There was an interesting article in the New York Times this week based on a study showing that a higher percentage of mortgages over $1 million is delinquent than that of smaller loans. Some of the conclusions reached may be debatable, but it got me thinking about strategic default, which our friend Wikipedia defines as “the decision by a borrower to stop making payments on a debt despite having the financial ability to make the paymentsâ€. The NYT article asserts those in higher income brackets are more likely to see strategic default as a wise business decision, while Joe Sixpack continues to make the payments on his underwater mortgage. Is that really the case? And if so, who is right?
Google “strategic default†and you’ll get almost 11,000 results, including a recent 60 Minutes segment on the topic. It’s definitely a controversial subject–some say choosing to walk away from a home when you can afford to make the payments is unethical, while others think it’s strictly business and the banks have it coming since they got us in this mess to begin with. I see both sides of the argument, though after reading a lot about the subject this week I’m leaning towards thinking maybe there’s nothing wrong with a homeowner making the same kind of business decision a bank or corporation wouldn’t hesitate to make faced with a similar situation. Back in January Roger Lowenstein argued the case for strategic default in The New York Times Magazine, and he made some pretty good points:
“Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them.”
If you buy into the argument that it was the irresponsible and greedy behavior of the banks that brought about the housing bubble and corresponding bust, then maybe it’s fair that they’re left holding the bag. It’s a tough question with no easy answer. What do you think?