← Back to context

Comment by fc417fc802

4 days ago

It does raise the point though that anyone who borrowed against his house to obtain other assets could be negatively affected by this turn of events.

Also in the case of mass bankruptcy and mortgage failure of the lower middle class I guess there would be risk of bank failure as in 08? That said, I still think the hypothetical illustrates the overall situation quite well.

> It does raise the point though that anyone who borrowed against his house to obtain other assets could be negatively affected by this turn of events.

How?

A drop in the price of houses means it becomes more difficult to exchange houses for non-houses.

If you borrow against your house to obtain something else, and then the price of houses falls, you successfully timed the market. That's all upside for you.

What do you think is the difference between example 3, the guy with a $500,000 mortgage on a $700,000 house, plus a $50,000 car, and example 3', the guy with a $450,000 mortgage and a $50,000 car loan on his house, plus a $50,000 car?

Say I inherit a $700,000 house and, being the kind of guy I am, immediately mortgage it for $500,000. But I stop renting and move in to my new house. Also, I hire a bunch of call girls to live with me in my house. One year later, the price of my house drops to $100,000, and I turn it over to the bank.

I started (the crash) with a $500,000 loan and no way to pay it back other than selling my house. At this point, the faster I realize what's happened and sell my house, the more money I'll be left with. (If I sell immediately, I'll get $200,000!) The longer I postpone selling, the worse off I'll become. (Though since I can live in the house, this trades off against what I would spend on rent.)

I've also spent $500,000 on entertainment and one year's rent. Mostly entertainment. Is this a harm that was dealt to me by the fall in the price of my house?

When the price falls, this forces me to sell the house, locking in a profit of... $500,000. (Which I've already spent.) It could have been $700,000, in theory. This $200k difference in profit vs potential profit can be seen as an effect of the price crash. But that's pretty good for an event that notionally took $600,000 out of the value of my house. Borrowing against the house helped me.

If you want to talk about a negative effect on someone, walk me through the accounting.

    +-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
    |    event    | my equity | my cash | my debt | bank equity | bank cash | bank held debt | hookers |
    +-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
    | baseline    |        0  |      0  |      0  |          0  |        0  |             0  |      0  |
    +-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
    | inherit     |      700k |      0  |      0  |          0  |        0  |             0  |      0  |
    +-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
    | mortgage    |      700k |    500k |   -500k |          0  |     -500k |           500k |      0  |
    +-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
    | party       |      700k |      0  |   -500k |          0  |     -500k |           500k |    500k |
    +-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
    | price crash |      100k |      0  |   -500k |          0  |     -500k |           500k |    500k |
    +-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
    | bankruptcy  |        0  |      0  |      0  |        100k |     -500k |             0  |    500k |
    +-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+

At the beginning of this process, I was short $700,000 for a house that I needed but didn't have.

Before the price crash, I had "200k equity"† in that very house, leaving me $500,000 short of a house.

After the price crash, I was deeply underwater on the house. Without bankruptcy, I was still $500,000 short of my house, but only $100,000 short of some other house.

And then, after the bankruptcy, I was $100,000 short of a house.

1. What is the harm that I suffered from the price crash?

2. If the "hookers" column had some other label, would that change the harm that I suffered from the price crash?

† You might note that this is accounted as 700k equity in the table. The table is correct, but that's not how we talk about it. There is probably an error in my earlier comment related to this.

  • > a $50,000 car loan on his house, plus a $50,000 car?

    Well I suppose that guy might come out unscathed since many US states protect your primary vehicle in a bankruptcy. But to an approximation declaring bankruptcy involves losing all of your remaining assets. So in that scenario the borrower is on the hook for the cost of replacing those assets (limited by how far underwater they were on the mortgage naturally).

    Your other example involved blowing the borrowed money on entertainment in which case I agree that you come out ahead. But that is precisely why I used the term "assets" in GP.

    Also I don't think everyone just gets let off scot free after a bankruptcy? Don't you sometimes get stuck with some amount of repayment depending on the nature and volume of your income?

    My question about bank failure also still stands. While the impacts of this hypothetical on personal finances are certainly interesting to consider, I'm thinking we really don't want to do the whole widespread mortgage default thing again.

    • Sure, bank failure might happen. That comes out clearly in the chart; the flow of value is that the bank loses a bunch of cash which ends up in "hookers".

      > But to an approximation declaring bankruptcy involves losing all of your remaining assets. So in that scenario the borrower is on the hook for the cost of replacing those assets (limited by how far underwater they were on the mortgage naturally).

      If you financed something by borrowing against your house, then it cost less than your house, and when you have to replace it, the cost will be less than the cost of buying a house at the original prices. This is the "you lose your house and your car" example. Losing your mortgaged house and your owned-free-and-clear car is good when buying a replacement house+car costs less than the mortgage on your house.

      What if house prices fall into the sweet spot where (1) your mortgage is underwater; and (2) a new house + new "assets" exceed the value of your mortgage? (But don't exceed the original value of your house.)

      It could be that those assets don't generate income. In this case, they are isomorphic to the hookers in the example.

      If they do generate income, then you might save money by keeping your house at its inflated pre-crash price, and you'll make those pre-crash loan payments using the income stream generated by the assets. Here you have a loan that is nominally against your house but actually against your business. It's underwater when considered as a mortgage, but it's not underwater when considered as a business loan, so you'll keep paying it. Your bank will be fine with this. (Both in the sense that they won't object, and also in the sense that they won't suffer financial hardship.) You'll probably have to recollateralize the loan.

      (Or your assets might generate income, but not enough income that you'd save money by keeping your original mortgage. In this case it's straightforward that you're better off losing the original house, losing the original assets, buying a new house, and then not buying new assets.)