fishin' wrote:sozobe wrote:Ok so here is what I was getting at (disclaimers still apply, just trying to make my half-baked idea clearer):
Say two people buy houses for $500,000 each in a very hot market with low interest rates. Person A buys it the usual way, smallish down payment (say $50,000) and then monthly mortgage payments. Person B buys it outright, $500,000 down.
In 2 years, both A and B need to move. The housing market has crashed. The $500,000 houses are now selling for $250,000. Person B takes a $250,000 loss. Person A has not put that much money into his house yet -- he just takes the equity that was already in his house, and uses it as a down payment on a new $250,000 house.
In your scenario here you let person "A" off fairly easily and I don't think their bank would be so kind.
If they bought a $500,000 house on a traditional mortgage paying $50,000 up front and then, 2 years later they sold it for $250,000 they still owe the bank $200,000. The bank won't even release the house for clear sale in this case unless the borrower comes up with the cash at closing to pay off the mortgage note. Their downpayment is gone, any equity is gone and they still have a huge bill.
One of the problems with using a mortgage is that you can get "locked in" to a house that you don't want. If it's resale value drops below what you owe on it you are stuck making up the difference to sell it (this is what happened to my sister in the Hartford, CT area a few years back). For a lot of people that means you stay right where you are at until the resale value can cover what you owe.
Person B is in a much better position - they can take the loss if they want to or they can keep the house, rent it and use their credit to buy another house wherever they want to move to. When the market improves again in the long term they can sell the 1st house without taking a loss. In the mean time any rent receipts can cover maintenance and taxes.
Hey fishin', maybe in Connecticut but not in California.
If you put $50K down to buy a $500K house, and the market goes down to $250K ...
Person A can get rid of the house anytime (with no sales hassles) and still
only lose $20K of that down payment. Here's how.
You move out of the house, rent it out for $2000/month, and then stop paying the mortgage.
When the bank announces it is going to foreclose, haggle with them.
It's not their job to own a house, they don't want to own a house,
so they will offer smaller payments for a few "difficult" months.
Make a few smaller payments and when they've finally lost patience
with you, don't make any more.
The bank threatens you with foreclosure for a couple months, and
when they finally announce the date that they will auction it off, wait until
one week beforehand and then declare bankruptcy.
For three months they are not allowed to proceed with anything, and even
then it takes another month to refile auction papers and advertise it.
So four months later, when the bank announces the new auction date,
wait until one week beforehand, and
then give your renters 30 days notice to leave.
By the time the process is over, you've collected 15 months rent at
$2000/month ($30,000) while paying no mortgage or property taxes.
The bank auctions it off for $210k (after paying your property tax of $5000)
thereby losing $245k. Finally, after the auction is done, then the bank
gives your renters 30 days to leave.
You owe nothing, and continue to live wherever else you want.
In California, the bank cannot pursue you for anything more than
the real estate that's explicitly written on the mortgage. They cannot
seize anything else.
So, person A recovers $30,000 of their $50,000 down payment, losing
only $20,000 while the bank loses $245k.
Person B loses the entire $250,000 of depreciation, because they
assumed the entire liability of ownership.
The bankruptcy part is optional -- That only buys you another 4 months rental income ($8000).