An interesting (contrarian?) article from a scholar of behavioral economics and the law, Brent T. White: "Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis."
"...norm asymmetry between borrower and lenders creates disincentives for lenders to renegotiate underwater mortgages and makes it unlikely that lenders will work with borrowers to address the negative equity issue. Any proposal to address the problems created by negative equity must account for this reality -- either by addressing the resulting distributional inequities or changing the rules of the game. Viable approaches could include: 1) cutting lenders out of the picture altogether through government financing of mortgages at low interest rates; 2) using stimulus funds to buy down mortgages of underwater homeowners; 3) forcing lenders to reduce mortgage balances by court order; or 4) leveling the playing field by eliminating the ability of lenders to trash a borrower's credit score in retaliation for the borrower's exercise of his contractual right to default. Regardless of the precise policy prescription, it is time to put to rest the assumption that a borrower who exercises the option to default is somehow immoral or irresponsible...."
Of course there are those who were irresponsible and took out loans for homes they could not afford. But this bubble also hit responsible people too. This article got me to thinking. If two parties are in a contract and the deal loses money, shouldn't both parties "pay" for the lost if that is what the contract says? What if the other party refuses to pay their part and trys to force the other party to pay for it all? How do you make both parties compromise?
"...norm asymmetry between borrower and lenders creates disincentives for lenders to renegotiate underwater mortgages and makes it unlikely that lenders will work with borrowers to address the negative equity issue. Any proposal to address the problems created by negative equity must account for this reality -- either by addressing the resulting distributional inequities or changing the rules of the game. Viable approaches could include: 1) cutting lenders out of the picture altogether through government financing of mortgages at low interest rates; 2) using stimulus funds to buy down mortgages of underwater homeowners; 3) forcing lenders to reduce mortgage balances by court order; or 4) leveling the playing field by eliminating the ability of lenders to trash a borrower's credit score in retaliation for the borrower's exercise of his contractual right to default. Regardless of the precise policy prescription, it is time to put to rest the assumption that a borrower who exercises the option to default is somehow immoral or irresponsible...."
Of course there are those who were irresponsible and took out loans for homes they could not afford. But this bubble also hit responsible people too. This article got me to thinking. If two parties are in a contract and the deal loses money, shouldn't both parties "pay" for the lost if that is what the contract says? What if the other party refuses to pay their part and trys to force the other party to pay for it all? How do you make both parties compromise?
Comment