Government initiatives to stem the country's
mounting foreclosures are hampered because banks and
other lenders in many cases have more financial
incentive to let borrowers lose their homes than to
work out settlements, some economists have
concluded. Policymakers often say it's a good deal
for lenders to cut borrowers a break on mortgage
payments to keep them in their homes. But, according
to researchers and industry experts, foreclosing can
be more profitable.
The problem is that modifying mortgages is
profitable to banks for only one set of distressed
borrowers, while lenders are actually dealing with
three very different types. Modification makes
economic sense for a bank or other lender only if
the borrower can't sustain payments without it yet
will be able to keep up with new, more modest terms.
A second set are those who are likely to fall behind
on their payments again even after receiving a
modified loan and are likely to lose their homes one
way or another. Lenders don't want to help these
borrowers because waiting to foreclose can be
costly.
Finally, there are those delinquent borrowers who
can somehow, even at great sacrifice, catch up
without a modification. Lenders have little
financial incentive to help them.
These financial calculations on the part of lenders
pose a difficult challenge for President Obama's
ambitious efforts to address the mortgage crisis,
which remains at the heart of the country's economic
troubles and continues to upend millions of lives.
Senior officials at the Treasury Department and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development have
summoned industry executives to a meeting Tuesday to
discuss how to step up the pace of loan relief. The
administration is seeking to influence lenders'
calculus in part by offering them billions of
dollars in incentives to modify home loans.
Still, foreclosed homes continue to flood the
market, forcing down home prices. That contributed
to the unexpectedly large jump in new-home sales in
June, reported yesterday by the Commerce Department.
"There has been this policy push to use
modifications as the tool of choice," said Michael
Fratantoni, vice president of single-family-home
research at the Mortgage Bankers Association. But
"there is going to be this narrow slice of borrowers
for which modifications is the right answer." The
size of that slice is tough to discern, he said.
"The industry and policymakers have been grappling
with that."
The effort to understand the dynamics of the
mortgage business comes as the administration is
prodding lenders to do more to help borrowers under
its Making Home Affordable plan, which gives lenders
subsidies to lower the payments for distressed
borrowers. About 200,000 homeowners have received
modified loans since the program launched in March,
while more than 1.5 million borrowers were subject
during the first half of the year to some form of
foreclosure filings, from default notices to
completed foreclosure sales, according to RealtyTrac.
No doubt part of the explanation is that lenders are
overwhelmed by the volume of borrowers seeking to
modify their mortgages. Rising unemployment and
falling home prices have added to the problem.
But a study released last month by the Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston was downbeat on the prospects
for widespread modifications. The analysis, which
looked at the performance of loans in 2007 and 2008,
found that lenders lowered the monthly payments of
only 3 percent of delinquent borrowers, those who
had missed at least two payments. Lenders tried to
avoid modifying the loans of borrowers who could
"self-cure," or catch up on their payments without
help, and those who would fall behind again even
after receiving help, the study found. "If the
presence of self-cure risk and redefault risk do
make renegotiation less appealing to investors, the
number of easily 'preventable' foreclosures may be
far smaller than many commentators believe," the
report said.
Nearly a third of the borrowers who miss two
payments are able to self-cure without help from
their lender, according to the Boston Fed study.
Separately, Moody's Economy.com, a research firm,
estimated that about a fifth of those who miss three
payments will self-cure.
When Adrian Jones fell behind on the mortgage
payments for her Dallas home earlier this year, her
lender asked her to cut other expenses. Jones said
she eliminated movies and coffee breaks. She turned
to family members for loans. When that failed to
raise enough, she sold her second car. "It hurt, but
it also made sense. The debt was my responsibility,"
Jones said. But six months later, after catching up
on the mortgage, Jones is again feeling pinched
after her hours as an office assistant at an
architecture firm were cut. This time, she's not
sure she can fix the problem herself. "I am going to
try, obviously," she said. "But it is getting harder
and harder."
Like Jones, those who are most determined to meet
their obligations are often unlikely candidates for
loan modifications. "These are the people who will
get a second job, borrow from their family to keep
up," explained Paul S. Willen, a senior economist at
the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and an author of
its report. ". . . From a cold-blooded
profit-maximizing standpoint, these are the people
the banks will help the least."
Lenders also worry that borrowers may re-default
even after receiving a loan modification. This only
delays foreclosure, which can be costly to the
lender because housing prices are falling throughout
the country and the home's condition may deteriorate
if the owner isn't maintaining it. In some cases,
lenders lose twice as much foreclosing on a home as
they did two years ago, said Laurie Goodman, senior
managing director at Amherst Securities.
American Home Mortgage Services, based in Texas, was
willing to modify Edward Partain's mortgage on his
Tennessee home last April after business at his
beauty salon slowed and a divorce stretched his
budget. But after months of negotiating with his
lender, Partain said he was surprised to learn that
it would only lower his payments by $90 a month,
instead of the $250 decrease he expected. "At $250,
I would have had a chance, but after they added in
late fees and payments, I couldn't do it," he said.
Partain soon fell behind on his payments again and
went back to American Home Mortgage Services seeking
a more affordable payment. Partain said he was told
that he was ineligible for another modification
because it had been less than a year since his last.
A foreclosure sale was scheduled for late July.
After American Home Mortgage Services was contacted
by The Washington Post about the case, the company
said Partain would be considered for the federal
foreclosure-prevention program and it delayed the
sale by three months. Partain is relieved but
anxious about the details. "You want to wait and see
what figures they come up with," he said.
Administration officials have not said publicly how
many borrowers they expect to re-default under
Obama's program. But the experience of a separate
program run by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
could be instructive. After taking over the failed
bank IndyMac last year, the FDIC began modifying
troubled mortgages held or serviced by the company.
Richard Brown, the FDIC's chief economist, said the
agency expects up to 40 percent of those borrowers
to re-default. Even at that rate, he said, the
modification program is more profitable than doing
nothing. "The idea that 30 to 40 percent re-default
is a failure to a program is false," Brown said.
The administration has estimated that its
foreclosure-prevention program would help 3 million
to 4 million borrowers by 2012. But lenders'
reluctance could limit the impact to less than half
that, said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's
Economy.com. Coupled with re-defaults, this would
mean that the number of people losing their homes to
foreclosure could reach nearly 5 million by 2011, he
said.
Mark A. Calabria, director of financial-regulation
studies at the Cato Institute, warned that political
rhetoric is driving the policy discussion. "What we
really need to do is have an honest debate about
what are the magnitudes of people we really can
help," he said. But administration officials
defended their program's progress, reporting that it
has surpassed an initial goal of offering 20,000
modifications a week. These officials said they have
taken into account the re-default risk and
possibility for self-cure in designing the effort.
Michael S. Barr, assistant Treasury secretary for
financial institutions, noted that the report by the
Boston Fed does not cover the period since the
administration launched its initiative. "We will
continue to refine the program as new data becomes
available," he said. "We are committed to studying
the effectiveness and efficiency of the program, and
we welcome outside analysis."
Willen, of the Boston Fed, said the government
program could boost several-fold the number of
seriously delinquent borrowers receiving
modifications. But so few people had been getting
their loans modified that even a dramatic increase
in the percentage would still touch only a small
fraction of troubled borrowers, he said. "We're
still not talking about a program that will stop a
large number of foreclosures," he said. "We're
talking about a program that, at the margins, will
assist more people. It is unlikely we will see a
change."
© 2009 The Washington Post Company