Dean Baker has been talking for years about right to rent, and it’s about time somebody listened to him. I just didn’t think it would be Bank of America:
Bank of America Corp. is launching a pilot program that will allow homeowners at risk of foreclosure to hand over deeds to their houses and sign leases that will let them rent the houses back from the bank at a market rate.
While the initial scope of the “Mortgage to Lease” program is small—the bank began sending letters Thursday offering leases to 1,000 homeowners in Arizona, Nevada and New York—it represents a big change in the way banks deal with borrowers who can’t afford their mortgages.
Until now, banks have focused the bulk of their borrower outreach on modifying mortgages, usually by reducing the monthly payments. When that doesn’t work, most foreclosure alternatives require homeowners to leave their house, typically through a short sale, in which the bank approves the sale for less than the amount owed. Banks often insert clauses forbidding the new owner from renting the property back to the former owner.
Would BofA make money on this? Of course. I assume that everything a bank does is to make money. They would get out of any document problems, sidestep the foreclosure process, and with market rents rising, probably make more off the home than in a foreclosure sale. BofA would sell off the homes to investors over time.
But instead of focusing on the deal for the bank, let’s focus on the deal for the borrower. Obviously it depends on your situation. But if you’re so underwater that you’ll never get back equity, but you want to stay in the home where you and your family are comfortable, this is a good plan. Even with market rents up, you’re probably saving money on your monthly payment. Your credit score doesn’t get dinged (a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, which this would be, is much less harmful to a credit score), and you don’t have the stigma of a foreclosure victim, which could make it difficult to find even a rental property. And you’re staying in your community, keeping things stable. Property values benefit greatly from that, as does the larger economy.
Put it this way. The government is already experimenting with bulk sales of foreclosed, vacant properties (Fannie Mae actually has a right to rent pilot program, but they keep it well hidden). Why not eliminate the middle step and just keep the family in the home? It saves everyone lots of aggravation and can still work on a business level.
There are potential downsides, of course, which Yves Smith points out. If the banks won’t eat second liens, then the reach of this would be limited, which has been true of virtually every foreclosure mitigation program. And there’s still the problem of having a bank as your landlord, or whatever property management companies they use.
But if this does work, it would represent the fact that the banks have screwed up so royally, particularly BofA, that the only way out is one that accidentally benefits the homeowner in the process. Hopefully some other banks will join BofA in this effort.




17 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Banks working for ‘right to rent’ and downstairs a conservative fed chair wanting to break up big banks??? Its almost like this morning we are living in Bizzaro World!
Oh my, they must have run out of puppies and kittens to drown in dirty bathwater! When you run out of evil things to do I guess you have no choice but to do something humane?
They must be having a hard time “liquidating” the properties they stole….imagine that , in a depression!
It seems apparent that this situation couldn’t go on forever or all these properties would have to have been bulldozed for strip malls and there’s nobody in those either so….ergo
This far from humane, this is just more evil. This is well we could take your house but we can’t sell it so how about you renting the property we just stoled from you along with taxpayer cash. This will fail the bank has no idea how to do this on this large of scale. Just more of business as usual until the next bailout witch this is.
Yep, how could I be so naive. There must be a profit angle or it wouldn’t exist at all.
As with all of these things, you won’t see hte evil until you get into the details. The banks are starting to get sued by municipalites for letting the house become blight. And back taxes.
This is a way for them to get their victims to pay them $ while the vicitms maintian the homes. The lease is only for 3 years, at which point I guess they think they will be able to unload the house. This is a way of dealing with the backlog of houses they can’t sell.
Turning Bailey Park into Potterville is not justice. And David, you have no way of evaluatiing whether this is a “good deal” until you read the fine print.
Cynthia is correct. Before celebrating, I’d want to see that lease.
I can see two problems immediately, first, rents are somewhat higher than payments in some or many areas, second, the loss of the tax deduction (interest & property taxes) makes the rent not so affordable, it’s effectively a 30% to 50% increase in the renters costs.
Further impoverishment by the predatory Banks.
The Banks (servicers) establish the homeowner’s hardship, they check the details (and that takes much time), the investors (owners of the loan) are taking a loss, and the Banks STILL will not discuss principle reduction.
The Banks claim that’s the investor’s policy, however if one asks to talk to the investor directly the Bank will not yield the details. I personally would like to test that assertion. I Live in CA, and am licensed in that state, and I like to fight.
BofA is running all over presenting their short sale program. I went to listen, and asked “when you’ve established hardship, and the investor has agreed to a loss, where is the principle reduction option to keep the homeowner is the home?”
They refused to answer.
Its a land grab along the lines of feudal lords or plantation owners running the small farmers into debt, taking their farms and then turning them into share croppers.
I used to think that this was a counter-reformation pushing back the gains of the New Deal. Then I thought it was pushing back the Progressive Era. Apparently it is actually pushing back to beyond the beginning of the modern era entirely, back to the rule of kings, land lords and hereditary nobility.
It is a hell of a lot cheaper to evict someone than to forclose. I don’t see how this works in anyone’s favor other than the bank’s. All they care about is the cash flow. So, they get to keep the property, keep the cash flow, and if the tenant falls on even harder times and falls even a month behind….
I doubt even this would do much to improve the mortgagee’s future credit, as the note won’t be reported as paid-in-full to the credit reporting bureaus.
Does anyone doubt that this BoA brainstorm helps only BoA?
What’s the market rent in a community where BOA owns all the houses? Let’s call it ‘what the market can bear’ rent.
They pay analysts a huge amount of money looking for little corners to exploit. It is relentless.
Land grab indeed.
I’ll bet BoA even gets to write-off the mortgage as a loss. Taxpayer *AND* mortagee gets screwed. Nice.
What exactly was stolen?
I’m sure Kassandra can speak for herself, but need I remind you of the billions of dollars of TARP funds and secret Federal Reserve support given to banks by the taxpayers? Perhaps you don’t feel that the taxpayer bailout of the banks was theft, but I do.
So… you’re renting your house back from the bank and suddenly a pipe bursts, or the furnace breaks down, or the roof needs replacing.
Who pays for it? Who arranges to have these things repaired?
This is the only way that Bank of America (or any other user of the MERS fraud system) can clear its title problems: voluntary surrender. This is not a generous act. It is a tacit acknowledgement that they need the homeowner to surrender title. Then, the MERS cloud on title is resolved.
P.S. Bravo to Bank of America (heavy sarcasm)-You have temporarily fooled even the brilliant and insightful Dave Dayen. This is akin to temporarily fooling Matt Taibbi with the DOJ/AG settlement.