|
the bank is a bank, not a real estate company so they would much rather NOT have any REO properties on their books. Both for accounting reasons as well as expense reasons.
From the accounting POV: REO real estate is a liability on the balance sheet(banking is an odd industry: assets to "normal" people/businesses are liabilities to a bank).
From an expense POV: If the bank takes title to the house, they will incur some (if not all of these costs):
Eviction expenses (not every owner voluntarily leaves the house after foreclosure) Inspection (make sure that no one moves in while vacant - it happens) Insurance (both property as well as liability) Sales (just like other folks, realtors/closing attorneys have to get paid) Repairs (not common but the bank will do repairs to ensure no additional damage to the property - busted windows and the like) Utilities (lights, heat and ac have to be on for both maintenance and sales reasons) Lawn mowing and the like HOA fees (if applicable) Property taxes (if not sold by tax time)
and then, on top of that there is the loss on the sale of the property. if the property was worth the balance and fees left on the mortgage someone else would have bought it.
so it is quite possible that a property will look like this:
Mortgage balance: $140K Attorney fees: $5K late fees $1K back insurance payments paid by lender: $0.6K Back taxes paid by lender: $2K total "upset" $148.5K
market value of property: $150K
bank bids their "upset" $148.5k, no one else bids, whammo, they own the property (which is why some lenders will bid less than their upset in hopes of not incurring the following):
post foreclosure: management company: $250-ish/month heat/water/electric: $200/month HOA dues (if applicable): $40/month Insurance (more expensive as the house is not tenanted): $200/month
so the longer the house is in their possession, these costs add up.
also, the longer the house is on the market, the more likely the lender will have to cut their sales price
so let's say it's on the market for 120 days:
$148.5K + $2.8K = $151.3K House was originally offered at $140K sold for $120K less $6k in real estate fees net price to the lender: $114K loss: $37.3K
Now of course some of this may be offset by PMI, but not all. the remainder is generally 100% uncollectable: the borrower probably has filed bankruptcy along the way and/or the foreclosure judge is disinclined to sign off on a deficiency judgement (hell the borrower just lost their home. why pile insult on top of injury?)
But suffice it to say that if the lender bit the bullet and bid, say 10% less than their upset ($134K), someone may have bought the house at auction for that amount and it would have "saved" the lender all the monthly costs + the realtor's fees + "cost" that hits the balance sheet.
This is just one house, imagine have 40-50-60-100-200 houses on the books...a $10K here (on a low end house) and $100K (on a higher end house) begins to add up.
Contrary to popular belief: banks don't want the house back, it costs too much money.
Now why do they foreclose? Most banks don't directly own the mortgage that they service, but they do have a servicing agreement with the mortgage owner and it usually states: If loan goes X days past due, start foreclosure proceedings. if they don't, they run the risk of losing their servicing agreement (which can be huge - ~1% of the total outstanding balances per month).
Now this arrangement makes it difficult to also "work with the bank" as the bank would be more than happy to deal with this and work something out, but the investment pool may not be in a position or staffed to deal with such issues.
this all gets convoluted and leads to a lot of issues but, not being able to lay off the mortgage to an investment pool could have far more implications. Namely, banks would have a finite amount of money to lend, making them far more selective on their borrowers than they are (IOW we'd go back to the days of "you can only get a loan if you don't need a loan").
|