Posted by Eric Posner:
A defense of mortgage modification in bankruptcy.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_08-2009_02_14.shtml#1234543266


   Todd�s Wall Street Journal [1]op-ed makes many good points but it
   doesn�t address the main argument for bankruptcy reform. The basic
   problem posed by the housing crisis is that millions of people find
   themselves with negative equity and rationally abandon their homes.
   Banks have trouble seizing, maintaining, and selling these houses, and
   bankers will tell you (anyway, they�ve told me) that the rule of thumb
   they use is that a foreclosed house will lose fifty percent of its
   value. I am unaware of any studies that prove that this figure is
   correct but the [2]anecdotal evidence is powerful. In some
   communities, abandoned houses become havens for drug dealers and
   squatters who strip away wiring and whatever else might be valuable in
   the house. The derelict houses reduce the value of neighbors� houses,
   who then can be plunged into negative equity themselves, causing them
   to abandon their houses as well, leading to further degradation of the
   neighborhood, in a vicious spiral.

   From a theoretical perspective, there are really two problems. First,
   bankers and mortgage holders are unable to negotiate contracts that
   provide for an automatic mortgage modification in the event that the
   value of the house falls below the debt. An optimal, complete contract
   would provide for such a debt adjustment, but it seems likely that
   bankers fear that any such provision could be too easily gamed, and so
   they prefer to renegotiate ex post if necessary or simply swallow the
   costs by having a policy of automatic foreclosure. Second, bankers and
   mortgage holders have no incentive to take into account the possible
   negative effects of mortgage default on neighbors.

   As I have argued in [3]earlier [4]posts, the solution to such a
   problem in principle is mortgage modification. A banker does better by
   voluntarily reducing principal and interest than by foreclosing;
   however, big banks have traditionally refrained from renegotiating,
   perhaps because the transaction costs are high (smaller banks have
   traditionally agreed to renegotiate, by contrast). In the current
   climate, big banks are rethinking their earlier policy, but in any
   event it is hard to renegotiate with someone who has abandoned his
   house and disappeared.

   If people can strip down their mortgages in Chapter 13, they will be
   less likely to abandon their houses, and this will have positive
   effects on their neighborhood. It is possible that such a rule could
   increase the cost of credit, as Todd argues, but the opposite effect
   is just as likely. On the one hand, banks might be reluctant to extend
   credit if they know that, in effect, repayment amounts will be reduced
   if housing prices decline, or banks will raise interest rates to cover
   this risk. On the other hand, if the result is a reduced incidence of
   foreclosure, then banks will do better rather than worse, and so
   interest rates should fall. If the right to modify the mortgage is
   limited to cases of financial crisis (which is not in the current
   bills), then the positive or negative effect on the cost of credit
   will be correspondingly smaller, minimizing a risk of disruption in
   the mortgage market.

   We have learned from this crisis that every mortgage imposes
   potentially serious negative externalities on third parties. When
   someone defaults and abandons his house, he causes harm to others. The
   law currently does not punish that person or try to deter him from
   what is essentially a kind of pollution (like abandoning a car in the
   street); any attempt to do that would be impractical. So in a
   second-best world in which wrongdoers cannot be punished for the harm
   they cause others, restrictions on the contracts that bring about this
   state of affairs may well be justified. That is what bankruptcy law
   has always done; mortgage modification is a further development in
   bankruptcy law that would be justified in crisis (and possibly even
   normal) conditions.

References

   1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123449016984380499.html
   2. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/squatters
   3. http://volokh.com/posts/1232596135.shtml
   4. http://volokh.com/posts/1232381598.shtml

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to