Thursday, December 10, 2009, 2:23PM ET - U.S. Markets close in 1 hour and 37 minutes.

Jack M. Guttentag The Mortgage Professor

Jack M. Guttentag, The Mortgage Professor

Fixing the Housing Crisis by Fixing the System, Part 1

by Jack M. Guttentag

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Good (317 Ratings)
2.605676/5
Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 12:00AM

The housing finance system, while still functioning, is in a crisis state. Interest rate risk premiums -- the rate increment on mortgages classified as riskier -- are two to four times as large as they were two years ago. Day-to-day rate volatility, which can cause havoc in the relationships between borrowers and loan providers, is larger than I have ever seen it.

Underwriting requirements -- the conditions that lenders require to approve a loan -- have tightened across the board. Loans without a down payment, and loans allowing borrowers to "state" what their income is rather than document it, are pretty much gone. Loans are taking longer to get approved, and sometimes lenders change the rules in midstream.

Recently I heard from a borrower who was scheduled to close on a home purchase in four days, with a mortgage approved by one of the largest lenders in the country. She had just been notified by the lender that her down payment had to be increased from 5 percent to 10 percent.

The reason for the bank's action is instructive. The area in which the property is located was reclassified as one with high potential for property-value decline. And the reclassification was based on a high and rising level of foreclosures in the area. Foreclosures lead to distress sales and downward pressure on prices.

A 180-Degree Change

This is a 180-degree change from two years ago. At that time the prevailing assumption was that rising house prices would generate equity on loans that were originally made with no down payment. Now the concern is that falling prices will wipe out the equity on loans made with down payments that are too small.

For example, if a $200,000 house is purchased with a $200,000 loan and the house appreciates at 5 percent a year, after two years it would be worth $220,500. The borrower in this case begins with zero equity, but the passage of time generates equity of $20,500. (I am ignoring the small change in the loan balance that occurs over the first two years.) If the same house is purchased for $200,000 with 5 percent down and the house value declines 5 percent a year, the borrower begins with $10,000 of equity, but the passage of time reduces it to negative $9,500.

A swing from a prevailing expectation that house prices will rise to an expectation that they will fall causes a major tightening of underwriting requirements. Indeed, the only reason the tightening has not been even larger is that the house price declines expected are temporary. The prevailing view is that they will last only until we get out from under the foreclosure crunch.

This places the foreclosure problem front and center as the critical policy issue. Most of the emphasis has been on the human toll from having families forced out of their homes, which is understandable. But reducing the number of foreclosures also is the key to reestablishing a well-functioning mortgage market going forward.

Finding a Solution

The Bush administration and Congress are trying to find a solution, but none of the proposals swirling around Washington have identified the source of the problem. The core problem is the way the mortgage industry manages default risk.

There are two systems for managing default risk. The first and, unfortunately, the larger of the two is to charge borrowers a risk premium in the interest rate. The risk premium is a rate increment above that charged on a "prime" transaction, which carries the lowest risk. The weakness of the risk premium system is that, with a few exceptions, risk premium dollars not needed to cover current losses are realized as income by investors. They are not available to meet future losses. So risk premiums collected in 2002 that were not needed to cover losses in 2002 became investor income and are not available to cover losses in 2008.

The other system is mortgage insurance, and it has worked well. Borrowers are required to purchase mortgage insurance if their down payment on a home purchase, or their equity in a refinance, is less than 20 percent. The mortgage insurance companies place more than half of every premium dollar they collect from borrowers in reserve accounts. The reserves that accumulate during long periods when losses are small are available when a foreclosure crunch comes -- such as now.

If a significant part of all charges for default risk were placed in reserves, then the system would be much less vulnerable to a major default episode. Future articles will explain how to do this, as well as why, among other benefits, it would provide a way to reduce foreclosures now.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story

Rate This story

Good (317 Ratings)
2.5/5
Sign-in to rate!

144 Comments

Showing comments 6-35 of 144<< PreviousNext >>
Sort: first to last

  • Low K - Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 9:32PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Housing crisis is the matter of attitude rather than matter of technic. This crisis will not be solved as long as Americans has not aware of their own spending habit. But if you are belong to the group having balance financial status, you should look into this housing crisis issue which created a lot of foreclosures. Foreclosure investment is tasty. I suggest www.theforeclosurelistings.net if you are looking for free foreclosure listings as she provides free trial on her quality foreclosure listigs. Bottom line, attitude is the main key to solving the crisis. Start controlling your spending and desire now.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, August 8, 2008, 2:32AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Let the banks burn in their own mess....

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 6:55PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Blah Blah Blah... http://www.SimpleFlatFee.com

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 3:50PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    This article is horrible and a lot of the comments show how un-educated America really is. No one can control 1st mortgage rates, only 30 yr mortgage backed bonds can. Wall St. was paying BIG money for these risky loans such as neg ams and ARM loans. Almost ALL loans are sold off in the secondary market so your BofA's, Chase, and Wells aren't the ones carrying all the risk. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are holding most of the loans. That was to correct some of the comments made. But overall I do agree with most that this article told us NOTHING!

  • Natalie - Sunday, June 1, 2008, 5:15PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Horrible article. "The first and, unfortunately, the larger of the two is to charge borrowers a risk premium in the interest rate." Higher interest rates don't change the risk of default. They increase it, although the extra interest on non-defaulting loans may be used to cover the defaulting ones. The real solution is to require 20% down payments period, and have ppl qualify under strict standards. No one should be allowed to get a variable rate unless they would qualify for a fixed rate assuming the maximum variable rate applied. Let's get serious. Prices need to fall rapidly. We still have another 30% to go down in most areas, and then start off on the right foot next time.

  • Matthew B - Thursday, May 22, 2008, 4:05PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    If I have a home loan my tax burden is less? What the hell? This makes no sense.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 12:05PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Nothing new as usual, why to publish?.

  • Andy - Tuesday, May 6, 2008, 8:31AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    This artical added only one relatively new item facing borrowers today, i.e., banks changing rules before closing. Wachovia changed the rules of my loan after closing but before funding. It was a refi, but had it been a purchase they may have found themselves on the wrong side of the law. The point is this banks, even large banks, are not only in a panic, they demonstrate it by changing rules on an hourly basis in some cases in these underwriting departments. My 4 month old appraisal was no longer acceptable to them after closing!! and they needed a new one to complete the deal. I think we will see more of this, and it will make people afraid to buy until this gitters at banks calm down. To expand upon the credit crisis, I live in central Illinois where homes have niether seen a boom nor bust, and where Caterpillar and Agriculture is flying high with huge cash in the economy of our overal rural counties. We suffer because of the problems in Florida, Arizona, Detroit,California and metro Las Vegas. Housing Crisis or Recession?? We don't see it!!! However, we feel it in the tightening underwriting standards of national lenders due to the insane home prices and losses elsewhere. In sum, our part of the country didn't contribute to the problem, but we might as well have been cut from the same mold in the eyes of national lenders.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, May 5, 2008, 12:40PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    I didn't care that much about this article, but it is a bit shocking to read the comments. Some people are complaining about refinancing charges, other about closing costs, some about mortgage points. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE! Some want to have the cake and eat it, too. Look at some other economies of the World and analyse the costs of loans and interest rates. If 6% on a 30 year loan is not cheap money, I do not know what it is then. Some guy felt ripped off because he thinks that refinance charges should not exist. I bet that most of these comments come from bitter people trying to milk the system. Shame on you!

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, May 5, 2008, 10:19AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    It is so intersting to see all these comments and headlines about motgage crisis and lending melt down. The entire system was designed for the banks and mortgage originators to swindle, yes swindle every penny, tthat they can legally squeeze out of you during a home purchase or refi. I say let the banks that are exposed to these high risk mortgage investment crash and burn. Here is a simply example how we are squeezed by banks. You have a mortgage with Bank A, at 6.5% fixed rate, you have had the loan for 3 years and never late. Interest rate falls to 5.5% for 30 year fixed and you call Bank A to refi to the lower rate, No cash out just the existing balance, It will cost you almost $4,000 on the low end to do this refi, why can't you just pay for a title search and get your rate lowered. New origination, new loan application fee, fee, fee...etc You will get more help today from your mortgage holder if you were facing forclosure, but if you are current and have a good history, they won't give you the time of day. So who are they really helping.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, May 4, 2008, 4:41PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Nobody ever mentions the cost of foreclosure. Isn't the cost of foreclosure around 25%? So, consider, a $100,000 foreclosure, the non producing asset costs $25,000 to aquire, and suppose it brings only $70,000 when sold. Further, suppose the lender resists writing off his loss and keeps it on the market for a year before selling it for $70,000. The loss is staggering! All the neighbors are going to want their home values for taxation purposes adjusted based on the bath the bank is taking on this foreclosure. Remember that something like 1/3 of all home owners have no mortgage and own a house to live in, not to flip. This isn't going to go away any time soon, it's just beginning.

  • VIRGIL - Sunday, May 4, 2008, 1:08PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    This mortgage mess was created by our dear corrupt politicians trolling for votes. All they have to do to fix it is to put the strict adherence to borrowers ability to pay. If not, we will have a repeat of this and these same corrupt politicians are penalizing those responsible borrowers by raising everybodys taxes higher to bail out the speculators, greedy banks and irresponsible borrowers. Vote the corrupt political bums out starting now!

  • Justine F - Sunday, May 4, 2008, 10:19AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    My husband and I just tried to refinance our house and take out $100,000 and the bank would not let us! The home was appraised at $1,000,000 (original price was $759,000), our credit score was 780 and we owe $295,000 on the house. We began this process in February. We have been haggling with the bank ever since. They have hit our credit 5x since bringing it down to 740. And the kicker is we had to walk away from the deal because we wanted the money to start a franchise business (we told the bank we were diversifying investments) and they would not give us enough. So here we are with plenty of equity in our home, and no way to tap into it! This is what is driving the economy into recession. Oh, and by the by...I have had a mortgage before that was completely paid off, and I personally pay the current mortgage each month on time putting extra on the principal each month. The bank didn't even consider that we had no history of default!

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, May 3, 2008, 3:41PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    A very nice idea. Sadly, I think that it is mistaken. The idea is to use insurance to substitute for a risk premium in the interest rate. However, you may simply change the problem to one of insurers going bankrupt rather than those who have leveraged positions in MBS's. As Buffett and many others have pointed out, during the good times insurers look at the money flowing in and decide to lower rates to increase market share, then inevitably get hit with the black swan. Ambac and MBI are good examples of the problems with the "insurance" approach. It's conceivable that regulation of insurers could improve this but the history of regulation does not inspire confidence.

  • georgeg - Friday, May 2, 2008, 6:53PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    It is not to polite to be rude but when it comes to logical business sometimes it is very difficult. These comments are meant to be positive at least from the standpoint of fixing the situation. Risk Default, Ins. and Banks. Banks are Insurance Companies and they were putting 16 year olds in Corvettes. This problem does not take a rocket scientist to figure out. But the greed of the Banks and Markets went unchecked. And for this greed and lack of Goverment Supervision this problem was created. You can not dangle the "American Dream" in front of people and not have them try an grab the gold ring. Hell anyone that could fog a mirror was given a big home loan. The rule of equity overcome all objections is gone. If you owned a 500k home an it was free and clear you would have to jump thur hoops to get the loan. You can not now do this stated income thru Fannie Mae. Equity Overcomes all objections. And for those that dont have equity there is Ins. like is offered on FHA loans. Prove you have the capisity to make the payment pay the Ins. Premium and your in the home. This may cost a tiny bit more but your in the home. Banks are insurance companies and they have been determing risk for years but it is RISK. It was their Failure that created the situation where you can buy a home for less than it costs to build it. That is why this is not going to last for to much longer. The collective mass of the people will start to see value and Insured Loans thru FHA will be the method or so says our congress as they are the ones that keep sending bills back and forth between both Houses. The voters are going to see something soon .. Bush can not asked for almost 200 billion for fund the war in the Middle East and not do something to keep joe six pack in his home.

  • Derek - Friday, May 2, 2008, 5:09PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Housing fundamentals are clearly out of whack right now. We all know that home prices have appreciated like gang busters, in many bubble areas appreciating in the double digit percentages, some even as much as 20% plus. Clearly not sustainable when the fundamental of whether someone can afford a house, his or her salary, has stayed flat (inflation adjusted). And we all know there are lots of people to blame - goverment, lenders, ratings ageneices, appriasers, etc. Any educated person also knows that this is cyclical and it isn't the first time this has happened. So now housing is unaffordable and must go back down to historical (affordable) norms. You don't achieve this by artificially propping up current home prices with creative goverment bailouts which really translate to tax-payer bailouts. Let the market correct itself through foreclosures, short sales, growing inventories, etc. Some people will get hit hard, but in the long run housing will become affordable again, which I think is a good thing. And the guy in a previous comment who invested in houses with is son and lost all his down payments, I'm sorry to hear that. But before you sink that much money into an investment you need to look at the data. It's not hard to figure out that 5 years of double digit appreciation in the housing market can only be followed by some serious depreciation. Save your money and buy houses when the market's ready to go back up - 2011. And for the mortgage insider that wrote this artical, pathetic. Thanks for reading.

  • First L - Friday, May 2, 2008, 3:55PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    srch4logic : I agree. The only reason to add to the ponzi scheme again is that it would create another time to sell and get out of the market b4 it crashes again.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, May 2, 2008, 2:18PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    There is no way the yahoo rating can be correct. This article is showing as a Good rating and that can not be mathamatically possible. I know some people do not leave feedback but come on, you would have to be a bigger bonehead to agree with this salesman. He proposes no solutions just stirs the pot and caused more problems. We need someone like Lee Iococa here to role up his sleeves and figure out a solution, not someone who shoots from the hip and makes us all very, very mad that this so called expert is in a position to influence others.

  • YY - Friday, May 2, 2008, 9:35AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Jack, your analysis misses the core problem. Therefore, your proposed solution is likely to exacerbate the problems rather than solve them. Start with the basics. A mortgage is a transaction between a borrower, who gets money, and a lender, who carries the risk; the banks which mediate it collect fees from both sides. When the bank can hide the risks from lenders -- by selling creative risk-hiding instruments (CDOs and the likes)-- and bypass the regulatory restraints-- by using off-balance-sheet entities, --the bank can, and is highly motivated to, push mortgage to anyone who can merely sign their name. This mortgage push by the banks created a Ponzi bubble where the financial gains of a home buyer are financed by the mortgage pushed to the next buyer. Now, if you are a CEO of a company that pushes junk securities and uses Ponzi scheme of financing gains for these securities by selling more of them, eventually the bubble bursts, investors lose their money and you end in jail. Similarly, if you are the CEO of a bank who pushes junk mortgages and finances gains on them through pushing more mortgages to the next buyers, eventually the bubble blows and investors in these mortgages as well as borrowers loose their money. However --in contrast with Ponzi securities regulations which send you to jail-- your worst risk for pushing Ponzi credit is being fired with a $100M golden parachute..... So, there are three lessons to learn: (a) if banks can hide the risk from investors, they will engineer credit markets into bubbles; (b) in the absence of stiff regulatory penalties, bankers will be handsomely rewarded for creating these bubbles; and (c) if the Fed supplies unlimited ez-money to the banks, it will increase the bubble size and impact..... Now consider your insurance proposal.... passing risk to insurers will increase its opacity to investors....banks will be able to create Ponzi bubbles with greater ease, and furthermore, will reduce both, their responsibility for the bubble as well as the ability of regulators to limit its creation by filling the wide cracks between banking and insurance regulations....... Worse, the entire housing/mortgage industry will now hinge on the operations of a small number of insurers...To see where your insurance proposal can lead, you need not look any further than the milder use of insurance by the muni bonds market... Pressure on the ratings of the insurers (MBIA, AMBAC) --even when there were no intrinsic delinquencies and subprime municipalities-- lead to an avalanche collapse in the muni bonds markets and even disappearance of entire sub-markets (auction rate bonds) with devastating side effects on state financing, hospitals, schools and local taxes.... Likewise, your mortgage insurance "solution" could lead to similar avalanches....As soon as mortgage delinquencies rise, the ratings of the insurers will be pressured, leading to a likely avalanche of mortgage backed securities and with it, freezing and disappearance of mortgage markets.....So, in summary, your proposals Jack, would more likely exacerbate the problems rather than resolve them...

  • vlad - Thursday, May 1, 2008, 7:37PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    "Future articles will explain how to do this, as well as why, among other benefits, it would provide a way to reduce foreclosures now." Way to end the article with a bang! You gave a general overview of the current situation and only concluded with... "I'll give you my suggestion later." Thanks for wasting my time.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, May 1, 2008, 6:49PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Egghead writers and Washington blowhards are the future of the mortgage industry. God bless the borrowers?

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, May 1, 2008, 1:22PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Common sense tells us that a husband and wife that work at Walmart and Burger King can't afford a $250k mortgage at any reasonable interest rate. How did the finance companies talk them into it?... ARM and Interest Only mortgages. The lenders are at fault and are paying the penalty for it now. Why should the government have to bail out financial institutions that made poor business choices?

  • Ditto - Thursday, May 1, 2008, 12:27PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Congress in its wisdom allowed the none regulated investment banks and mortgage companies to create these new investment vehicles that had faulty assumptions outside of any regulations. Now that the investment banks and brokers are able to borrow at the Fed discount window they should have to follow strict guidelines that banks are under. This should stop the nonsence loans for good.

  • SidB - Thursday, May 1, 2008, 11:29AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Congress and the Bush admin have been bought hook line and sinker by Wall St banks. While the Feds continually lowers interest rates and prints more dollars for these banks failures to properly manage risk then, the average joe's interest rates have not changed and he is now not able to refinance and in addition there is no market if he wants to sell. If Congress had passed the mortgage protection law to freeze interest rates and put up a fund to help refinance at the lower rates that they provide these Wall St banks.. this crisis would have resolved itself slowly. Now the demand for real estate has vanished and the banks keep asking more handouts. Everything the Fed does is against all rules of economics .. these banks have to become bankrupt and the Fed has to mamage them until they are back on their feet.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, May 1, 2008, 9:23AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    If you really want a fix, lower mortgage interest rates so people can refinance or even afford to buy a new house. That would stimulate housing construction.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 11:59PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The government is responsible for this housing crisis and now they think they should be allowed to fix the situation. The government saw an opportunity to control a large segment of society by getting them into housing, letting the housing prices increase, then forcing them to toe the line or the government will take the equity from the house. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government did a research project on putting people into housing before they were financially qualified and the study sounded too good to be true. It was. The unquallified home owner wan ted a new house along with a complete life style paid for by the tax payer. They got a little equity in the house and voila, they thought they needed a new car in the driveway. They thought they needed new furniture, they thought they needed a new life style. When they couldn't pay all the bills, they refinanced the house. It went from a subsidized rate to a subprime rate. Shortly after, we are in this situation today. If one looks back 30-40 years, individual homeownership was around 63%, today it is around 69%. A countrywide morgage officer commented that 6% of all housing loans are in trouble. Mathematically this seems to add up. Our local government dudes were crowing that they wanted to take credit for increasing individual home ownership from 65% to 73% over the decade from 1990-2000. Now they can take the credit for the reversal. There are over 10 banks and builders to keep competition in the housing market. When I hear the word recession, I think correction. I think fixing something that is wrong. It's time to rub out moral hazzard, or communism, and replace it with capitalism.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 11:26PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The reason some people bought a house at all was because A---H---- like you convinced them it was such a "wonderful opportunity" and a good thing to do. Now, it turns out they are in the soup and your great advice is forgotten.

  • matthew - Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 10:55PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    I am still trying to determine the point of your story? Is it to educate people on the fact that loans in general these days are taking longer to get approved and also are more and more scrutinized? A mathematicla lesson on having or not having equity in ones home? Or are you suggesting that as the title of you artice reads "Fixing the Housing Crisis by Fixing the System" that conventional mortgages that have mortgage insurance is the answer and implying that "Interest rate risk premium loans" or subprime is not the answer and the reason for all this? If that is the case you may want to reconsider your career choices. First of all subprime and suprime loans or "Interest rate risk premiums loans" as you refer to them are not the reason the housing and financial markets are where they are today. Just a reminder the MI companies right now are in as bad of shape as the banks. FHA the Bush administrations answer to this has a much higher current default rate by extremely wide margins than any subprime loan. Meaning that the insured loans are defaulting at a higher and faster pace than the "Interest rate risk premium loans" that you speek about. Kind of scary when you think that the people with the MI insured loans have lower payments and better rates and are still falling behind faster than the people whose payments are adjusting. But I am sure the media conveniently forgets to mention that.The problem is not with the banks or the brokers or even the lenders. We are all a product of our enviroment. Wall St. and the rating agencies are the ones that pushed liquidity to the extreme and packaged it all up nice and neat with a AAA seal of approval from the rating agencies. They sold and shipped the paper faster than the banks,brokers and lenders could fund it. They created a secondary market for these products. So when Wall St realized that maybe giving someone 100% financing with a sub 600 credit score was a bad idea they turned off the spiket. That dried up the liquidity that in turn as led us to where we are today. No liquidity means no secondary market which means no mortgages. Selling no income or asset loans as AAA rated is a joke. It is like taking a Mickey Mantle rookie card that has been partially torn and is faded and saying that you want the same price that a mint condition card would fetch. The faded and torn card has value just not top dollar. This again is the reason we are where we are. I believe that the only way things are going to get better is to let nature take it's course. It is bumpy and will continue to be bumpy. Home prices may fall some more but at least financing has come back down from outerspace. And with financing at a more common sense level you take alot of the risk out of the market. Meaning the questionable borrowers that probobly should not own a home yet in life. Then and only then can we work through the foreclosure glut of homes and return to a better market. JMHO

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 10:51PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The lender's problems, these home owners didn't qualify and the lenders decided they taking a chance because the lenders miss calculated that the housing continuing to go up and keep going up, but they were wrong because the income of these borrowers didn't going up, and the loan they got which is a bad loan, higher rates than normal standard loan for the person with good credit. So when the lenders raised the payment up between 25%-40% from their previous monthly payment, they are all in socked and can't afford for the payments anymore, so they decided to let it go. That what actually happenned.

  • Tom - Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 10:36PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    I have several properties. Does this make me an "evil speculator? My son and I were making a family business, working long anbd hard every day, investing our money. We did not get ANY properties for no money down. We put 25-30% down. It is all gone now. Why, because mortgage writers and realtors had no reason not to write bad loans and get paid their commissions. What did they care? The way to solve this crisis ( something that no "expert" I ever hear thinks to do) is to cut people's payments until this is over (and it will pass in time). No refinancing, no more commissions. This would be logical. But no, let's foreclose or short sale, let's all loose on this. Then the real "evil speculators" will come in and buy the properties as this "expert" writes about. Offer investors and home owners an opportunity to make low or no payments for a few months, a year, add the money to the balance due, to the back end. It will work.

Showing comments 6-35 of 144<< PreviousNext >>

More from Jack M. Guttentag

The Mortgage Encyclopedia

An authoritative yet concise guide to the mysteries of mortgage finance, arranged alphabetically from "A-Credit" to "Zero Balance." Includes information that will help you decide whether to use a mortgage broker, learn if you can avoid mortgage insurance, and much more. Reach for this indispensable guide and get the fast, accurate information you need!

Order your copy now!

Find out more about The Mortgage Professor.

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.