More and more people are talking about Strategic Default and the more people talk about it, the more nervous and angry the lenders become. This is a situation where the homeowner has the financial wherewithal to make the payments, but simply choose not to.   The homeowners are choosing to go into foreclosure voluntarily, presumably because they came to the conclusion it was better than keeping the property and paying the mortgage.

Contrary to popular belief floating out there in the internet world, there are consequences to walking away.  And the lenders are trying to make it more onerous on those who they identify as strategic defaulters.

The single biggest consequence to homeowners is the harm to their ability to borrow money in the future.  Yes, the homeowners can walk away and let the house foreclose, but that does not mean that the lenders will take it lying down.   Once the homes foreclose, the homeowners  will have to answer “Yes” on their future mortgage applications (form 1003) or other loan applications when asked if they had ever been a party to foreclosure.  These defaulters will be tagged as greater risks, so the cost of obtaining any type of consumer loan products will be higher with this item tagged on their credit histories and it will take longer to get this derogatory item off their credit reports.   Huge opportunity costs involved here.

Another cost is the deficiency claim that the lenders will most likely preserve.  In California, if the homeowners have two loans, the junior lien holder will most likely preserve their deficiency claim after a foreclosure.  Because the homeowner simply walked away from the loan, the lenders will preserve their claim to the loss they endured.

Effects on future employments is another consequence to bear in mind.  More and more employers are doing checks on credit reports prior to hiring new employees.  In these days of 10%+ unemployment rate, these homeowners do not want to give the employers any reason to gloss over their resumes and pass along to the next applicant.

Homeowners should not simply walk away from their homes.  Seek out other alternatives.

However, we are better off than the rest of California which was at 12.5%.

But one thing is still clear, people here in Silicon Valley are still having difficult times making ends meet or simply do not know where to turn as evidenced by  unemployment rate in Santa Clara County being  still over 10%. And interestingly,  assistance at local food banks have increased by similar numbers from 2009 to 2010.

Things are very tough for many people and you may know of someone who may be having difficulty paying their mortgage  payments.   The Holiday Season should be about spending quality time with loved ones and not about stressing over missed mortgage payments.  There are solutions and ways to fight foreclosures, if you know of someone who may be struggling through this Holiday Season, please pass along this report.    Help them take control of their finances.

I get upset when people don’t try their best.  I realize everyone is different and has different personalities, but we, as Realtors, are all in the business of representing the best interests of our clients.  As Realtors, we have a fiduciary duty to our clients: this means we are to put client’s interest ahead of our own.  We must do our best for our clients.  I’ve heard too many Realtors cave into the lenders without putting up much of a fight.

With the economy still in its anemic state and unemployment level still hovering near historic high of 10% (11.5% here in Silicon Valley), the prospect of depleting the inventory of distressed properties in the immediate future does not seem feasible.  The high level of unemployment and implementation of HAFA with the support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac means the next few years will be busy years for short sale.

If, you therefore, choose to make a living helping distressed homeowners fight foreclosures, then by all means go out and fight for them because they need all the assistance you can provide.  This often time means pushing on even when the lenders say no or put up road blocks in your path.  The negotiators working for lenders are not highly compensated and are often over-worked, so they simply do not care and are often willing to send homeowners into foreclosure because of minor technicalities.   Some will help out homeowners by going out of their way to help your clients, most will not.  It’s the nature of the bureaucratic systems in which they work.  It doesn’t mean they are bad people, it just means there is little or no incentive for them to go out beyond what is expected of them.  After all, they work for organizations that engage in semi-deceptive practices like dual track foreclosures.  So it is up to us, the Realtors to step up and earn our commissions.

As a San Jose Short Sale Agent, I recently received a call from an attorney friend of mine who wanted me to help his client because the East Coast lender/servicer denied their loan modification request and would not agree to extend a trustee sale which was scheduled some three weeks out.   He got tired of dealing with this lender and wanted to know if I could get the sale date extended and complete a short sale.  Three weeks to stop a foreclosure was a tall order, but I thought I could help.

Getting a bona fide buyer took longer than I anticipated and we had only one week left before the scheduled trustee sale.  I immediately contacted the lender to advise them we had a solid offer and that I had just submitted a short sale packet.  The curt response I got was that their investor had a policy not to extend Trustee sales unless the short sale packets were submitted at least 10 days prior to the sale date: I was three days too late. She would not even consider looking at the offer or the packet. 

I had worked too hard during the past two weeks to simply be told that due to some arbitrary deadline; my clients were going to be thrown out in the street when we had a perfectly good buyer wanting to purchase their home.   I escalated the matter to the negotiator’s supervisor.  She simply reiterated their investor’s policy and told me there was nothing she could do.  I wasn’t going to be stopped by these bureaucrats who didn’t want to lift a finger.  I searched the internet and found the Corporate Communication Director’s contact information.  This time, I was going to use my ace card: my client’s hardship was his wife’s cancer. While she was receiving treatment, she eventually lost her job and the second income which was required to meet their mortgage obligations.

By the time I got the number and the email address (they are in the East Coast), the office was closed, but I left a voicemail and sent an email explaining my situation and that I would contact the local media and explain that the big East Coast lender, because of an arbitrary deadline and because it was inconvenient, would rather throw a cancer victim out into the street, even where there is a willing bona fide buyer, because we missed an arbitrary deadline by three days!   I was not going to let my clients get thrown out into the streets when we had a willing buyer.

The following afternoon, I got a call from the executive office.   They were more receptive and cooperative then the loss mitigation department employees.  The helpful woman said she would get in touch with the appropriate person at the loss mitigation department and do everything she could to get an extension on the sale date.

The next day, I got a call from someone who was a VP at loss mitigation, she began to tell me that the sale date could not be extended because it was the investor’s policy and therefore, they could not deviate from it and began to tell me all the reasons why her hands were tied.  This was a completely different response than the woman from the executive office.

I wasn’t going to simply accept her explanation, I simply would not accept that they had zero influence in extending the trustee sale; I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday.  I called the executive office and again threatened to call the local consumer affairs reporter.  This time the helpful lady told me to disregard what I was told by the loss mitigation employee because she was going to pull strings and get it done.  She asked me to trust her and to call the attorney service the next day and confirm for myself that the extension was granted.  I had no choice as we were down to four days before the sale date.  I called the attorney service the next morning and got the news I was waiting for: we received a 60 days extension.

Between the attorney friend and myself, we were told on four different occasions that the trustee sale could not be extended.  They were simply refusing to lift their fingers to help out the borrower.  I had no choice but to refuse to accept their answers because doing so  would mean that my clients would literally be thrown out into the street when we had a willing buyer to take their home.   I was not proud of exploiting my client’s cancer condition, but I had to protect their interest by any means necessary.  In the end we persevered because I refused to listen to them when they told me no.   I guess I am hard headed in that way; but my clients are thankful and that is good enough for me.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14524392

Unfortunately we set a 30 year record in January 2010: more people are out of jobs than they have in 30 years up  from 12.3% in December 2009, but there seems to be an upswing  as 32,500 people gained employment in the same month.  A mixed message.

Regardless of how we interpret the data, one thing is very clear: there is a direct correlation to reduction in home buying behavior and unemployment. Regardless of what people may say about homes being more affordable now than ever before, if there is no sense of security in employment front, there will be no home purchases!

So what does this mean?  All this effort in providing tax credit incentives is great, but unless and until there is a concerted effort by the State and  Federal Governments to tackle the issue of unemployment and more importantly, to improve this number, there will be no increase in home purchasing activity.

In fact, as long as more people are losing jobs, they will start or continue to fall behind in making their mortgage payments, which will increase  the activities in the distressed properties market, which will result in home prices falling, which then will continue this drag on the economy as industries related to real estate continue to suffer and lay off more employees.  Truly a vicious circle.  Right now, 1 out of 6 home owners is behind in their mortgage payments.

So we all should pressure our politicians in D.C. to stop playing politics and get at the job for which they were elected: improve the economy by creating more jobs.  Everything else is secondary.

Unfortunately, until we resolve California’s double digit unemployment rate, we will continue to have a steady flow of  short sales for possibly years to come.

Are we out of it yet?  Of course not. Have we by-passed the worst of it?  Probably.

However, as long as Silicon Valley’s unemployment rate remains above 11% and the dreaded shadow inventory along with the toxic option ARM fiasco about to recast in the coming couple of years, things will not be back to normal and we will not be completely out of the woods for a few more years until the market fully corrects itself by ridding itself of the excess capacity of distressed properties.

But, I don’t want to imply that there is only gloom in the horizon.  According to newly released sales data from CAR (California Association of Realtors), we here in Santa Clara County did fairly well in the past 12 months: the median price of our homes increased by 17%! I am quite certain that increase was largely fueled by the First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit Incentive program.

We went from $515,000 in November 2008 to $605,000 in November 2009. (Chart A)  That is certainly a step in the right direction towards price stabilization on the one hand, but a bit disconcerting because the affordability index has now fallen for two consecutive quarters and is now on a declining slope.   (Chart B)

I personally don’t believe it is in our best interest to get back to the peak prices of April 2007 when the median home price reached $868,410 (Chart C) and only about 25% of the first time homebuyers in California could afford to buy a median priced home (keep in mind that the median price in California is significantly less than Santa Clara County).  As the data in Chart C demonstrates, the median home price is inversely proportionate to the Affordability Index.   It is better for us to have lower prices so more people can afford to become home owners.  But regardless of what I think, the market will dictate prices.   We will see next year how the market reacts to the changing economic factors.