Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6936419
Abstract:
Bankruptcy abuse prevention has been criticized for increasing foreclosure rates, imposing negative impacts on housing markets, and aggravating the financial crisis. By contrast, this paper documents that bankruptcy abuse prevention reduces household debt overhang, a phenomenon harmful to home values and housing markets. Using a difference-in-differences analysis, the authors find that households in recourse states increased their home improvement and maintenance expenditures after the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), during a period when households paid considerable attention to downside housing market risk. The effects varied by home equity level and remained robust across numerous alternative specifications and controls.
Did BAPCPA Improve the Housing Market? A Different Perspective on Bankruptcy Reform
For years, much of the academic literature has criticized the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) for making it more difficult for financially distressed homeowners to save their homes. Numerous studies have concluded that by restricting access to Chapter 7 relief, BAPCPA increased foreclosures, weakened housing markets, and ultimately worsened the financial crisis.
This paper offers a thoughtful counterpoint.
Rather than focusing on mortgage defaults, the authors examine a different economic concept: household debt overhang. Their argument is that when homeowners believe they may eventually walk away from an underwater property, they have less incentive to invest in maintaining or improving that home. If bankruptcy reform makes strategic default less attractive, homeowners should have greater incentive to preserve and improve their property.
Using a difference-in-differences analysis comparing recourse and nonrecourse states before and after BAPCPA, the authors conclude that homeowners in recourse states increased home improvement and maintenance spending by roughly 25% after the law's enactment. They also find stronger effects among homeowners with higher loan-to-value ratios, numerous robustness checks supporting the results, and evidence that the effect was not explained by changes in credit availability, foreclosure procedures, homestead exemptions, or differences in housing expectations.
The paper is carefully researched, sophisticated in its econometric analysis, and refreshingly willing to challenge an established narrative. Even readers who ultimately disagree with its conclusions will find it worth reading.
That said, I remain unconvinced that this evidence rehabilitates BAPCPA.
The authors themselves appropriately acknowledge an important limitation: they are not attempting to determine the overall costs and benefits of BAPCPA, only one potential mechanism by which the statute may have affected homeowner behavior. They expressly recognize that prior research finding increased mortgage defaults and foreclosures is not necessarily inconsistent with their own findings.
That distinction matters.
Even if homeowners who remained in their homes invested somewhat more in maintenance because strategic default became less attractive, that benefit must still be weighed against the substantial costs BAPCPA imposed on financially distressed families.
The overwhelming purpose of consumer bankruptcy has never been to maximize home maintenance expenditures. Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Code to provide honest but unfortunate debtors with a fresh start while balancing the legitimate interests of creditors.
Unfortunately, BAPCPA shifted that balance dramatically.
The means test, mandatory credit counseling, expanded documentation requirements, increased attorney liability, higher costs, and numerous procedural hurdles have all made bankruptcy substantially more expensive and complicated. For many struggling families, those barriers delayed or prevented access to relief entirely.
Indeed, the authors' theory depends on exactly that point. Their explanation is that BAPCPA reduced the availability of Chapter 7 relief for homeowners in recourse states, thereby making strategic default less attractive. Whether one views that as a feature or a flaw depends largely on how one weighs strategic behavior against ensuring meaningful bankruptcy relief for families experiencing genuine financial distress.
There is also an important practical consideration.
The paper studies homeowner behavior during the years immediately surrounding BAPCPA's enactment and deliberately stops before the full onset of the housing crash. That is a sensible methodological choice for isolating the authors' hypothesis, but it also means the study does not answer the broader question that concerns bankruptcy practitioners: whether BAPCPA ultimately improved outcomes during the financial crisis itself.
For those of us who represented thousands of families during the Great Recession, the day-to-day experience looked quite different.
Many homeowners desperately wanted to save their homes but found bankruptcy relief more difficult, more expensive, and less effective than it had been before 2005. Countless families delayed filing until their situations had become far worse. Others simply could not afford competent representation because of the increased complexity Congress imposed.
None of that necessarily refutes this paper.
Instead, it illustrates why bankruptcy policy should rarely be judged by a single economic variable.
This article provides an interesting and valuable contribution to the literature by identifying one possible benefit of BAPCPA that deserves consideration alongside the many documented costs. But it should not be read as demonstrating that the 2005 reforms were, on balance, a success.
If anything, it reminds us that bankruptcy law often produces competing incentives with consequences that are difficult to measure fully. Improving one aspect of the housing market does not necessarily mean improving the lives of financially distressed Americans.
As always, the real challenge is striking the proper balance between discouraging abuse and preserving the fresh start that has long been the cornerstone of American bankruptcy law.
Blog comments