per gallon, and on diesel are 24.40 cents per gallon.
Supporters and opponents are polar opposites
Supporters argue as follows: gas prices are low, so it won’t hurt to increase federal gas taxes, in fact, those funds must go toward improving our infrastructure, which in the long run, saves Americans money because smoother roads mean better gas mileage and less congestion.
Gas taxes have long been a polarizing concept, and despite lowered gas prices, the controversial nature of the taxes have not diminished.
While some are pushing for complete abolition of federal gas taxes, others, like former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell (D) tell CNBC, “Say that cost the average driver $130 a year. They would get a return on that investment” in safer roads and increased quality of life, he added.
The Washington Post‘s Chris Mooney points out that federal gas taxes have been “stuck” at 18 cents for over 20 years, last raised when gas was barely a dollar a gallon and that the tax must increase not only to improve the infrastructure, but to “green” our behavior, and help our nation find tax reform compromise.
Is a gas tax politically plausible?
Mooney writes, “So, this is not an argument that a gas tax raise is politically plausible — any more than a economically efficient tax on carbon would be. It’s merely a suggestion that — ignoring politics — it might be a pretty good idea.”
Rendell noted, “The World Economic Forum, 10 years ago, rated us the best infrastructure in the world,” adding that we “need to do something for our infrastructure, not in a one or two year period, but over a decade.”
Others would note that this rating has not crumbled in just a few years, that despite many bridges and roads in need of repair, our infrastructure is still superior to even the most civilized nations.
Regardless of the reasons, most believe that Congress won’t touch this issue with a ten-foot pole, especially leading up to another Presidential campaign season starting next year.
“I think it’s too toxic and continues to be too toxic,” Steve LaTourette (the former Republican congressman best known for his close friendship with his fellow Ohioan, Speaker John Boehner) tells The Atlantic. “I see no political will to get this done.”
Whether the time is fortuitous or not, and regardless of the positive side effects, many point to a fear of voters’ retaliation against any politician siding with a gas hike, so this matter going any further than the proposal stage is unlikely.
Opinion Editorials7 days ago
3 things to do if you *really* want to be an ally to women in tech
Business Marketing2 days ago
Video is necessary for your marketing strategy
Opinion Editorials2 weeks ago
Questions you wished recruiters would answer
Tech News2 days ago
Chatbots: Are they still useful, or ready to be retired?
Business Entrepreneur1 week ago
15 tips to spot a toxic work environment when interviewing
Opinion Editorials7 days ago
4 simple tips to ease friction with your boss while working remotely
Business Entrepreneur2 weeks ago
Zen, please: Demand for mental health services surges during pandemic
Opinion Editorials6 days ago
Why robots freak us out, and what it means for the future of AI