Volunteering to be the Bad Guy? - A Moral Inquiry on Note Buying

Volunteering to be the Bad Guy? - A Moral Inquiry on Note Buying

Investor · Hillsborough, NH · Member since 2015 · 137 posts · 126 votes

I must say that I find the idea of purchasing Non-Performing Notes to be somewhat fascinating. With a degree in economics and a stint in commercial finance, the complexities of the moving parts attract my mind's interest. However, I have one main hesitation, and it's not based on any sort of financial risk analysis. Rather, it's 100% rooted in the one thing that should never be a part of any responsible business decision - emotion.

I've been buying post-foreclosure properties for several years, and my father before me for many years prior. Never felt guilty profiting off of the fact that someone didn't pay their mortgage. The main reason I haven't felt a single ounce of guilt, regret, or hesitation, is not that the people got what was coming to them for not paying, but because of the 1 degree of separation. They were kicked to the street by the bank, before we ever entered the picture, and we had nothing to do with it.

Now, I'm a firm believer that if you sign the dotted line and cash the check, you are responsible to make your debt service payments. We're all adults, and the idea that people need to be protected from their own irresponsible financial decisions is ludicrous. You're a big boy now, so pay your bills or suffer the consequences. However, things are not always so simple. Sometimes, people default on their obligations, not because they bit off more than they could chew, or because they didn't prioritize responsibly (and bought a shiny object with their tax refund rather than putting it in the bank), but because of something out of their control, like an accident, or an illness. Now, call me weak, but I don't want to be the person who makes the decision to kick a family out of their house when default was for a reason beyond their control (like death or illness of the bread-winner). Maybe buying the house after the bank has done the dirty work amounts to the same, and I'm just hiding behind that one degree of separation, but I don't think so. 

You see, similar situations can happen with tenants. The difference being that I didn't personally put myself in that morally difficult situation. They qualified at less than 28% DTI (meaning that they earned over 3.5 times the monthly rent in gross income) when I signed the lease. With NPN's, on the other hand, I would be intentionally investing into the situation already knowing that my exit strategy may be to force a family out of their home.

That still leaves the door open to the idea of purchasing a NPN at enough of a discount that you can take a haircut on the balance, thereby reducing the mortgage payment to something they can afford, and still make a nice profit. In fact, I think that is likely one of the main strategies of note investors. Problem is, I'd need more exit strategies than just restructuring, and if I'm not committed to kicking them out without hesitation, it's probably not the business for me.

Perhaps if I researched it a little more and found that the vast majority of NPN purchases ended in either a loan mod resulting in a performing note, or in a mutually agreed upon deed-in-lieu arrangement, I wouldn't have these hesitations. I guess I just don't want to go into a situation where I already know I'm likely to have to be the bad guy, regardless of how profitable it may be.

1Reply
21 views

4 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Lender · Redmond, WA · Member since 2014 · 553 posts · 490 votes
    10y

    @Troy Zsofka

    Hi Troy,

    You run into all kinds of situations in distressed note investing, and the outcome for borrowers depends heavily on how the investor approaches the business.  You have your hardworking folks who unfortunately purchased at the top of the market and are now stuck with an underwater mortgage.  You have deadbeat borrowers who have been living free for years, refuse to pay a minimal payment, will play the bankruptcy game with you as long as they can until you get them checkmated.  You also get those that are in between the two extremes, i.e., they have life difficulties such as medical issues and can't really afford to pay even a reduced mortgage payment.  These are the tougher ones to deal with, but generally speaking you can usually find a way to make the investment work and help the borrower too. For example, a cash for keys DIL deal where you provide enough cash to get them moved into lower cost housing.  Personally I feel that on balance my company has been able to improve the situation for borrowers 90+ percent of the time.  Many borrowers are profoundly grateful to have had our help to resolve their mortgage issues.  Compare that with what a bank would be able to offer and I feel that on balance we have helped make the world a better place in our small way.  

  • Wayne SnellPro Member
    Londonderry NH & Miami, FL · Member since 2014 · 174 posts · 238 votes
    10y

    Adding to what @Mike Hartzog listed above, as the noteholder you can also negotiate a lower balance/payment per month with the borrower due to the flexibility of buying the note at a lower price than the outstanding unpaid balance. Many times simply modifying the loan payment down 150-300 per month makes all the difference for those in financial hardship. Or approving a short sale for them where their original lender refused. Of course the solution needs to make sense for you per your investment criteria, but we always try to keep the borrower in their home whenever possible, and resort to foreclosure only when all other efforts have been exhausted.

  • JD MartinBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    10y

    I have a thought on your "1 degree of separation" statement. I understand where you are coming from, in that from a moral standpoint it might feel awkward to be the beneficiary of someone else's misfortune, especially if you bought the house for cheap from the bank. Example: I have a house I recently purchased for $37k that tax appraises at almost $80k. It was mortgaged for $60k+ through the bank, and eventually was lost in foreclosure. The people who owned it had it 5 or 6 years, and did some work in that time (new windows all around, for example). Whatever equity they had was wiped out by the bank, and I wiped out half of the bank's equity besides. If the previous owners came by, I might feel a little awkward at having their former house so cheap. 

    But I see it like this: the bank is going to sell that house to someone. When I buy places, I fix them up nice, and I rent only to people with a clean background, good income and stable household (as much as I can ascertain). I also do this at somewhat below market, so I can be picky about tenants. When I fix the place up, it improves the neighborhood. When I rent to good people at a little less than I could get, I provide decent people good housing without sticking them for all I could get. I help stabilize the neighborhood by preventing the house from falling into disrepair and being held by less scrupulous landlords. In essence, I support the greater good, while also making some profit for myself. It is a win-win, in as much as there can be winners from unfortunate events like foreclosure. 

    I suppose if the people who owned the house before foreclosure were to come by with a new lender and an offer to buy the house back from me for what I paid plus whatever my costs were, and had a good reason why they lost it, I might charitably consider selling it back to them. 

    Skyline Properties
    View Page
  • Investor · Hillsborough, NH · Member since 2015 · 137 posts · 126 votes
    10y

    @JD Martin, I agree 100%; which is why I have never felt bad about buying REO's.

    I think the main difference is that, even with a bank who has to be the bad guy and foreclose on someone, they didn't go into it with that in mind. They did their due diligence through underwriting and felt that they had a solidly qualified borrower who would perform on the mortgage obligation. With NPN investing, the investor is voluntarily entering a difficult situation.

    However, as explained by @Mike Hartzog and reiterated by @Wayne Snell, if the initial intention is to come to a conclusion that is mutually beneficial to both the investor AND the mortgagor, I think that the moral issue does not apply, and a the mortgagor who is unwilling to compromise is probably the kind of person who doesn't feel bad about failing to meet their obligations anyway (and therefore deserves no consideration in return). On the other hand, if an investor is just looking to foreclose on the note and then flip the property (either for resale or for stabilization and hold), then that investor is sacrificing moral fiber for profits. 

    The world is full of both, but I do believe that NPN investing can be done in a way that looks to benefit both the investor AND the mortgagor.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.