LyrArc Article Gist
Its incorrect to call a loan that has only slightly lower, same or higher monthly payment after modification, a loan modification. The intent is to make a loan affordable in monthly payments for the borrower, for it to be a meaningful modification. Says Tom Miller, the Attorney General of Iowa, "it should'nt be called modifications if people pay more or approximately the same." Many lenders and banks do not want to have to mark to market a whole set of loans of one type in one geographical region, as an accounting rule now requires, just because they have modified one loan of that type, because their reserves are severely depleted and most are already or nearly insolvent. So their way of discouraging loan modifications as a solution is to respond by saying that loans go into foreclosure even after modification, when the modification they are talking about is tacking on interest penalties and fees that accelerate the home into foreclosure in some cases, and in others by leaving payments higher or the same make foreclosure just as likely as before. Tom Miller, attorney general of Iowa, also says that " if you do real modifications, the default rate is significantly lower." Some mortgage companies say that default rates drop significantly, some to as low as 25%, when loan payments are reduced to the 30-40% of borrower income range, which is becoming the standard for a meaningful modification. Analyst Ron Dubitsky's research at Credit Suisse confirms this, showing lower payments reduced defaults to less than 50%. Research by Credit Suisse and Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University also show that at this time loan, 2 years into the foreclosure crisis, modification has mostly resulted in higher monthly payments. White says banks like Wells Fargo, a large servicer of loans, have done have modified few loans as apercentage of their delinquent mortgages. Sheila Bair and others have long advocated reducing loan payments to 30-40% of monthly income since early 2007, because foreclosure is costlier for banks than loan modification, but met resistance from the banks and lenders and their lobbying groups. The relevant question is that if the banks are misquided in pursuing this course, and its not in the interests of the banks or the country's economy- because accelerating foreclosures or not taking modification action in the middle of a huge wave of layoffs may result in a even bigger wave of foreclosures that threaten housing prices and effectively leave banks insolventleading to nationalization- then what purpose did all this serve except to exacerbate the crisis and increase the price tag of the government's and country's ultimate rescue of homeowners?