PDA

View Full Version : New bankruptcy laws backfire on lenders



Jerk
11/8/2007, 10:42 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ar909uO1CqHw&refer=home


By Kathleen M. Howley
Enlarge Image/Details

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Washington Mutual Inc. got what it wanted in 2005: A revised bankruptcy code that no longer lets people walk away from credit card bills.

The largest U.S. savings and loan didn't count on a housing recession. The new bankruptcy laws are helping drive foreclosures to a record as homeowners default on mortgages and struggle to pay credit card debts that might have been wiped out under the old code, said Jay Westbrook, a professor of business law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

``Be careful what you wish for,'' Westbrook said. ``They wanted to make sure that people kept paying their credit cards, and what they're getting is more foreclosures.''

Washington Mutual, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. spent $25 million in 2004 and 2005 lobbying for a legislative agenda that included changes in bankruptcy laws to protect credit card profits, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan Washington group that tracks political donations.

The banks are still paying for that decision. The surge in foreclosures has cut the value of securities backed by mortgages and led to more than $40 billion of writedowns for U.S. financial institutions. It also reached to the top echelons of the financial services industry.

Prince Exits

Citigroup Chief Executive Officer Charles O. ``Chuck'' Prince III stepped down this week after the country's biggest bank by assets said it may have $11 billion of writedowns on top of more than $6 billion in the third quarter. Stan O'Neal was ousted as CEO of Merrill Lynch & Co., the world's largest brokerage, after an $8.4 billion writedown. Both firms are based in New York.

Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest securities firm, said in a statement today that subprime losses will cut fourth-quarter earnings by $2.5 billion. The New York-based bank said it lost $3.7 billion in the two months through Oct. 31 as prices for securities linked with home loans to risky borrowers sank further than traders expected.

Even as losses have mounted, banks have seen their credit card businesses improve. The amount of money owed on U.S. credit cards with payments more than 30 days late fell to $7.04 billion in the second quarter from $8.37 billion two years earlier, according to data compiled by Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

In the same period, the dollar volume of repossessed homes owned by insured banks doubled to $4.2 billion, the federal agency said. New foreclosures rose to a record in the second quarter, led by defaults in subprime adjustable-rate mortgages, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association in Washington.

`Let the House Go'

People are putting their credit card payments ahead of their mortgages, said Richard Fairbank, chief executive officer of Capital One Financial Corp., the largest independent U.S. credit card issuer. Of customers who are at least three months late on their mortgage payments, 70 percent are current on their credit cards, he said.

``What we conclude is that people are saying, `Honey, let the house go,''' but keep the cards, Fairbank said Nov. 5 at a conference in New York sponsored by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

The new bankruptcy code makes it harder for debtors to qualify for Chapter 7, the section that erases non-mortgage debt. It shifted people who get paychecks higher than the median income for their area to Chapter 13, giving them up to five years to pay off non-housing creditors.

No Help Left

The court-ordered payment plans fail to account for subprime loans with adjustable rates that can reset as often as every six months, said Henry Sommer, president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. Two-thirds of debtors won't be able to complete their payback plans, according to the Center for Responsible Lending.

``We have people walking away from homes because they can't afford them even post bankruptcy,'' said Sommer, a Philadelphia- based bankruptcy attorney. ``Their mortgage rates are resetting at levels that are completely unaffordable, and there's nothing the bankruptcy process can do for them as it now stands.''

Four million subprime borrowers with limited or tainted credit histories will see their mortgage bills increase by an average 40 percent in the next 18 months, according to the National Association of Consumer Advocates in Washington. About 1.45 million of those will end up in foreclosure by the end of 2008, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, a research firm and unit of Moody's Corp. in New York.

Lenders began the process of seizing properties on 0.65 percent of U.S. mortgages in the second quarter, a record in a quarterly Mortgage Bankers study that goes back 35 years. The percentage of subprime borrowers making late payments increased to 14.82, a five-year high, from 13.77.

Bankruptcies Increase

Personal bankruptcies rose 48 percent to 391,105 in the first half of 2007 from a year earlier and Chapter 13 filings accounted for more than one-third of those, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute. In the first half of 2005, they were just 24 percent of the total.

Bad mortgages slashed Washington Mutual's profit by 72 percent in the third quarter from a year earlier, the Seattle-based thrift said Oct. 17. Income from credit card interest rose 8.8 percent to $689 million in the period, helping to offset a loss the bank warned on Oct. 5 would be 75 percent.

Washington Mutual shares tumbled the most in 20 years yesterday after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said the thrift had pressured real estate appraisers to assign inflated values to properties. Its dividend yield fell to 11 percent and the company traded at 0.74 price-to-book value.

Citigroup's third-quarter earnings fell 57 percent on mortgage losses. Bank of America stopped so-called warehouse lending to mortgage brokers after its profit declined 32 percent in the same period.

`Unintended Consequence'

JPMorgan reported profit growth of 2.3 percent in the quarter, the smallest in more than two years, after reducing the value of leveraged loans and collateralized debt obligations, investment packages of mortgages, by $1.64 billion.

Washington Mutual spokeswoman Libby Hutchinson in Seattle, JPMorgan spokesman Thomas Kelly in New York and Bank of America spokesman Terry Francisco in Charlotte, North Carolina, declined to comment on the bankruptcy law.

``The law had an unintended consequence of taking away a relief valve that mortgage borrowers used to have,'' said Rod Dubitsky, head of asset-backed research for Credit Suisse Holdings USA Inc. in New York. ``It's bad for the mortgage borrowers and bad for subprime investors because it means more losses.''

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 was the biggest overhaul to the code in more than a quarter of a century. The old law, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 that was signed by President Jimmy Carter, had loosened requirements for debt forgiveness.

Lobbying Effort

Financial companies began a coordinated lobbying campaign for bankruptcy reform in 1998 when the American Financial Services Association, a trade group representing credit card companies, joined the American Bankers Association to form the National Consumer Bankruptcy Coalition.

Campaign contributions from the coalition and its members totaled more than $8.2 million during the 2004 election that gave Bush his second term in office. Two-thirds of the donations were given to Republicans who supported the bankruptcy changes, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The group, later renamed the Coalition for Responsible Bankruptcy Laws, has since disbanded. Its members included Washington Mutual, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, MasterCard Inc., and Morgan Stanley.

Ford Motor Co., General Motors and DaimlerChrysler also were members. They won provisions in the new code that changed the way car loans are treated in bankruptcy.

Reform the Reform

Congress may soon take action to ``reform the bankruptcy reform,'' Zandi said. The House Judiciary Committee is working on legislation to let bankruptcy judges restructure home loans by lowering interest rates and reducing mortgage balances to reflect current market value.

Banks including Washington Mutual, Citigroup and Wells Fargo & Co. sent a letter to the committee opposing the change, saying such restructurings should be done privately.

Countrywide Financial Corp., the largest U.S. lender, said last month that it will modify $16 billion worth of adjustable-rate mortgages. Washington Mutual said in April that it will spend $2 billion giving discounted rates to help customers with subprime loans refinance at better terms.

So far, most lenders have been reluctant to change loan agreements. About 1 percent of mortgages that reset in January, April and July were modified, according to a Sept. 21 Moody's Investors Service report that surveyed 16 subprime lenders that account for 80 percent of the market.

Congress probably will approve at least a limited measure to permit loan modifications, said Westbrook, the University of Texas law professor.

``They are going to have to figure out some way to address the problem,'' Westbrook said. ``I don't think our economy or our consciences can handle the number of foreclosures we'll see if they do nothing.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Kathleen M. Howley in Boston at [email protected]
Last Updated: November 8, 2007 11:07 EST

-------------

Jerk doesn't have anything to add to this, other than we're screwed. (not me personally, but the economy)

JohnnyMack
11/8/2007, 10:49 PM
Stop spending money you don't have you frockling morons!!!!!!

:mad:

Jerk
11/8/2007, 10:51 PM
Stop spending money you don't have you frockling morons!!!!!!

:mad:
My neighbor has an Escalade. Can I not have one, too? :D

Actually I'm happy to drive my little S-10 that's 20 years old. My wife drives the car that we make payments on.

JohnnyMack
11/8/2007, 10:51 PM
My neighbor has an Escalade. Can I not have one, too? :D

No. Drive a Camry like tha rest of us.

Curly Bill
11/8/2007, 10:55 PM
I don't care...the way things were bankruptcy was way too easy to use and avoid ones debts. Now we have idiots who bought more home they they could afford and they're screwed too. Sure we'll all end up paying for it in the long run, but I don't mind so much because it's just such fun watching morons screw themselves. :D

StoopTroup
11/8/2007, 11:02 PM
Once your credit poor now...your really screwed.

Just like every Corporation I can think of...their greed not only cost them...but now it's affecting the entire country. I knew there would be fall out from this change in law as it's easy to change the law but not easy to change peoples habits.

I did exactly what you are saying JohnnyMack...

Folks that didn't see this coming though have had to quit spending and now look at the economy.

I know people that were doing flips and small businesses that depended on the lines of credit that credit cards provided. As many of them had acted foolishly and over-speculated...the Card Companies cut them off. They end up in Bankruptcy paying off their debt or Credit Counselling, but either way...they have quit spending.

I'm sure in time folks will figure this all out...

In the meantime...the fallout continues.

Curly Bill
11/8/2007, 11:10 PM
Once your credit poor now...your really screwed.

Just like every Corporation I can think of...their greed not only cost them...but now it's affecting the entire country. I knew there would be fall out from this change in law as it's easy to change the law but not easy to change peoples habits.

I did exactly what you are saying JohnnyMack...

Folks that didn't see this coming though have had to quit spending and now look at the economy.

I know people that were doing flips and small businesses that depended on the lines of credit that credit cards provided. As many of them had acted foolishly and over-speculated...the Card Companies cut them off. They end up in Bankruptcy paying off their debt or Credit Counselling, but either way...they have quit spending.

I'm sure in time folks will figure this all out...

In the meantime...the fallout continues.

Rough for a while perhaps, but I'd rather put up with that if it keeps me from having to hear from peeps bragging about how they had all this debt and whamo! just made it disappear, and some of those people were/are friends. A return to fiscal responsibilty in this country would be nice.

Curly Bill
11/8/2007, 11:13 PM
...maybe after we get the ordinary peeps to straighten out there fiscal responsibilty we can get the US gubmint to do the same thing? :rolleyes:

StoopTroup
11/8/2007, 11:17 PM
Rough for a while perhaps, but I'd rather put up with that if it keeps me from having to hear from peeps bragging about how they had all this debt and whamo! just made it disappear, and some of those people were/are friends. A return to fiscal responsibilty in this country would be nice.
I couldn't agree more...

My Parents taught us that declaring Bankruptcy was one on the worst things you could do in your life.

Seeing other folks take risks that you couldn't do because of this type of upbringing has been tough to watch.

Curly Bill
11/8/2007, 11:23 PM
I couldn't agree more...

My Parents taught us that declaring Bankruptcy was one on the worst things you could do in your life.

Seeing other folks take risks that you couldn't do because of this type of upbringing has been tough to watch.

...and in many cases it wasn't even peeps taking risks, but peeps purposely living beyond their means knowing that once they had reached the limit all they had to do was declare bankruptcy and start over again doing the same thing.

StoopTroup
11/8/2007, 11:36 PM
...and in many cases it wasn't even peeps taking risks, but peeps purposely living beyond their means knowing that once they had reached the limit all they had to do was declare bankruptcy and start over again doing the same thing.
That too.

MamaMia
11/9/2007, 12:24 AM
``Be careful what you wish for,'' Westbrook said. ``They wanted to make sure that people kept paying their credit cards, and what they're getting is more foreclosures.'' Shame on Washington Mutual for expecting people to be responsible for both a mortgage and their credit card bills. :rolleyes:

Frozen Sooner
11/9/2007, 12:29 AM
Heh.

That someone would be stupid enough to say "Well, let's forget paying the mortgage, 'cause we gotta pay these credit cards" speaks volumes. I mean, that's just HORRIBLE prioritization.

Ike
11/9/2007, 12:32 AM
The way I see it, part of this is the fault of lenders as well. They went out seeking Joe Schmuck with the bad credit rating, and instead of loaning him an amount he could sustain payments for, they give him more than they should, with an initial interest rate that makes him think he can sustain payments, only to find out later that he's hit with higher payments when the interest rate changes.

While its nice to say we should return to personal financial responsibility, there are two sides to it. People shouldn't borrow so much, and lenders shouldn't be so quick to give out dumbass loans.

limey_sooner
11/9/2007, 04:56 AM
I agree that people have to spend within their means, but why should credit card companies get special treatment when it comes to people going bankrupt. People who go down that route generally owe money to alot of different people. Why should there be a law that says everybody but the credit card companies get screwed when someone goes bankrupt.

Vaevictis
11/9/2007, 06:55 AM
Why should there be a law that says everybody but the credit card companies get screwed when someone goes bankrupt.

Because the credit card industry spent $25 million on lobbying to make it so.

Laws are for sale, you know.

limey_sooner
11/9/2007, 07:23 AM
Not to mention the campaign contributions.

Harry Beanbag
11/9/2007, 07:25 AM
I've read through a few threads similar to this one on this board lately. All I have to say is God forbid any of you wealthy geniuses ever run into any financial trouble. Sure there are many out there that try to live way beyond their means, but there are also people that get laid off work, get injured or sick and can't work, etc.. Life can be a real bitch sometimes regardless of how responsible you consider yourself to be.

Vaevictis
11/9/2007, 07:52 AM
That someone would be stupid enough to say "Well, let's forget paying the mortgage, 'cause we gotta pay these credit cards" speaks volumes. I mean, that's just HORRIBLE prioritization.

Well, if what I'm inferring in the article is correct -- specifically, that there are a certain class of people who can go into bankruptcy and get the mortgage debt wiped, but not the credit card -- then it makes perfect sense.

If you know that you're going completely under, should you pay the debt that you can get forgiven by the courts, or the debt you can't?

Hamhock
11/9/2007, 08:03 AM
Heh.

That someone would be stupid enough to say "Well, let's forget paying the mortgage, 'cause we gotta pay these credit cards" speaks volumes. I mean, that's just HORRIBLE prioritization.


i'll bet my Tahoe that the DirectTV bill doesn't get neglected.

Hamhock
11/9/2007, 08:05 AM
i wonder if we'll see a pendulum swing? sorta like how the people who were kids during the great depression were big savers. i wonder if little johnny seeing the bank take the house will affect his spending habits as an adult.

yermom
11/9/2007, 08:13 AM
Heh.

That someone would be stupid enough to say "Well, let's forget paying the mortgage, 'cause we gotta pay these credit cards" speaks volumes. I mean, that's just HORRIBLE prioritization.

why is that horrible if the house isn't worth what you owe on it and you are just paying interest or some such?

JohnnyMack
11/9/2007, 08:55 AM
I've read through a few threads similar to this one on this board lately. All I have to say is God forbid any of you wealthy geniuses ever run into any financial trouble. Sure there are many out there that try to live way beyond their means, but there are also people that get laid off work, get injured or sick and can't work, etc.. Life can be a real bitch sometimes regardless of how responsible you consider yourself to be.

If I lost my job/couldn't work today, I'd be in a huge mess. We all would. I was bitching about people who go into a mortgage making 60k a year and buy a $400,000 house because some lender offered them a 60/20/10/10 loan with a 5/1 arm amortized over 120 years. And stuff. That's irresponsible.

Hamhock
11/9/2007, 09:22 AM
I've read through a few threads similar to this one on this board lately. All I have to say is God forbid any of you wealthy geniuses ever run into any financial trouble. Sure there are many out there that try to live way beyond their means, but there are also people that get laid off work, get injured or sick and can't work, etc.. Life can be a real bitch sometimes regardless of how responsible you consider yourself to be.


since lay offs/injuries/sickness are a possibility, shouldn't we be saving a little and not living paycheck to paycheck so that we can handle life's curve balls?

Ike
11/9/2007, 09:39 AM
since lay offs/injuries/sickness are a possibility, shouldn't we be saving a little and not living paycheck to paycheck so that we can handle life's curve balls?

Should we? sure. For a lot of people, that much easier said than done.

Hamhock
11/9/2007, 09:45 AM
Should we? sure. For a lot of people, that much easier said than done.

it's all a matter of priority. i certainly agree it is easier to say than do, but it is completely possible to do.

it's like the people around my office that are just now realizing Christmas is next month. Like they move it around or something and spring it on you at the last minute.

I'm not trying to tell people how to live their life by any means, but if you insist on living paycheck to paycheck so you can have two late model cars, the latest Nike's for junior's third sport, and a boat, that's OK by me, just don't act surprised and come crying to me when there is a hiccup and you can't keep all of the plates spinning.

sanantoniosooner
11/9/2007, 09:47 AM
The average American saves somewhere in the neighborhood of -3% each month.

Curly Bill
11/9/2007, 09:51 AM
it's all a matter of priority. i certainly agree it is easier to say than do, but it is completely possible to do.

it's like the people around my office that are just now realizing Christmas is next month. Like they move it around or something and spring it on you at the last minute.

I'm not trying to tell people how to live their life by any means, but if you insist on living paycheck to paycheck so you can have two late model cars, the latest Nike's for junior's third sport, and a boat, that's OK by me, just don't act surprised and come crying to me when there is a hiccup and you can't keep all of the plates spinning.

Agreed!

JohnnyMack
11/9/2007, 10:19 AM
The average American saves somewhere in the neighborhood of -3% each month.

Pffft...amateurs.

I'm at least at -6% by now.

1stTimeCaller
11/9/2007, 10:35 AM
I'm just glad that I'm in the oilfield and that this boom will last forever.

Mongo
11/9/2007, 10:52 AM
I'm just glad that I'm in the oilfield and that this boom will last forever.

At least you have a back up plan by getting your pilot's license...oh wait...nevermind

1stTimeCaller
11/9/2007, 11:01 AM
Oh, I'm still gonna get it.

Frozen Sooner
11/9/2007, 12:52 PM
why is that horrible if the house isn't worth what you owe on it and you are just paying interest or some such?

Because it's awfully hard to live in a credit card. When you default on a credit card, the worst that can happen is they sue you. When you default on a mortgage, you lose the place you live in.

Someone asked earlier in the thread why credit card debt should be exempted from discharge. So far as I know, it enjoys no greater protection than any other debt and less than most. The tightening of bankruptcy laws made it more difficult for people to file chapter 7. So far as I know (which admittedly may not be correct) the new bankruptcy laws don't really change which debts cannot be discharged other than in cases where someone either lied on a financial statement to obtain credit or they knowingly racked up debt with the intent of filing bankruptcy. Most of the restrictions on filing chapter seven were means-tests: people with a certain amount of assets or income were precluded from filing chapter 7 and were forced to file chapter 13 instead. Which is how it should be-if you have means to pay, you shouldn't be allowed to walk away.

Oh, and FYI-there IS one class of debt that is 100% exempted from discharge. Money owed to the federal government cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. :rolleyes:

TexasSooner01
11/9/2007, 12:56 PM
I'm just glad that I'm in the oilfield and that this boom will last forever.


Nothing is forever (except death and taxes)...Dont you remember the 80s? ;)

1stTimeCaller
11/9/2007, 12:58 PM
I was just kidding

TexasSooner01
11/9/2007, 01:00 PM
I was just kidding


I was to thats what the ;) was for. :D

sanantoniosooner
11/9/2007, 01:00 PM
I was just kidding
jokes are against the rules now. Check the FAQ

Taxman71
11/9/2007, 01:03 PM
The new bankruptcy act (BAPCPA) is bad. Sure, the abusers got cut off, but the people needing a Chapter 7 liquidation (primarily due to events out of their control) are left with nagging collectors or a monthly Chapter 13 plan payment which ends up in default 75% of the time.

If the lenders and credit card companies have such a problem with defaults, how about taking more responsibility when extending credit? They shove a credit card application to every 18 year old on every college campus, realize record defaults and complain that Americans have no fiscal responsibility and a change in the laws is warranted. Meanwhile, they charge $30 late fees, over double the prime lending rate and jack up rates to over 30% without informing the card holder after a single late payment. I have no sympathy for CC companies.

r5TPsooner
11/9/2007, 01:05 PM
WaMu is who my credit card is with and they seem pretty fair. They are like most banks though... pay em on time and they're pretty damn happy. Don't and they will try to destroy your credit.

People have to learn than banks aren't there pals and are basically the semi-friendly money mafia.

yermom
11/9/2007, 01:28 PM
Because it's awfully hard to live in a credit card. When you default on a credit card, the worst that can happen is they sue you. When you default on a mortgage, you lose the place you live in.

Someone asked earlier in the thread why credit card debt should be exempted from discharge. So far as I know, it enjoys no greater protection than any other debt and less than most. The tightening of bankruptcy laws made it more difficult for people to file chapter 7. So far as I know (which admittedly may not be correct) the new bankruptcy laws don't really change which debts cannot be discharged other than in cases where someone either lied on a financial statement to obtain credit or they knowingly racked up debt with the intent of filing bankruptcy. Most of the restrictions on filing chapter seven were means-tests: people with a certain amount of assets or income were precluded from filing chapter 7 and were forced to file chapter 13 instead. Which is how it should be-if you have means to pay, you shouldn't be allowed to walk away.

Oh, and FYI-there IS one class of debt that is 100% exempted from discharge. Money owed to the federal government cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. :rolleyes:

it's not like they can't get an apartment or a more modest house. i just don't have any sympathy for banks. i mean maybe there is a reason in the past you actually needed a down payment. add that with loaning on inflated house prices and all the other things mentioned in this thread with adjustable rate mortgages and they were begging for this.

Position Limit
11/9/2007, 01:43 PM
this law was more price fixing from our "free market" government. i wish i could earn a 20% risk free return. i love the low level knee jerk reaction "people should be more responsible with their money". it has nothing to do with that and everything to do with profit. lending use to be a form of investing. lasse faire my ***. and about the subprime debachle, not to worry folks, bailout talk has already started.

Curly Bill
11/9/2007, 03:09 PM
So, what exactly is knee jerk about expecting peeps to pay the debts that they accumulate?

Scott D
11/9/2007, 03:12 PM
I've read through a few threads similar to this one on this board lately. All I have to say is God forbid any of you wealthy geniuses ever run into any financial trouble. Sure there are many out there that try to live way beyond their means, but there are also people that get laid off work, get injured or sick and can't work, etc.. Life can be a real bitch sometimes regardless of how responsible you consider yourself to be.

Don't forget other aspects such as, taking on the responsibility to care for family whom have had major medical issues. Not to mention, if you by chance live in an area where jobs and the economy are pretty much in the ****ter. Threads like this really **** me off, not everyone that files for bankrupcy is ****ty in handling their finances...nor is everyone that files for bankrupcy a delinquent just trying to get out from the responsibility of paying their debts. And I can guarandamntee you that not all of them were or are living outside of their means.

I won't blame the loaners and the persons filing bankrupcy for the problem, because in my opinion it's bigger than that. The housing market as we're seeing now was probably highly overinflated for a majority of the last 12-15 years and that's coming back to roost in the drop in home values all over the place. Also, the people that crow about how people were stupid to get stuck in an ARM back in the 90s, have any of you considered that some people would have preferred a fixed, but because of the way the market was at that time, almost every lender was pushing ARMs because they were a quicker profit for those lending companies both short and long term.

Position Limit
11/9/2007, 03:25 PM
So, what exactly is knee jerk about expecting peeps to pay the debts that they accumulate?

because it's the easiest opinion to form without having to actually think about the other side of the INVESTMENT equation. that's why it's knee jerk. i lending, there is this pesky thing called a credit rating. use to be, RISK was quantified based on credit rating. but i suppose none of this has anything to do with what we are really talking about. people who neglect their financial obligations. right? BIDU was down $45 yesterday, i want that money back!!!

Curly Bill
11/9/2007, 03:30 PM
So...if we thought about it instead of forming our knee jerk opinions we would think it was OK to run up debts and not pay them back?

Yeah I've heard of that credit rating thing...I think mine's pretty good..maybe because I am willing to assume responsibility for my financial decisions and am willing to pay all of my debts. Maybe if I thought about it more I'd see that I've been doing the wrong thing?

Position Limit
11/9/2007, 03:38 PM
way to keep your eye on the ball there sport. best legislation to come down the pike in years. the world is a better place because if it. even better if you're a lender in the consumer credit market. with such a great credit score, can i write your debt? i wont charge you such a high percentage with your great credit and all.

Harry Beanbag
11/9/2007, 04:50 PM
Don't forget other aspects such as, taking on the responsibility to care for family whom have had major medical issues. Not to mention, if you by chance live in an area where jobs and the economy are pretty much in the ****ter. Threads like this really **** me off, not everyone that files for bankrupcy is ****ty in handling their finances...nor is everyone that files for bankrupcy a delinquent just trying to get out from the responsibility of paying their debts. And I can guarandamntee you that not all of them were or are living outside of their means.

I won't blame the loaners and the persons filing bankrupcy for the problem, because in my opinion it's bigger than that. The housing market as we're seeing now was probably highly overinflated for a majority of the last 12-15 years and that's coming back to roost in the drop in home values all over the place. Also, the people that crow about how people were stupid to get stuck in an ARM back in the 90s, have any of you considered that some people would have preferred a fixed, but because of the way the market was at that time, almost every lender was pushing ARMs because they were a quicker profit for those lending companies both short and long term.


Exactly. It's real easy to sit up on your high horse and poke fingers at others that have had Life throw them a nasty slider in the dirt. Two and half years ago we had a mortgage (30 year fixed btw) and a new truck, but no credit card debt or anything else other than normal living expenses. We were rolling along living the good life as fairly newlyweds with no financial worries at all and were ready to start a family.

Then we were both laid off at the same time when the company we had both worked at for over 15 years combined shut down the plant here. We both found jobs quickly but our household had to absorb a 40% loss of income. I challenge anybody to take that in stride without some serious consequences. We've managed to keep our home, but needless to say we now have some credit card debt that hurts and that I despise, but you do what you gotta do. We had to postpone children until now with our first due in February, nearly three years since the rug was pulled out from under us.

Life changing events happen out of the blue and are out of our control. We've managed to increase our income some since then, but we are still about 30% down from where we were. So basically I figure we have been set back maybe a decade financially and we still have a few years of struggling uphill to go.

Harry Beanbag
11/9/2007, 04:53 PM
If I lost my job/couldn't work today, I'd be in a huge mess. We all would. I was bitching about people who go into a mortgage making 60k a year and buy a $400,000 house because some lender offered them a 60/20/10/10 loan with a 5/1 arm amortized over 120 years. And stuff. That's irresponsible.


Well I would agree with you on that example, but I knew what you were talking about anyway. Some others here give off a different vibe though.

Scott D
11/9/2007, 05:56 PM
If I lost my job/couldn't work today, I'd be in a huge mess. We all would. I was bitching about people who go into a mortgage making 60k a year and buy a $400,000 house because some lender offered them a 60/20/10/10 loan with a 5/1 arm amortized over 120 years. And stuff. That's irresponsible.

Well, a flaw there is that you're still dealing with market flux. Cost of living gets blown up, and all of a sudden a house that is worth say $125k in say rural Oklahoma, goes for well over $300k in another part of the country, and it could be on a much smaller plot of land.

Scott D
11/9/2007, 06:00 PM
So...if we thought about it instead of forming our knee jerk opinions we would think it was OK to run up debts and not pay them back?

Yeah I've heard of that credit rating thing...I think mine's pretty good..maybe because I am willing to assume responsibility for my financial decisions and am willing to pay all of my debts. Maybe if I thought about it more I'd see that I've been doing the wrong thing?

so Curly, what happens if someone god forbid manages to steal your identity and destroys your credit in the process?

The problems with the credit world are manyfold, and some of them border on ridiculous. Such as it being worse for your credit to purchase any high ticket item by paying in full with cash at the time of purchase. (Why bad credit move? you're establishing that you pay on time and don't shirk payment duties). Others can be based upon potential unintended delinquency. Are most situations with folk having super bad credit their own fault? sure. But not all of them, and it behooves people to remember that.

Frozen Sooner
11/9/2007, 10:21 PM
so Curly, what happens if someone god forbid manages to steal your identity and destroys your credit in the process?

You file an identity theft report and dispute all items that were not opened by you. It's a somewhat arduous process and I won't pretend otherwise, but it's there, and it works. Lenders are required by law to remove items that they have reason to believe are fraudulent from your credit.

The major provision of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 was to establish two means tests before someone could file Chapter 7. The first means test was that if someone made less than the median for their geographic area (as high as 70k per year in Massachusetts!) then they were presumed to qualify for Chapter 7 protection. The second means test was if someone DID make more than the median for their state, their income vs. outgo would be compared to make sure someone was actually insolvent.

Honestly, whether bankruptcy abuse was all that widespread or not (and I lean towards not, actually) I can't see how either of those means tests are that unreasonable.

Now, were I to reform bankruptcy laws in this country, the first thing I'd do is remove retirement savings from exemption. Frankly, it strikes me as obscene that someone could have $100,000 in a 401(k) and still walk away from their debts-and that DOES happen more often than you'd think.

That being said, the majority of personal bankruptcies in the US are driven by medical bills, not by consumer debt. Depending on whose numbers you believe, the ratio is as high as 80%.

mdklatt
11/9/2007, 10:41 PM
Now, were I to reform bankruptcy laws in this country, the first thing I'd do is remove retirement savings from exemption. Frankly, it strikes me as obscene that someone could have $100,000 in a 401(k) and still walk away from their debts-and that DOES happen more often than you'd think.


Given that **** happens, how far screwed should declaring bankruptcy leave somebody? If you wipe them out completely, how are they supposed to start over? Are you just creating another welfare case at that point? I don't think that the rest of us should have to subsidize somebody's mistakes for the benefit of some creditors. I know that it's not that simple, and that bad debt costs everybody as well, but you can't leave somebody without any hope of recovery.






That being said, the majority of personal bankruptcies in the US are driven by medical bills, not by consumer debt. Depending on whose numbers you believe, the ratio is as high as 80%.

File that under **** happens. Are there different categories of bankruptcy? We need to differentiate between cases like this and cases of simple dumbassery like maxing out 15 credit cards on luxury items.

Frozen Sooner
11/9/2007, 10:51 PM
Given that **** happens, how far screwed should declaring bankruptcy leave somebody? If you wipe them out completely, how are they supposed to start over? Are you just creating another welfare case at that point? I don't think that the rest of us should have to subsidize somebody's mistakes for the benefit of some creditors. I know that it's not that simple, and that bad debt costs everybody as well, but you can't leave somebody without any hope of recovery.

Um, doesn't starting over mean "starting over at 0" not "starting over with $100k already saved up?"

How is it creating a welfare case? Nothing's stopping them from continuing to work until they build their retirement fund back up. Why should someone who saves 6% of their money and handles their debt responsibly be put at a disadvantage to someone who saves 12% of their money and runs their debt up?



File that under **** happens. Are there different categories of bankruptcy? We need to differentiate between cases like this and cases of simple dumbassery like maxing out 15 credit cards on luxury items.

There is no such thing as a medical vs. dumbass bankruptcy. Of course, if we had national health care, it wouldn't be quite such an issue....but that's another discussion.

Bad things happen to good people, and that's the heart of the bankruptcy law. I truly believe that the majority of bankruptcies in this country are filed by decent people who truly intended to pay their debts and did everything they could to keep up before filing bankruptcy.

But as a lender, I know that's not the case for a significant fraction of those who file bankruptcy, and that's something that does need to be addressed.

And yes, I agree that bad debt is a cost of doing business and frankly, we should do a better job of risk pricing and analysis. Unfortunately, if we do that it's going to end up jacking the cost of credit WAY up. That's not in the interest of the general economy at all.

mdklatt
11/9/2007, 10:58 PM
Um, doesn't starting over mean "starting over at 0" not "starting over with $100k already saved up?"

How is it creating a welfare case? Nothing's stopping them from continuing to work until they build their retirement fund back up. Why should someone who saves 6% of their money and handles their debt responsibly be put at a disadvantage to someone who saves 12% of their money and runs their debt up?



If you put IRAs on the table, they might start over at zero, right? Depending on how old they are, they might have to work until they're 90 before they can retire. I'm not saying that's automatically a bad thing, but there have to be some cases were taking away everything somebody has is not the way to go. I don't think one-size-fits-all bankruptcy laws are a good idea--or maybe it's not like that at all. I don't know. How much discretion do bankruptcy judges have? Can they consider extenuating circumstances?

Frozen Sooner
11/9/2007, 11:04 PM
Under Chapter 7, you can exempt certain assets (such as retirement funds.) Also, from state to state, you can exempt certain other assets, such as homes valued up to a certain amount, your least expensive television, a radio, etc. For example, Florida allowed a 100% exemption for your primary residence, so OJ bought himself a big ol' house right before he filed Chapter 7.

I don't know how much discretion bankruptcy judges have-it at least used to be a very straightforward deal. You go in, you tell the trustee what you have and what you owe, your creditors get to grill you for a bit, then the trustee signs off on it and the judge says "Yep, you're insolvent."

And hey, I've softened my stance quite a bit over the years. I used to be in favor of reestablishing debtor's prison. If the government wants to be able to cancel my contracts, then they damn well be willing to pay me restitution then put the debtor to work building roads for a while or something. I'm past that stage now.

mdklatt
11/9/2007, 11:06 PM
You go in, you tell the trustee what you have and what you owe, your creditors get to grill you for a bit, then the trustee signs off on it and the judge says "Yep, you're insolvent."

I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!

Frozen Sooner
11/10/2007, 01:32 AM
You can't just say it, Michael.

bluedogok
11/10/2007, 01:39 AM
You can if you declare moral bankruptcy :D

Curly Bill
11/10/2007, 02:24 AM
so Curly, what happens if someone god forbid manages to steal your identity and destroys your credit in the process?



What happens if a gi-normous meteor crashes into earth, messes up all of the computer credit records and at the end of that my credit is messed up? Sheesh, I know things can happen that are beyond a person's control, I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the one's that misuse the system to live beyond their means and when the bills come due they're able to escape that unsavory part of the equation.

85Sooner
11/10/2007, 01:11 PM
You can if you declare moral bankruptcy :D


YO!!!!!!!!

Scott D
11/10/2007, 06:45 PM
What happens if a gi-normous meteor crashes into earth, messes up all of the computer credit records and at the end of that my credit is messed up? Sheesh, I know things can happen that are beyond a person's control, I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the one's that misuse the system to live beyond their means and when the bills come due they're able to escape that unsavory part of the equation.

I'm with you on people who misuse the system. The problem is that on here people love to use those broad stroke brushes to paint everyone who declares for bankrupcy to fall under the the nefarious reasons category. I'd hardly call the situations that Harry and I found ourselves in although somewhat different, situations where there were attempts to abuse the system.

Blue
11/11/2007, 04:02 AM
C'mon people! Let's do what we did in the 60's!

Sit back, throw on the Ranconteurs, and smoke a Doob. Everythings gonna be alright!

Frozen Sooner
11/11/2007, 04:04 AM
The problem is that on here people love to use those broad stroke brushes

Hi! Let me introduce you to my friend the internet. He's been around since the 90s.

Scott D
11/11/2007, 09:41 AM
Hi! Let me introduce you to my friend the internet. He's been around since the 90s.

Hi! Let me introduce you to this guy mob mentality stupidity. He's been around since the beginning of the human species. :)