What Unethical and Unbiblical Business practices lead to

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Some homeowners struggle to keep up with adjustable rates

By Noelle Knox, USA TODAY Mon Apr 3, 7:00 AM ET

For 45 years, Robert and Lorraine Brown have lived in their ranch-style home in Florissant, Mo. One of their four children was even born there. But for the past eight months, the couple have been locked in a sleep-wrecking race to keep up with their rising mortgage bills. They've switched to cheaper phone service, cut back on groceries and sometimes put off ordering medicine.
ADVERTISEMENT

When they refinanced their home two years ago to pay off some bills, Robert, now 78, was working as a deliveryman. But his employer went out of business last April. Now he and Lorraine, 72, a retired nurse, are both seeking work. The rate on their mortgage has jumped from 7% to 10.5%.

"We were having a hard time meeting bills at the time we refinanced. It seems once you get behind, you do desperate things to catch up, and you never do," says Lorraine, trying to hold back tears. "At the time of the loan, they tell you, 'Well, it may go up, but it's probably going to go down.' You want it to be so, so you believe it."

They feel alone, but they're not. America's five-year real estate boom was fueled partly by a tempting array of cut-rate mortgages that helped millions of Americans qualify for home or refinance loans. To afford soaring home prices, many turned to adjustable-rate and other, riskier loans with low initial payments. The homeownership rate hit a record 70%.

Now, the real estate market is cooling, interest rates are rising and tens of thousands more Americans are starting to have trouble paying their mortgages. Nearly 25% of mortgages - 10 million - carry adjustable interest rates. And most of them went to people with subpar credit ratings who accepted higher interest rates, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

"Within the last year, I would say 60% to 70% of calls to our hotlines are issues related to ARM (adjustable-rate mortgage) loans," says Chris Krehmeyer, executive director of Beyond Housing, a non-profit group that offers homeownership support services in St. Louis. "That's significantly higher than in years past, because the ARMs are coming home to roost."

Last week, the
Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the 15th time since June 2004 and signaled that at least one more increase is likely. That trend is ominous for borrowers who were seduced by adjustable-rate loans that offered interest-only payment options or teaser rates below 2% or that let the borrower pay less than the interest owed. They will face bigger payment shock once their loans reset to higher rates.

The number of borrowers in trouble will rise this year and peak in 2007 and 2008 as the largest number of mortgages reset to higher rates, according to First American Real Estate Solutions, a real estate data provider.

Already, in West Virginia, Alabama, Michigan, Missouri and Tennessee, about one in five homeowners with a high-interest (subprime) ARM was at least 30 days late at the end of last year, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. After 90 days, the foreclosure clock starts ticking.

Most of those foreclosures are related to job losses in auto and garment factories; higher mortgage payments were often the last straw.

What worries experts such as Christopher Cagan at First American Real Estate Solutions are the adjustable-rate loans made in 2004 and 2005, at the end of the housing boom. These loans were concentrated in the hottest markets, such as California, where about 60% of all loans last year were interest-only or payment-option ARMs. That's the highest such rate in the country.

Of the 7.7 million households who took out ARMs over the past two years to buy or refinance, up to 1 million could lose their homes through foreclosure over the next five years because they won't be able to afford their mortgage payments,and their homes will be worth less than they owe, according to Cagan's research.

The losses to the banking industry, he estimates, will exceed $100 billion. That's less than the damage from the savings-and-loan crisis in the 1990s, which cost the country $150 billion. "It will sting the economy, but it won't break it," he says.

'What can we do?'

In the Atlanta area, credit counselors for The Impact Group say 85% of their calls are now related to ARM or interest-only loans. The calls start "when the statement hits them with the new monthly payment," says Marina Peed, executive director for the non-profit group, which offers homeownership education, counseling and financial services. "They are calling and asking, 'What can we do?' "

The call volume jumped after January, as holiday credit card bills, higher gas bills and rising mortgage payments hit some borrowers at the same time.

When Paul and Sandra Wilson moved from California, where they couldn't afford to buy a home, to Georgia in May 2004, they bought a house with an interest-only loan. But Paul, 52, has had a tough time finding work, and they lost most of their savings in a business venture. They refinanced to an ARM with a lower rate but one that reset every six months and that charges a $20,000 penalty if they refinance within three years.

The loan broker "convinced us that it was in our best interest, and in most likelihood within six months our financial situation would turn around and we were going to look at selling," says Sandra, 53, a former law enforcement officer who is disabled.

In less than a year, their loan payment jumped from $2,275 to more than $2,800. The couple filed for bankruptcy and will lose their home next month. "This was our fourth home," Sandra says. "It's not as if we weren't aware, but we'd never had an adjustable-rate mortgage before."

Banking regulators are concerned about risky loans made to people with precarious finances or those who didn't understand the complex terms and the peril they could face if interest rates rose.

In December, regulators proposed new guidelines for mortgage lenders to crack down on loose lending practices. The rules would require better risk disclosure and a fuller analysis of the borrowers' ability to repay the loan through maturity - and at the highest rates allowed under the loan terms.

Bank trade groups complained that concerns were overblown. "We do not believe it is appropriate or possible for the lender to dictate the best mortgage products for individual consumers," America's Community Bankers responded.

No matter what the final guidelines say, they will be too late to help people such as Susan Cambero. She got into trouble after she took out an equity line of credit on her home in Lilburn, Ga., to pay off her car and other bills. As a single mother with total income of $38,000 a year, including child support, she never would have been able to qualify for the $57,000 line of credit from a conservative lender. That line of credit, when added to the balance on her fixed-rate mortgage, totaled $10,000 more than her home was worth.

The monthly payments for the equity line have more than doubled in four years, to about $400. (She also has a $700-a-month mortgage and hefty credit card bills.) "I can pay it, but I have nothing left over to eat," says Cambero, a contract analyst for a computer company. "I'm going to lose my house."

Some success stories

There are few resources to help homeowners in dire financial straits, but there are some. The Homeownership Preservation Foundation offers free credit counseling and referrals, 24 hours a day, seven days a week (888-995-HOPE, or 888-995-4673). And NeighborWorks America, a national non-profit that supports homeownership and financial literacy, has member groups in every state.

One of its members, Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, has been receiving about five calls a day since January from borrowers who are falling behind on ARMs.

Marilyn Maxwell is one of their success stories. She refinanced her loan in 2002. Maxwell, 58, is a former U.S. postal worker who's living on disability payments from the government. She agreed to an ARM that reset every six months.

She kept up with her payments on her house on the southeast side of Chicago until last April, after her daughter, who was helping Maxwell pay the mortgage, lost her job. Last week, Maxwell refinanced her home with the help of Neighborhood Housing Services. She got a 6.8%, fixed-rate loan, plus grants to help make long-neglected repairs.

"I'm getting a new roof as we speak," she said.

The Browns in Missouri also have had a happy ending. The lender, Saxon Mortgage Services in Texas, declined to discuss the Browns' case with USA TODAY last week. But within 24 hours of a call from a reporter, Saxon agreed to give the couple a fixed-rate loan at 7%.

"I'm so elated," Lorraine said.Link to Story
 
No doubt some of these loans were misrepresented. But how about a little caveat emptor as well?

1. ARM's are always a bad idea. 2. Refinancing to pay off other bills isn't too good of an idea either (i.e. turning unsecured debt into secured debt.) and doesn't correct the habits that caused the person to get overextended to begin with.
 
"some of these loans were misrepresented", I have a penchant for believing most if not all of those loans were misrepresented.

And in addition to misrepresenting these loans, realtors willingly sold properties that were over priced to begin with to people who they know would have their homes foreclosed upon in the future. :mad::banghead: but they got their commissions, both the realtor, the seller, and the loan originator.

somebody's kid will have harvard pay for, whilst somebody's kid will inherit major debt.
 
Originally posted by Slippery
"some of these loans were misrepresented", I have a penchant for believing most if not all of those loans were misrepresented.

And in addition to misrepresenting these loans, realtors willingly sold properties that were over priced to begin with to people who they know would have their homes foreclosed upon in the future. :mad::banghead: but they got their commissions, both the realtor, the seller, and the loan originator.

somebody's kid will have harvard pay for, whilst somebody's kid will inherit major debt.

Much of what you say above is true. I could not be party to such practices or do business in this way. No doubt there are predatory lenders out there. The majority of these loans were probably refinance, consolidation, etc.

Unfortunately we don't live in a world where people can be protected from every bad decision they might make. My guess is that the proper disclosures were made in the majority of cases but that the borrowers didn't care and signed because it saved them money that day. People do this kind of short-sighted thing all the time, unfortunately, which is why pawn shops and "payday" loan companies do so well.

"The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." Prov. 22:7
 
Originally posted by Pilgrim
People do this kind of short-sighted thing all the time,
Unfortunately, this was purely a supply induced demand, that was skewed in favor of the short term gains, with the long term potentialities being understated to the point of being hidden.

Here is what this, "Wonderful Banker" said, "'Well, it may go up, but it's probably going to godown.'. This is the passivity that this so called professional treated this solemn issue with. "May". It should be, "It will eventually go up, and even give her the projections that it would". But oops, that would have nullified any chance of having a commission. And we can't have that. The vacation in martinique is much more important.
 
Taking out an ARM is definitely foolish. On one hand, I think we need to lay some responsibility on the borrowers that glibly presume upon the future to buy what they can't afford.

On the other hand, that does not excuse the usurer from his sin. Nehemiah did not tell those that had mortgaged their houses and lands - "Caveat emptor!" He required the lenders to repent and make restitution.

[Edited on 4-3-2006 by Chad Degenhart]
 
Originally posted by Chad Degenhart
Taking out an ARM is definitely foolish. On one hand, I think we need to lay some responsibility on the borrowers that glibly presume upon the future to buy what they can't afford.

On the other hand, that does not excuse the usurer from his sin. Nehemiah did not tell those that had mortgaged their houses and lands - "Caveat emptor!" He required the lenders to repent and make restitution.

[Edited on 4-3-2006 by Chad Degenhart]

:ditto:
 
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by Pilgrim
People do this kind of short-sighted thing all the time,
Unfortunately, this was purely a supply induced demand, that was skewed in favor of the short term gains, with the long term potentialities being understated to the point of being hidden.

Here is what this, "Wonderful Banker" said, "'Well, it may go up, but it's probably going to godown.'. This is the passivity that this so called professional treated this solemn issue with. "May". It should be, "It will eventually go up, and even give her the projections that it would". But oops, that would have nullified any chance of having a commission. And we can't have that. The vacation in martinique is much more important.

Agreed. A product or service can be overtly misrepresented, or it can also be in the sense of the "passivity" you mention, by allowing the prospect to assume something about it that isn't so.
 
Originally posted by Chad Degenhart
Taking out an ARM is definitely foolish. On one hand, I think we need to lay some responsibility on the borrowers that glibly presume upon the future to buy what they can't afford.

On the other hand, that does not excuse the usurer from his sin. Nehemiah did not tell those that had mortgaged their houses and lands - "Caveat emptor!" He required the lenders to repent and make restitution.

[Edited on 4-3-2006 by Chad Degenhart]
I think they glibly presumed upon the future because of the trivial manner in which the bankers presented the possibility of raising interest rates. I don't think these people actually know if they could have afforded it.

I don't think the question was asked, (and I think it was surpressed), let me see what my payments would be at 10%?

Anyway I will agree with you that some people are blinded by the desire to own a home. I have a cousin who is about to purchase a home for $600k+, of which the mortgage payments will largely come from tenants.
 
We refinanced last year to a 5/1 ARM. We felt that a five year lock made sense and the lower mortgage payment allowed us to pay off a number fo bills that our higher rate mortgage prevented. Are we taking a risk? Will interest rates (5 years from now) be high? Possibly. But the market is always swining. We are just now entering a period of higher interest rates. That will probably continue for a definite period of time and then swing because of variable market conditions....or at least we hope so! :um:
 
Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
We refinanced last year to a 5/1 ARM. We felt that a five year lock made sense and the lower mortgage payment allowed us to pay off a number fo bills that our higher rate mortgage prevented. Are we taking a risk? Will interest rates (5 years from now) be high? Possibly. But the market is always swining. We are just now entering a period of higher interest rates. That will probably continue for a definite period of time and then swing because of variable market conditions....or at least we hope so! :um:

If all your assumptions are correct, then at best you probably won't go bankrupt and have your house foreclosed upon.

When you say "We are just now entering a period of higher interest rates." - how much history are you looking at??

[Edited on 4-3-2006 by Chad Degenhart]
 
[/quote]

When you say "We are just now entering a period of higher interest rates." - how much history are you looking at??

[Edited on 4-3-2006 by Chad Degenhart] [/quote]

I can't help but chuckle a bit here - because I think I know what Chad is alluding to. "Higher" interest rates in the context of the last 5 or so years is anything over 5%. When one looks back - over the last two decades - one sees mortgage lending rates have certainly pushed to almost 20%.

Now I'm not going to get sucked into the bank interest/usury discussion. But it is certainly wise to see that when one steps back and looks across the last 30 or so years, lending rates of 4 and 5% were NOT the norm--and more importantly--to expect that they will not cycle up again--would be a serious error.

I certainly recall as a child back in the early '80's, hearing my parents discussing whether or not to lock in at a "good 5-year rate of 18%" versus a "variable 15%. " ... now that was in Canada - but I'm sure the same was true in the US.

Again, I'm not going to argue whether that is/is not what the Bible intends--mine is a simple reminder of statistical/historical realities. Nor am I going to try and figure out the theoretical alternative to a mortgage - because for most of us, they are a reality. In that light, however, I would advise NEVER do a home-equity loan. And, of course, buying in such a way that you can maxmise your down payment. A 5% downpayment is extremely risky under any circumstance, and if the statistics I mention earlier are indicative of where commercial lending rates are headed - would be absolute folly in this timeframe.

My wife and I have always structure our mortage terms around the length of time we expected to be at the various properties. A low mortage rate is great, but most banks have payout penalties, so you have to at least take that into account if you believe you may move in a short space of time. More importantly, we have tried to have homes we could comfortably own (I say "home", since a house, where we live, is a $600,000+ prospect). We've lived in small, clean, attractive condos that have we have been able to afford, and sell with decent appreciation. We do hope the Lord will bless us with a house per se, but we suspect it will be through patience, saving, and carefully "stepped" incremental transactions.

We have friends of ours who have "maxed" out their payment capacity, and frankly, I think its a terribly sad Christian testimony to give. For the foreseeable future, higher energy and lending costs are a near certainty - and a wise believer ought to apply the stewardship principles Chad and others have pointed out, rather than live in the greed and materialism that our society tries to seduce with.

dl
 
I don't think ARMS ever present the possibility of going down...the arms are "fixed" for periods of time and it is always presented as being between certain percentages, but alway higher than what you get initially.

Borrowing has been way too easy. Realtors sell homes based on what a buyer can afford. Lenders present what they can finance a person up to. Sharks surround the buyer...I do think many foolishly buy more than they can afford, but they have a lot of help pushing them that direction.

You have no one looking out for your own interests: business practice today is agressive and walks the fine line of ethics. This is more often than not the rule, and not the exception.
 
These are certainly sinful business practices, and I don't question the pervasive lying, deceit, and general trickery stooped to by mortgage lenders these days.

That said, I have a very hard time working up much sympathy for those who, apart from some major disaster, simply over-extend themselves in taking an ARM on a home they really couldn't afford and then reap what they sow.

Those folks in Nigeria sending out spam to get us to send money under false pretenses are awful and deserve to be punished for their sin, but anyone who falls for it will have a hard time garnering my sympathy. Same here.

Here is what this, "Wonderful Banker" said, "'Well, it may go up, but it's probably going to godown.'. This is the passivity that this so called professional treated this solemn issue with. "May". It should be, "It will eventually go up, and even give her the projections that it would". But oops, that would have nullified any chance of having a commission. And we can't have that. The vacation in martinique is much more important.

How can someone make such a huge purchase, and idly accept the assurance of the man who has a personal stake in the transaction? If someone buys a home on an ARM, and never even bother to look into unbiased projections on future interest-rate movements, they're pretty much asking for whatever consequences they get.

And with all that said, in a small fraction of cases, I think an ARM could be justifiable and wise. You just have to really know what you're getting into.

[Edited on 4-4-2006 by smhbbag]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top