No Worries About "Morality" in Biggest Real-Estate Default in History

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by loza, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. loza

    loza Guest

    Over the past few months, arguments have raged about whether it is "immoral" for homeowners to send banks the keys to their houses and walk away from mortgages that it doesn't make sense to keep paying.

    Regardless of which side of this debate you're on, note that experienced professional real-estate owners don't even consider this a question.

    Tishman Speyer and BlackRock Realty, the owners of the huge New York residential real-estate complex Stuyvesant Town, have decided to hand over the keys and walk away, dumping the property on lenders who provided some $4.4 billion in loans.

    Stuyvesant Town is now estimated to be worth less than half of what Tishman and BlackRock paid for it four years ago, but they won't be feeling much pain. Tishman put up only $112 million of equity. Other investors, like California Public Employees' Retirement System, a Florida pension fund, and the Church of England, as well the boldholders, will eat the rest.

    In none of the stories reporting this decision was the question of "morality" ever mentioned. It was simply assumed, as it always is with corporate transactions, that the parties had reached their agreement at arms length and that default was always a possibility.

    It's no surprise why the mortgage industry tries to convince individual homeowners that they have a "moral obligation" to pay when corporate borrowers don't -- this sense of responsibility and guilt induces more of them to pay. But it's not fair. There are dozens of good reasons not to default on your mortgage, but "morality" isn't one of them.
  2. sumfuka


    Send them to jail if they decide to default on purpose and walk away like nothing have happened. Or pay the Mexican Cartels a million or two to put their families faces on soccer balls. And these fund managers will definitely never default for the rest of their lives.

    Problem Solved :D
  3. Maybe the Church of England can threaten Tishman and BlackRock with eternal damnation. The Catholic Church can lay a huge guilt trip on them also. :cool:
  4. jingle mail, jingle mail...

    guess i'm a month late for that

    clearly we live in a K-street/predator society

    'whatever i can get away with...'
  5. Bob111


    then why do they have it? if it doesn't make sense?

    maybe because they do have same goals like those "predators" who give them a loan? hey..price go up-i'm making the money..price goes down-just walk away! simple! it's doesn't make any sense to pay,right? same principles, just like banksters..pocket the profits and share your loses with honest fellow tax payer..nice business model..
  6. Banjo


  7. People only do this in a "NON RECOURSE" loan.
    Not many folk who know they'll get sued and have their assets attached would try this.
  8. Um, you know that they aren't Christian, right?
    They usually aren't.