Premium
The Changing Pecking Order of Consumer Defaults
Author(s) -
ANDERSSON FREDRIK,
CHOMSISENGPHET SOUPHALA,
GLEN DENNIS,
LI FENG
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of money, credit and banking
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.763
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 1538-4616
pISSN - 0022-2879
DOI - 10.1111/jmcb.12001
Subject(s) - default , pecking order , debt , shared appreciation mortgage , business , mortgage underwriting , credit card , financial system , mortgage insurance , monetary economics , home equity , payment , underwriting , consumer debt , finance , economics , insurance policy , evolutionary biology , casualty insurance , biology
In the wake of the recent housing and financial crisis, many have argued that consumers are defaulting on their mortgage for strategic reasons, either because they are “underwater” or to preserve access to credit from other types of debt products, in order to maintain their consumption of other essential goods. In this paper, we examine the extent to which nonprime mortgage borrowers prioritize payments on their monthly mortgage over credit card debt obligations over a 9‐year period (2001–09). Before the recent financial crisis, our default order data suggest that consumers were eight times more likely to prioritize payments on mortgage debt over credit card payments. As of late 2008, in contrast, the similar consumers were just as likely to default on mortgage debt as on credit card debt. Our results reveal that important explanations for the observed changes in the pecking order of defaults include: strategic mortgage default behavior among consumers with low and negative housing equity, illiquidity in the form of available credit, the rising costs of servicing mortgage debt, and lowered underwriting standards and the greater penetration of nontraditional mortgage products. These results support the importance of strategic consumer behavior, but also emphasize that the changes in the pecking order of defaults have come about because of ability‐to‐pay considerations.