Why is being “upside down” on a mortgage so bad?
I can think of a few reasons why they seem like a bigger deal to people than similar situations with other loans. As you point out, though, being underwater on your home loan is a less serious condition than having large student loans and a poor paying job, for example.  If the student loan situation ever comes to a head, we may have people talking about student loans in hushed tones. The problem comes when the borrower cannot afford his home.  If a borrower buys more home than they can afford, as long as he can sell the house for more than he owes, he's not in a disastrous situation. He can sell the house, pay off the mortgage, and choose more affordable housing instead.  If he is upside-down on his home, he doesn't have that option. He's stuck in his home. If he sells it, he will have to come up with extra money to pay off the mortgage (which he doesn't have, because he is in a home he can't afford). It used to be commonplace for banks to issue mortgages for 100% of the value of the home. As long as the home keeps appreciating, everybody is happy. But if the house drops in value and the homeowner finds himself unable to make house payments, both the homeowner and the bank are at risk. Recent regulations in the U.S. have made no-down-payment mortgages less common. Here's a real-life example of why being underwater can be a tad annoying: Your options are: You must choose one. tl;dr: when everything is going great, it's not really a problem. It's when things change that it's a problem. Finally, home loans are extended over extremely long periods (i.e. 15 or 30 years), making any fluctuations in their value short-lived - even less reason to be obsessed over their current value relative to the loan. Your post is based on the assumption that you never move. In that case, you are correct - being underwater on a mortgage is not a problem. The market value of your house matters little, except if you sell it or it gets reassessed. The primary problem arises if you want to sell. There are a variety of reasons you might be required to move: In all of these scenarios it is a major problem if you cannot sell. Your options generally are: In the first option, you will destroy your credit. This may or may not be a problem. The second is a major inconvenience. The third is ideal, but often people in this situation have money related problems. Student loans can deferred if needed. Mortgages cannot. A car is more likely to be a lower payment as well as a lower amount underwater. Generally, the problem comes when people buy a mortgage assuming certain things - whether that's appreciation, income stability/growth, etc. When these change they run into these problems and that is exactly a moment where being underwater is a problem. "For most people ""home ownership"" is a long term lifestyle strategy (i.e. the intention is to own a home for several decades, regardless of how many times one particular house might be ""swapped"" for a different one.  In an economic environment with steady monetary inflation, taking out a long-term loan backed by a tangible non-depreciating ""permanent"" asset (e.g. real estate) is in practice a form of investing not borrowing, because over time the monetary value of the asset will increase in line with inflation, but the size of the loan remains constant in money terms.  That strategy was always at risk in the short term because of temporary falls in house prices, but long-term inflation running at say 5% per year would cancel out even a 20% fall in house prices in 4 years. Downturns in the economy were often correlated with rises in the inflation rate, which fixed the short-term problem even faster. Car and student loans are an essentially different financial proposition, because you know from the start that the asset will not retain its value (unless you are ""investing in a vintage car"" rather than ""buying a means of personal transportation"", a new car will lose most of its monetary value within say 5 years) or there is no tangible asset at all (e.g. taking out a student loan, paying for a vacation trip by credit card, etc).  The ""scariness"" over home loans was the widespread realization that the rules of the game had been changed permanently, by the combination of an economic downturn plus national (or even international) financial policies designed to enforce low inflation rates - with the consequence that ""being underwater"" had been changed from a short term problem to a long-term one." The largest problem and source of anxiety / ruin for homeowners during the housing market collapse was caused by the inability to refinance. Many people had bought homes which they were stretched to afford, by using variable-rate mortgages.  These would typically offer a very attractive initial rate, with an annual cap on the potential increase of rate.  Many of these people intended to refinance their variable-rate to a fixed rate once terms were more favorable.  If their house won't appraise for the value needed to obtain a new loan, they are stuck in their current contract with potentially unfavorable rates in the later years (9.9% above prime was not unheard of.) Also, many people, especially those in areas of high inflation in the housing market, used a financial device known as a Balloon Mortgage, which essentially forced you to get a new loan after some number of years (2, 5, 10) when the entire note became due.  Some of those loans offered payments less than Principal + Interest! So, say you move near Los Angeles and can't afford the $1.2M for the 3-bedroom ranch in which you wish to live.  You might work out a deal with your mortgage broker/banker in which you agree contractually to only pay $500/month, with a balloon payment of $1.4M due in 5 years, which seemed like a good deal since you (and everyone else,) actually expect the house to be 'worth' $1.5M in 5 years. This type of thing was done all the time back in the day.  Now, imagine the housing bubble bursts and your $1.2M home is suddenly only valued at, perhaps, $750k.  You still owe $1.4M sometime in the next several years (maybe very soon, depending on timing,) and can only get approved financing for the current $750k value -- so you're basically anticipating becoming homeless and bankrupt within the same year. That is a source of much anxiety about being upside-down on a loan. See this question for an unfortunate example. Sample Numbers: Owe $100k on house.  House (after 'crash') valued at: $50K.  Reason for consternation: What rational person pays $100k for property that is only worth half that amount? True Story: My neighbor paid almost $250K (a quarter-of-a-million dollars - think about that..) for a house that when he walked (ran!) away from it was sold by the bank for $88K.  Unless he declares bankruptcy (and forgoes all his other assets, including retirement savings) he still owes the bank the difference. And even with bankruptcy, he may still owe the bank - this should cause anyone to be a bit concerned about being up-side down in a mortgage loan. Being underwater a little is not all that scary, but those who talk of being underwater are typically underwater by quite a lot.  The amount of money they owe is large compared to their yearly income. Consider a metaphor.  I put you in a hole.  Its only 1 foot deep.  You're not too concerned.  If you want to leave, you can step out of it.  Now we look at a deeper hole, 3 feet.  Now you're still not too concerned.  You can't just walk out, but if you need to get out you can wiggle your way up.  6 feet.  Now you start getting nervous.  Climbing out is getting trickier and trickier.  You may not be able to move in response to a changing enviornment around you, because you're stuck in a hole. Now make the hole 10 feet.  Now you can't reach the edges.  Now you're in trouble.  You have lost all mobility.  You can't get out under your own power.  Now if something bad happens (such as losing your job or a sudden health issue), you can't move around to solve the problem. This is the issue that arise from underwater mortgages.  Say you lose your job because the job market in your area dried up (think Detroit in the big auto manufacturer crash).  You need to move.  You are legally endebted to a lender for your existing underwater house by more than you can sell it for.  You need to pay for the privilege to sell it.  You still owe payments on it, so if you just buy a new house (or rent) in the new state, you're paying for twice as much property.  You can't just shuffle the underwaterness from your old house to your new house because the new lender has no interest in giving a loan for more than the value of the new home. The only options you have to play with is renting the old house, which many underwater families did, or bankrupcy.  If the area you were in is depressed, you may not be able to rent the house for enough to cover your mortgage.  This is the fear of being underwater.  You have a piece of paper which claims some lender can take money from you that you may or may not have, and that the US government will allow them to take your assets, if need be, to settle the score. If you're underwater by a few thousand, it's typically not a big deal.  If you're underwater by 80 or 90 thousand dollars, which some people were, that's a lot of money to be endebted for without the assets to recover them. If you subscribe to the realtor story that the market will recover, all you have to do is scrape by, holding on, until the market rises again.  However, those who are underwater recognize that the reason much of this occurred is that we entered a bubble because realtors kept saying the market could only go up.  Fool me once.... And then there is the issue of people who actually don't intend to reduce the size of their loan. They only want to pay the interest, so their debt with the bank remains constant. If you are upside down, it means you will not have the financial means to remove the debt. If, for some reason, you are no longer able to pay the bank, you might lose the house. After that you will have no house, but you still have a debt with the bank. I think part of why it is perceived is so bad is because the fluctuations in housing prices are relatively large, especially compared to the amount needed to put a down payment.  This is not an uncommon scenario: And this is not even being underwater, just being even.  Imagine how much worse it feels if your dream of home ownership has turned into just a pile of debt.
As the bank probably told you, a HOA has no assets.  Taking out loans like that is the domain of a co-op, which is a different kind of corporation and residents own shares in a corporation that owns the entire property as an asset. It is probably a bad idea to allow someone to be a guarantor of the loan.  These kinds of things may pop up in an annual audit of the books (why is a particular person being paid a monthly fee?) or may be seen as red flags by banks offering mortgages to buyers in the HOA. If you're refinancing a conforming (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) mortgage, don't go with an FHA. Try a HARP refinance, which won't increase your mortgage insurance even if your home has lost value. HARP also limits the risk-based pricing adjustments that can be charged, so your rate should be very competitive. With an FHA mortgage, even once you get the loan-to-value ratio down to 80 percent, you still have mortgage insurance for several years, plus the upfront costs. In your case, I think it's a bad deal. "Numbers: Estimate you still owe around 37000 (48500 - 4750, 5% interest, 618 per month payment). Initial price, down payment, payments made - none of these mean anything.  Ask your lender, ""What is the payoff of the current loan?"" Next, sell or trade the current vehicle. Compare to the amount owed. Any shortfall has to be repaid, out of pocket, or in some cases added to the price of the new car and included in the principal of the new loan.  You cannot calculate how much you still owe the way you have, because it totally ignores interest. Advice on practicality:  Don't do this.  You will be upside down even worse on the new car from the instant you drive off the lot.  Sell the current vehicle, find a way to pay the difference - one that doesn't involve financing. Cut your losses on the upside down vehicle. Then purchase a new vehicle. I'm in the ""Pay cash for gently used"" school, YMMV. Another option is to go to your bank.  Refinance your car now to get a lower interest rate.  Pay as much of the principal as you can.  Keep that car until it is paid off.  Then you will not be upside down. If you're asking how to use the estimator on the webpage.  Put the payoff in the downpayment as a negative and the trade in value in the trade in spot.  Expect the payment to go up significantly.   Another opinion that might be practical advice.  Nothing we say here will convince your financially responsible spouse that this is a good idea." "The logic ""the interest rate on the mortgage was so low it didn't make sense not to buy"" is one reason the housing bubble happened. The logic was that it made the house affordable even at high prices. Once the prices collapsed people still had affordable payments, but were unable to sell because they were upside down on the mortgage. If you can refinance to a 15-year mortgage, or from a adjustable mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. it can make sense. You can save on the monthly payment, and on the total cost of the mortgage. But don't buy to take advantage of rates; or to save on taxes; or to build a guaranteed equity. These can be false economies or things that can't be gaurenteed. Of course if nobody spends money, the economy will stay poor. As to hidden details. Only purchase housing you want to own for the long haul. If you expect to flip it in a few years, you might not be able to. You might end up stuck as a long distance landlord." So am I to understand that giving AAA ratings to financial instruments backed by toxic mortgages had nothing to do with this problem?  That selling mortgages with one hand and betting on those mortgages to fail with other is a reasonable business practice?    No doubt the push to give more poor people government backed loans exacerbated the problem, but making that claim that that was the only problem seems about as valid as claiming that Goldman Sachs was responsible for everything. If I was an upside down homeowner and I went to my bank to refinance the mortgage at a lower rate and they declined, I'd give them the middle finger by not paying the mortgage and declaring bankruptcy.    A homeowner has no incentive to continue paying a mortgage for a home that is no longer the value of the mortgage and if the bank is unwilling to work with the upside down homeowner to get the home owner a lower interest rate (that is the least the bank could do) - then make the home the bank's problem and let them eat their cake.   This home owner is not asking the bank to forgive part of the mortgage or write it off, but asking for his mortgage to be refinanced at the lower rate - that is pretty straight forward and simple. We as taxpayers bailed the banks out in 2008, the least they could do is help upside down homeowners. The banks reluctance to help upside down homeowners is why we have a stagnant housing market.   **The bank by not working with this home owner to refinance his mortgage at a lower interest rate is a bank that indicates they don't care about having a paying customer.** The bad mortgages were re-sold as investments. The banks had no incentive to make good loans because they were just going to re-sell them anyway.  They even got ratings agencies to rate these investments with their best ratings to sucker other companies into buying them. "The main disadvantage is that interest rates are higher for the interest-only loan. It's higher risk to the bank, since the principal outstanding is higher for longer.  According to the New York Times, ""Interest rates are usually an eighth- to a half-percentage point higher than on fully amortized jumbo loans."" They're also tougher to qualify for, and fewer lenders offer them, again due to the risk to the bank. Since you can always put extra towards the principal, strictly speaking, these are the only  downsides. The upside, of course, is that you can make a lower payment each month. The question is what are you doing with this? If this is the only way you can afford the payments, there's a good chance the house is too expensive for you. You're not building equity in the home, and you have the risk of being underwater if the house price goes down. If you're using the money for other things, or you have variable income, it might be a different story. For the former, reinvesting in a business you own might be a reason, if you're cognizant of the risks. For the latter, salespeople on commission, or financial industry types who get most of their income in bonuses, can benefit from the flexibility."