Ma and Pa Smith, sitting across the desk from Broker Bob, may have worried about whether they’d be able to pay the adjustable-rate mortgage when it reset in four years, but who doesn’t—even if they can afford it. All thirty-year commitments are to some extent a leap of faith, and you’re some kind of sucker if you believe the Smiths weren’t being cajoled and smooth-talked past their worries by the brokers.
This isn’t to mention the outright criminality on the part of the brokers (and yes, the crimes go all the way up the chain to the banks, Wall Street, and the credit-ratings firms—but that’s a somewhat separate story) that was rampant in the boom years. Fudging people’s incomes or conning them into refinancing or giving them ARMs they didn’t want. Want to know the extent of the shadiness? This Wall Street Journal investigation from late last year found that at the peak of the boom, 61 percent of those who got subprime mortgages likely qualified for much lower cost prime loans. Did those home buyers put themselves into higher-cost subprime notes or were they deceived into them? Guess.
But some don’t buy it and I guess they probably never will. Here’s “ed” commenting on my report of my own parents getting put into an ARM with a pre-payment penalty, despite me repeatedly telling them not to get one:
Come on now. They signed the house purchase documents and didn’t know they had an ARM rate? I find this very difficult to believe. Mind you, these were not novice home-buyers, and had been through the process once before. I have had enough of the unscrupulous mortgage brokers story. The truth is there were willing buyers who took advantage of the system. Sure, they say now they were bilked. But as anyone who goes through a settlement knows, everything is explained in excrutiating detail, and homebuyers sign papers showing they were told in detail what they were getting into, and what the consequences were.
Yes, that’s right. My folks were put into that type of loan unbeknownst to them, and even against their expressed wishes. Hard to believe, I know, but unfortunately it’s very true. I’m glad your broker seems to have been honest, though the broker who dealt with my did too until they went to sell their house, but it’s clear that many, many were not.
The point of “My Foreclosure” was simply to tell what it’s like to lose your home. It’s a real trauma and I feared the awfulness of it might get slightly lost in the blizzard of bad news and statistics. We thought business reporters, especially in the elite publications read by the national and global decision-makers, might be somewhat detached from this reality.
So to further get the point across, check out journalist Darleene’s poignant post about her own experience a decade ago, which she linked to in the “My Foreclosure” comments.

I agree that most of the blame belongs to the banks and mortgage broker. The thing that keeps coming to mind is that the first thing one learns in ethics class is that you don’t use your knowledge in your field of expertise to take advantage of your client. There was an article in the Times a little while back about many lenders are splitting (50/50) the loss on a short sale. I don’t think 100/0 or 0/100 is fair, but 50/50 seems to imply that the burden is shared equally. I don’t buy that.
Additionally, I know that when I bought my first house I didn’t read every line of papers. Luckily I was working with a local trusted bank who has survived this mortgage crisis quiet well. But with all the stories out there, I know next time I will be reading it much more carefully. Even still, it took a couple of hours to sign everything. Reading everything will take a couple of days. Probably not a bad idea though now.
Posted by Ryan on Mon 3 Nov 2008 at 11:59 AM
"Our state government found out and my parents had to pay back some of the money they were given"
...so this happened in ol' Russia, right ??
Posted by at on Mon 3 Nov 2008 at 02:56 PM
"My folks were put into that type of loan unbeknownst to them, and even against their expressed wishes. Hard to believe, I know, but unfortunately it’s very true"
One isn't "put" into a loan by any "unbeknownst" process. One "gets" into a loan by signing a mortgage and settlement agreements.
Adults with legal capacity to contract voluntarily sign agreements and deeds of trust.
If people are too lazy, uneducated or unsophisticated to read and understand documents that bind them to thirty years of contractual obligation, then these people should not own real estate.
Who to feel sorry for here? Certainly for any child tossed out of his home because of his parents' mistake. I'm not trying to downplay the horrible experience Mr. Chittum suffered (I have a niece and nephew in similar circumstances).
But how about the taxpaying single mother who pays her mortgage faithfully and who is now saddled with the responsibility of bailing out her irresponsible neighbors? (I have a sister-in-law in this situation)
This whole scandal devolves into a few million instances of the same event- a borrower gets money from a lender and agrees to pay according to the terms of the contract. And in every case, the borrower reneges. To place the blame on lenders is just silly- they did exactly what they contracted to do.
Nobody wants to take personal responsibility for anything anymore. Blame the banks. Blame the government. Blame somebody else. Democracy can't last long in such an environment.
Posted by padikiller on Mon 3 Nov 2008 at 06:54 PM
Hate to say it, but if you can afford a) college, b) Disneyworld, and c) a hotel room AT ALL, to many people in America - you ARE an elitist. That's what Mary means. Your idea of "working class" or "poor" is incredibly skewed.
Talk to me when you can just afford sending your kids to public high school if you cut down on your own lunches. Talk to me when you don't have a vacation in twenty years. Talk to me when you can't afford a car and have to access the internet from the library. THAT is working-class.
Poor is a tar-paper shack and starvation, not renting.
Posted by Charlene on Tue 30 Dec 2008 at 01:29 AM
Great story Ryan, thanks for re-posting it for your new readers.
As a relative free-marketeer, I am jealous of the rhetorical weapons the market skeptics have at their disposal. Those who support Fannie and Freddie, farm subsidies and steel tariffs can point to evicted families, foreclosed farms and unemployed salt of the earth sixty-year-olds. Those who support free trade and lean regulation have a more academic case to make. Either that or they must point the finger at lazy free-loaders, appealing to some less honorable emotions.
Posted by Chris Corliss on Tue 30 Dec 2008 at 02:31 PM
Charlene, we lost our house 15 years ago. Disney World wasn't even dreamed about then. We didn't have vacations for about a decade in there. We depended on food stamps and groceries from grandma for several years around that time, as I wrote.
And by the way, my parents couldn't afford college at all. I made it through a state school with scholarships, Pell Grants, and student loans--and not one dime from my folks, who couldn't have spared it. So did my sister.
As I said in the first installment (see link below), my dad's health has improved, my mom went back to school and got a better job, and they're much better off financially in the last few years than they ever have been. God bless 'em.
Believe me, I understand what you're feeling. That's why I wrote the original piece in the first place.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/my_foreclosure.php?page=all
Posted by Ryan Chittum on Wed 31 Dec 2008 at 01:29 AM