I’m tired of the repeated bull-crap from the media and various carny barkers about "moral obligations" to meet your payments on underwater property.
Why is it that you have a moral or ethical obligation to BANKS to do this, when THOSE VERY SAME DAMN BANKS ARE WALKING AWAY IN THE SAME FASHION I ADVOCATE?
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Morgan Stanley, the securities firm that spent more than $8 billion on commercial property in 2007, plans to relinquish five San Francisco office buildings to its lender two years after purchasing them from Blackstone Group LP near the top of the market.
The bank has been negotiating an “orderly transfer” of the towers since earlier this year, Alyson Barnes, a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman, said yesterday in a telephone interview. AREA Property Partners will take over the buildings. Barnes declined to say when the transfer will occur.
“This isn’t a default or foreclosure situation,” Barnes said. “We are going to give them the properties to get out of the loan obligation.”
Exactly as you do when you strategically default on your mortgage, giving the property back to the bank to get out of your loan obligation.
Why is Morgan Stanley doing this?
The Morgan Stanley buildings may have lost as much as 50 percent since the purchase, he estimated.
As a consequence of being "upside down" they are walking away.
This isn’t the first one Morgan Stanley has walked off on either:
Morgan Stanley last month agreed to hand over Crescent to Barclays, ending the firm’s obligation on a $2 billion loan after taking almost $1 billion in losses.
When Morgan Stanley acquired it, Crescent owned 54 office buildings in cities including Dallas, Houston, Denver, Miami and Las Vegas. It also owned the Canyon Ranch spa and resort, residential developments in Scottsdale, Arizona; Vail Valley, Colorado; and Lake Tahoe, California.
BANKS – the very same BANKS that people claim you have a MORAL AND ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO PAY EVEN IF YOU ARE UPSIDE DOWN – are walking away (by "negotiation" – as in "do it or we’ll default and you’ll get even less!") from properties EVEN WHILE THE CARNIVAL BARKERS IN THE PRESS ARGUE IT IS IMMORAL FOR YOU TO DO SO.
In a word: BULLSHIT.
This is exactly the same thing – a "strategic default", which people define as:
"strategic default," walking away from their mortgages not out of necessity but because they believe it is in their best financial interests.
Morgan Stanley CAN pay, they are simply choosing not to, because the property has fallen in value.
This is exactly identical to you choosing not to pay because YOUR HOUSE has fallen in value.
George Brenkert, a professor of business ethics at Georgetown University, says borrowers who can pay — and weren’t deceived by the lender about the nature of the loan — have a moral responsibility to keep paying. It would be disastrous for the economy if Americans concluded they were free to walk away from such commitments, he says.
I called Mr. Brenkert and spoke with him for a while this afternoon, and pointed out the above – that the asymmetry of position here is untenable and is in fact a big part of why we’re in this mess.
Let’s be clear: Those arguing for this from the banking and regulatory industry know how you stop people from "Strategically Defaulting" – don’t give people loans that make such an option attractive!
If we had only 20% down 30 year fully-amortizing fixed-rate loans in the mortgage business nobody in their right mind would strategically default, because they would lose their 20% and even if prices declined they would likely (with amortization) be either ahead or darn close to it – that is they’d lose actual money.
But on the business side of things we allow companies to set up separate LLCs and then trade on the "parent" credit even though there is no recourse to the parent. This allows firms like Morgan (or the builder down here near me that has a bunch of these shell LLCs) to build and buy huge amounts of real estate – yet when something goes wrong they have tremendous leverage on a short sale, put-back or simple walk-off: if the lender doesn’t like it they’ll bankrupt the "container" LLC and the lender will get nothing.
Consumers, of course, can’t do that. Try to set up a LLC and then use it as a vehicle to buy a house without a personal guarantee associated with the loan.
Try to get a small business loan with only the business as the collateral – no personal guarantee.
It is therefore my contention – and on this point Mr. Brenkert agreed – that the rules must be consistent for everyone, and if big business can strategically default on their obligations for profit (rather than for hardship) then consumers should be able to do so as well.
Therefore, until the law is changed to prohibit the use of said "Strategic" legal containers and the resulting option of business interests – including the banks that are complaining now – to practice selective default when it suits them I stand by my original view:
Strategic Default, in today’s economic, legal and ethical environment, is perfectly within the rights of consumers and they should exercise that right when it makes economic sense, after consultation with both legal and accounting professionals.