3 to 5 years.....

April 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. housing market won’t recover for three to five years as mounting foreclosures hold down prices, according to mortgage-bond pioneer Lewis Ranieri.

“There’s another big leg down and the question is how long does it stay,” Ranieri, chairman of Ranieri Partners LLC, said during a panel discussion today at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California. “You can’t have much of a rally when you’ve got this big overhang.”

Home foreclosures probably will reach a record this year with more than 1 million properties seized by banks, according to data seller RealtyTrac Inc. Unemployment was 9.7 percent in March, unchanged for a third month, according to the Labor Department, and a fifth of mortgaged U.S. homes were worth less than their loans in the fourth quarter, Zillow.com reported.

‘Leave Them Alone’

Larry Mizel, chief executive officer of Denver-based homebuilder MDC Holdings Inc., said the federal government should allow homes to be foreclosed on and sold at reduced prices to new buyers.

“The best thing they can do is leave them alone,” Mizel said during the panel discussion. “We now have affordable housing. The best thing, in my view, is just let the process take care of itself.”

Buyers have no Moral Duty to lenders

As a result of the housing collapse, many Arizonans have seen their homes lose half of their value. Many owe several hundred thousand dollars more than their homes are worth and are unlikely to dig out of their negative equity hole for decades. To compound the stress and anxiety, when they've called their lender to work out a solution, they've discovered that their lender won't even talk to them about a loan modification or a short sale as long as they are current on their mortgage.

With no help in sight, some of these underwater homeowners have decided that they would be better off letting go of their homes and have stopped making their mortgage payments. Many have done so with the hope that defaulting will finally bring their lender to the table, but they are also resigned to the fact that they will likely lose their homes.

It has been suggested that such homeowners are immoral or, at least, irresponsible. I disagree. The arguments against homeowners intentionally defaulting on their mortgages generally center on the same three basic points.

First, underwater homeowners "promised" to pay their mortgages when they signed the mortgage contract. Second, foreclosures lead to depreciation of neighborhoods, so underwater homeowners should hang on in order to help preserve their neighbors' property values. And, third, if all underwater homeowners defaulted, the housing market might crash. Homeowners thus have a social obligation to pay their underwater mortgage in order to save the economy.

While all three of these arguments might hold some initial appeal, none holds water.

First, a mortgage contract, like all other contracts, is purely a legal document - not a sacred promise. Think of it this way: when you got your cellphone, you likely signed a contract with your carrier in which you "promised" to pay a set monthly payment for two years. Would it be immoral for you to break your contractual "promise" to pay for two years if you decided that you no longer needed the cellphone and elect instead to pay the early termination fee? Of course not. The option to breach your "promise" to pay is part of the contract.

Though involving more money and something of great sentimental value to most people, a mortgage contract is simply a contract. Like a cellphone contract, a mortgage contract explicitly sets out the consequences of a breach of contract.

In other words, the lender has contemplated in advance that the mortgagor might be unable or unwilling to continue making payments on his mortgage at some point and has decided in advance what fair compensation to the lender would be. Specifically, the lender included clauses in the contract providing that the lender can foreclose on the property and keep any payments that have been made. By writing this penalty into the contract, the lender has agreed to accept the property and any payments already made in lieu of the remaining payments.

hat's the agreement. No one forced the lender to make the loan or sign the contract. Indeed, the lender wrote it. And, to be sure, the lender wouldn't hesitate to exercise his right to take a person's house if it was in his financial interest to do so. Concerns of morality or socially responsibility wouldn't be part of the equation.

In short, as far as the law is concerned, choosing to exercise the default option in a mortgage contract is no more immoral than choosing to cancel a cellphone contract. Indeed, exercising the default option in your mortgage contract is similar to cashing in on an insurance policy. You paid for it - and have you a right to exercise it.

But what about the argument that mortgage default hurts neighborhoods and the economy?

Well, first, in a capitalist society, we don't generally expect individuals to make personal economic decisions for the collective good. Aside from this fact, however, it's unfair, in my opinion, to ask underwater homeowners to prop up neighborhood property values, or the housing market, on their backs - especially if means sacrificing their ability to send their children to college or save adequately for their own retirement.