Journal of Family and Economic Issues

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 207–226 | Cite as

Exploring the Design of Financial Counseling for Mortgage Borrowers in Default

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper analyzes the effects of counseling provided to borrowers in mortgage default (n = 299). Borrowers receiving more hours of counseling perceive counseling more favorably than those receiving fewer hours of counseling. Using measures of marketing efforts to instrument counseling time confirms the positive effect of counseling duration on borrower ratings of counseling. Borrowers are more likely to attend additional counseling sessions after receiving face-to-face counseling as opposed to telephone counseling, although preference among modes can largely be explained by time in counseling. Each additional hour of counseling reduces the marginal probability of a borrower moving to a more severe stage of foreclosure. Counseling could be more successful if provided for longer durations regardless of the delivery mode.

Keywords

Credit counseling Foreclosure Mortgage default counseling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Sharon Tennyson for helpful advice and direction, Bruce Gottschall for support and expertise, and Charlie Corrigan for data assembly. Thanks also to the NHS Chicago, Homeownership Preservation Foundation and the City of Chicago for cooperation in sharing these data.

References

  1. Apgar, W.C., & Duda, M. (2004) Preserving homeownership: Community development implications of the new mortgage market. Retrieved January 14, 2007, from http://www.nw.orgGoogle Scholar
  2. Apgar, W.C., & Duda, M. (2005). Collateral damage: The municipal impact of today’s mortgage foreclosure boom. Minneapolis, MN: Homeownership Preservation Foundation. Retrieved January 14, 2007, from http://www.hpfonline.orgGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins, J. M., Belsky, E. S., & Case, C. E. (2005). Exploring the welfare effects of risk-based pricing in the subprime mortgage market. In N. Retsinas, & E. Belsky (Eds.), Building assets, building credit: Creating wealth in low-income communities (pp. 132–151). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cordell, L. (2001). Innovative servicing technology: Smart enough to sustain homeownership gains? Panel presentation at the Research Institute for Housing America: 2001 Conference on Housing Opportunity: Will Technology Expand Housing Opportunity? Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Cutts, A. C., & Green, R. K. (2005). Innovative servicing technology: Smart enough to keep people in their houses? In N. Retsinas, & E. Belsky (Eds.), Building assets, building credit: Creating wealth in low-income communities (pp. 348–377). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gramlich, E. M. (2004). Subprime mortgage lending: Benefits, costs, and challenges. Remarks at the Financial Services Roundtable Annual Housing Policy Meeting. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  7. Hairston, J. (2006) Home foreclosures soar; Lender-friendly Georgia has highest rate in nation, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. 1G.Google Scholar
  8. Hartarska, V., & Gonzalez-Vega, C. (2005). Credit counseling and mortgage termination by low-income households. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 30(3), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirad, A., & Zorn, P. M. (2002). Pre-purchase homeownership counseling: A little knowledge is a good thing. In N. Retsinas, & E. Belsky (Eds.), Low-income homeownership: Examining the unexamined goal (pp. 146–174). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  10. Immergluck, D., & Smith, G. (2006). The impact of single-family mortgage foreclosures on neighborhood crime. Housing Studies, 21(6), 851–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moreno, A. (1994). Assessment of post-purchase needs of low- and moderate-income homebuyers. (White Paper). Minneapolis, MN: Family Housing Fund.Google Scholar
  12. Mortgage Bankers Association. (2005). National Delinquency Survey. Retrieved January 14, 2007, from http://www.mbaa.orgGoogle Scholar
  13. Perry, V. G., & Morris M. D. (2005). Who is in control? The role of self-perception, knowledge, and income in explaining consumer financial behavior. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Quercia, R., Cowan, S, & Moreno, A. (2004). The Cost-Effectiveness of Community-Based Foreclosure Prevention. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University Retrieved January 14, 2007, from www.jchs.harvard.eduGoogle Scholar
  15. Quercia, R. G., McCarthy, G. W., & Stegman, M. A. (1995). Mortgage default among rural, low-income borrowers. Journal of Housing Research, 6(2), 349–369.Google Scholar
  16. Quercia, R. G., & Wachter, S. M. (1996) Homeownership counseling performance: How can it be measured? Housing Policy Debate, 7(1), 175–187.Google Scholar
  17. RealtyTrac. (2006). Irvine, CA. January 23, 2006 Retrieved January 23, 2006, from http://www.realtytrac.comGoogle Scholar
  18. Roper Public Affairs and Media. (2005) Freddie Mac, Roper survey asks why more delinquent borrowers don’t call lenders for help. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.freddiemac.comGoogle Scholar
  19. Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Staten, M. E., Elliehausen, E. C., & Lundquist, G. (2003). The impact of credit counseling on subsequent borrower credit usage and payment behavior. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  21. Strauss, L., & Phillips, S. (1997). Housing counseling in rural America. Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.ruralhome.orgGoogle Scholar
  22. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2005a) Housing Counseling Assistance: 2005 Summary Statement and Initiative. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from www.hud.govGoogle Scholar
  23. U.S. Department of Housing, Urban Development. (2005b) U.S. Housing Market Conditions. Washington, DC: HUDUSER.Google Scholar
  24. Vandell, K. D. (1995). How ruthless is mortgage default? A review and synthesis of the evidence. Journal of Housing Research, 6(2), 245–264.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations