You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front Economy
7.5 million homeowners are stuck with upside down equity
2008-10-31
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- At least 7.5 million Americans owe more on their mortgages than their homes are currently worth, according to a real estate research firm's report released Friday. In other words: If they sold their homes today, they'd have to bring a check to the closing. Ouch.
But as long as they aren't selling their home and they can make their mortgage payments they're okay.
Another 2.1 million people stand right on the brink, according to the report by First American CoreLogic. Their homes are worth less than 5% more than the mortgages they're paying on them.

The technical term for this phenomenon is negative equity; more colloquially, these borrowers are often referred to as being "underwater."

"Being underwater leaves homeowners vulnerable to foreclosure," said Mark Fleming, CoreLogic's chief economist.

That's because these borrowers are left with no home equity to tap - via refinancing or a home equity loan - if they run into financial trouble. Negative equity has contributed much to the soaring increase in foreclosures over the past year.
True financial trouble, like losing a job, is indeed bad for these homeowners. Since a number of folks used their equity to buy luxury cars and vacations, being unable to tap their equity right now may be a good thing. Unless you're selling luxury cars for a living ...
The report on the growing problem of negative equity is a conservative estimate. Some organizations, including Moody's Economy.com, estimate that as many as 12 million borrowers may be underwater. "Being underwater doesn't necessarily mean that you can't pay your bills," said Fleming, "but it's a necessary condition of default."

Borrowers who are underwater but have enough income to pay bills can keep up with their mortgages - even if they don't like paying more to live in a home than it's currently worth. On the other hand, anyone who runs into trouble paying their bills but has positive equity in their home can avoid foreclosure by either borrowing against their home or simply selling it.

Nevada, where home values plunged by more than 30% during the past 12 months, according to the latest home price report from S&P Case-Shiller, tops the list of states with the highest numbers of underwater borrowers. A full 48% of homeowners there have negative equity.
How much of that is held by the speculators who bought into all the condos in Las Vegas and Reno, hoping to flip for a quick profit? Don't ask me to feel sorry for them, because I won't.
Home values in Nevada and some other states rose particularly high during the real estate bubble - and are now plummeting. So even those who put 20% down when they bought their home don't stand a chance.

In many bubble markets, home prices got so high that the only way that many buyers could get a loan was by using what Fleming called "affordability products." These included adjustable rate mortgages with rates that were set artificially low for a few years, until resetting much higher, as well as mortgages that required little or no down payments. These loans left buyers with little equity to begin with, and when prices dipped, they quickly found themselves underwater.

Other bubble states with high levels of negative equity include Arizona (29.2%), Florida (29.2%) and California (27.4%). The second group of states that have a lot of underwater borrowers are in the rust belt region, including Michigan, where 39% of homeowners have negative equity, and Ohio, where that rate stands at 22%.

These regions are in trouble because of severe economic reversals and large-scale job losses, rather than inflated home values. And now prices have fallen far enough to put many borrowers in negative territory. Some of them may have already tapped their equity to tide them over in hard times, and have little cushion left.

The third group of states where many borrowers owe more on their homes than they are worth are in trouble mainly because, according to Fleming, they've experienced a large influx of immigration. Newcomers in states like Texas (16.5%), Georgia (23.2%), Arkansas (16.3%), and Tennessee (15%) bought homes recently and simply didn't have much time to build up equity before prices started to fall he says.

The markets with the fewest underwater borrowers include New York, where only 4.4% of homeowners have negative equity, as well as Hawaii ( 5.6%), Pennsylvania (5.7%) and Montana (6.9%).
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#16  Glug, glug, glug

hai hai!
Posted by: .5MT   2008-10-31 19:25  

#15  BINGO!
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2008-10-31 18:06  

#14  You mean we ain't gonna turn them into Q-ships?
Posted by: Phil   2008-10-31 18:06  

#13  Another story posted here discusses the glut of cargo ships; i see a potential win-win here: let the gov't (FEMA) rent the things and then them without houses can live in the holds.

Of course FEMA would need to line the bulkheads with formalhehyde-soaked plywood so they would feel right at home, but then that would also bail out the timber industry. and the railroads cuz you would need to ship that plywood somehow.
and you would need workers to do that, so jobs are created.

see recession fixed!
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2008-10-31 16:46  

#12  housing for the poor = (corruption + instant slum)

Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2008-10-31 16:20  

#11  Other bubble states with high levels of negative equity include Arizona (29.2%), Florida (29.2%) and California (27.4%).

The traffic on San Diego freeways during rush hour is a lot lighter lately. It's kinda nice, actually. Sorry if I seem a little callous but the bubble created a lot of problems here and I think it was about damn time it got popped. The only bitch is that the rest of us have to pay for it.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2008-10-31 16:15  

#10  Thats what happened in Kansas; both Senators and all but 1 Representative voted against the bailout - the exception was the representative for democrat heavy Lawrence and Kansas City gerymandered district.

Kansas City was, when I was in the area, full of the property speculators; build a house live there for a couple years then sell it at profit rinse repeat. The city of Lawrence has somehow got into the property purchasing and construction business under the auspice of the city providing housing for the poor. How that is legal I have no idea.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-10-31 15:16  

#9  #6 I've read that people who are losing their houses are more likely to be Democrats. Maybe that's because Republicans are by nature more skeptical and less likely to be caught up by hype.

Examine the ratings of big city banks heavily involved in Fannie/Freddie loans. Examine the demographics. Behold the Democrat!
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-10-31 13:47  

#8  Why not? With the $750,000,000,000.00 bailout *WE* have to pay for they may be right....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-10-31 13:39  

#7  Or maybe more Democrats than Republicans believe you can get something for nothing, tipper.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-10-31 13:37  

#6  I've read that people who are losing their houses are more likely to be Democrats. Maybe that's because Republicans are by nature more skeptical and less likely to be caught up by hype.
Posted by: tipper   2008-10-31 13:31  

#5  Good news: The gubmint gonna make it sos you can't make a bad investment anymore.

Bad news: The gubmint gonna make it sos you can't make a good investment anymore.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2008-10-31 13:15  

#4  Speculation in any market carries considerable risk of loss. We got spoiled in the 90's and started to believe all the bullshit artists that were saying things like "home value will never go down, it's impossible" or "the stock market is really the safest place to put your money".

I just read an article online that determined that over the last 10 years you would have made about the same profit on a 10yr. CD as you would have investing in a major index after all the ups and downs you'd actually be ahead a few bucks with the CD.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-10-31 13:13  

#3  Guess I don't have to worry about capital gains tax. Thanks congress.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-10-31 12:47  

#2  "Being underwater leaves homeowners vulnerable to foreclosure,"

It leaves the banks holding the bag if the homeowner decides to walk and no equity to cushion a distress sale. Another consequence of the stupid policy of 5% or zero down mortgages.
Posted by: ed   2008-10-31 12:38  

#1  Is there a natural law that says a home will always increase in value? That if you buy in a hyper-inflated market you are guaranteed to not lose money even though you bought a home that you knew was overvalued?

A lot of those folks, if they stay in the house and don't lose their jobs, will be fine in 5-10 years. If they bought to turn the house over and make a quick buck then they will be hurting (and should be).
Posted by: tipover   2008-10-31 12:15  

00:00