• null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    If you were in negative equity, you might choose to suck it up and pay.

    Statistically however, borrowers are much more likely to default when they’re in negative equity, because quite obviously, there’s an incentive to declare bankruptcy.

    If you owed a million dollars on a property that had been condemned and is only worth $50k, obviously you would declare bankruptcy. If the property was worth $400k you’d probably do the same. If the property was worth $800k you might do that, but you might choose to suck it up.

    My point is, negative equity is an incentive to default on the loan.

    Obviously, defaulting on mortgages is a thing. Obviously, people are much more likely to do so when they’re in negative equity.

    This isn’t something people do as a sophisticated well planned financial strategy. In a context of economic upheaval, declining property losses, usually because of unemployment, which usually causes family breakdowns.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Obviously, defaulting on mortgages is a thing.

      In USA. As I explained in Europe it’s not a thing. Own contribution is a thing in USA and Europe. Therefore, banks don’t require own contribution because of defaults. Q.E.D.

      • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        What do you call it in Europe when someone stops making repayments on a loan ?

        Obviously, that’s a thing.

        • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I meant that intentionally defaulting on a mortgage when the property loses value and not paying the debt is not a thing. That’s what we were talking about.