Effect of country default on house prices?
It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power.  In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item.  If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere.  It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay.  Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck. Some of the factors that will act on house prices are: There will likely be a recession in that country, which will lower incomes and probably lower housing prices. It will likely be harder to get credit in that country so that too will increase demand and depress demand for housing (cf the USA in 2010.) If Greece leaves the Euro, that will possibly depress future economic growth, through decreased trade and investment, and possibly decreased transfer payments. Eventually the budget will need to come back into balanced which also is likely to push down house prices. In some European countries (most famously Spain) there's been a lot of speculative building which is likely to hang over the market. Both countries have governance and mandate problems, and who knows how long or how much turmoil it will take to sort that out. Some of these factors may already be priced in, and perhaps prices are already near what will turn out to be the low. In the Euro zone you have the nearly unprecedented situation of the countries being very strongly tied into another currency, so the typical exchange-rate movements that played out in Argentina cannot act here.  A lot will depend on whether the countries are bailed out, or leave the Euro (and if so how), etc.  Typically inflation has been a knock-on effect of the exchange rate moves so it's hard to see if that will happen in Greece. Looking back from 2031, buying in southern Europe in 2011 may turn out to be a good investment.  But I don't think you could reasonably call it a safe defensive investment.
"Yes, except many, many Icelanders still owe debt on assets they purchased in krona (the Icelandic dollar) before it collapsed.  Now many are stuck with homes, vehicles, etc. on which they owe twice the underlying value.  You'll often see this referred to as ""private debt overhang"" in financial news articles, and it is not reported on nearly enough.  Just letting the banks fail doesn't unwind all of the ridiculous currency speculation that took place in Iceland.  They may be on their way to recovery...eventually...but they're still in terrible shape in the short term." gnasher729's answer is fundamentally correct and deserves the checkmark, but I'd like to give an economic explanation for how this economically functions. The key point from gnasher729's answer's that the interest rate is 49.9% for one company. While this may be much higher than the equilibrium rate, the true market interest rate, it is not completely unreasonable because of the risk. For credit to be continually produced, default risk must be compensated because this is a cost to the lender.  Most are not in business to lose money, so making loans to borrowers that default 40% of the time would make this interest rate reasonable. For UK citizens, this would not be such a problem because the lender can usually pursue the borrower for the balance, but if the borrower can disavow the loan and leave the legal reach of the UK creditors, the collection rate is 0%. The guarantee by the foreign persons not present in the UK is incidental and probably more of a regulatory requirement since the inability to collect from them is just as unlikely. One should always look for the lowest price with at least minimum quality when shopping for anything, but you are right to be apprehensive legally.  Read every line and be sure that you yourself understand every clause before signing. If alternative cheaper financing is available, it is probably superior. "This is a hard question to answer.  Government debt and mortgages are loosely related.  Banks typically use yields on government bonds to determine mortgage interest rates.  The banks must be able to get higher rates from the mortgage otherwise they would buy government bonds. Your question mentions default so I'm assuming a country has reneged on its promise to pay either the principal or interest on government bonds. The main thing to consider is ""Who does not get their money?"".  In other words, who does the government decide not to pay.  This is the important part.  The government will have some money so they could pay some bond holders.  They must decide who to shaft. For example, let's look at who holds Greek government debt.  Around 70% of Greek government debt is held outside Greece.  See table below.  The Greek government could decide to default only on the debt to foreign holders.  In that case the banks in France and Switzerland would take the loss on their bonds.  This could cause severe problems in France and Switzerland depending on the percentage of Greek bonds that make up the banks' assets.  Greek banks would still face losses, however, since the price of their Greek bond holdings would drop sharply when the government defaults.  Interestingly, the losses for the Greek banks may be smaller than the losses faced by the French and Swiss banks.  This is usually the favored option chosen by government since the French and Swiss don't vote in Greece. Yields on Greek government bonds would rise dramatically.  If your Greek mortgage is an adjustable rate mortgage then you could see some big adjustments upward.  If you live in France or Switzerland then the bank that owns your mortgage may go under if Greece defaults.  During liquidation the bank will sell their assets which includes mortgages and you will probably not notice any difference in your mortgage. As I stated earlier: this is a hard question to answer since the two financial instruments involved (bonds and mortgages) are similar but may or may not be related." Keep in mind that the only portion of the MBS that was rated AAA was the most senior tranche. It achieved this rating due to the buffer to principal losses provided by the equity and mezzanine tranches. So for the principal to be at risk for the AAA senior tranche, 10% of the mortgages in the pool would have to default. Since this number was way higher than historical default rates - it seemed safe. Obviously looking back we know that risk management underestimated the effect that lowered lending standards would have on the default rates (if they did project a rise in default rates, they did not project a large enough rise).  As well, while the MBS is exposed to systemic risk - as happened, when the entire country was affected by the collapse - they were packaged to avoid other risks. For example, the pool would spread out mortgages across the country and other various factors would be hedged so that if a natural disaster hits state X and everyone defaults on their mortgage, you are only losing a small part of the underlying.  I assume (hope) that at some point the quantitative analysis people in risk management at the major investment banks realized that the default rates would rise given the lower lending standards being employed - but chose to ignore it. They chose to ignore it because investors still wanted to buy it, and the banks make money by collecting fees on issuing securities. The value of debt is that it allows you to profit from the return of equity beyond the amount of actual net equity you own.  Of course, this only works if the cost of borrowing is less than your return on equity.  Market timing matters a great deal but isn't accounted for in this view.  For my answer I would like to hand-wave away market timing considerations.  One plausible justification is that you could default on your current home and then immediately go buy one of equal value.  If you buy a new home of a lesser value (due to lack of funds) and then prices appreciate, then you missed some opportunity cost but probably not $100k worth of it. Moving on, here are some helpful assumptions I'll make. I'll ignore performance of your portfolio after retirement and only seek to optimize F, which will be your net worth upon retirement.  In either case, your current net worth is earning the R2 rate.  We can convert this for both your current net worth and future savings using conversion formulas. Present to future value F = P (1+R2)^x Annual to future value F = S ( (1+R2)^x - 1 ) / R2 Adding these together is sufficient to obtain F in the case that you have no borrowing power.  The case where you do not default and maintain your credit score is different due to an initial $100k penalty and the amortized value of borrowing power.  In a completely theoretical sense, you get an effective (R2-R1) yield on all borrowed money.  The future value will be the following: F = A1 (1+R2-R1)^x One step is missing, however, which is to convert this value (the value of having a good credit score) into present value to compare to value of your defaulting. P of borrowing power = F / (1+R2)^x = A1 { (1+R2-R1)/(1+R2) }^x Now, let's put some specific values in.  Say that you can borrow $300k with your good credit history and this applies for the next 25 years, after which you retire.  The borrowing rate is 7% and the time-value of money to you is 10%.  I would then calculate: P of borrowing power = $58 k < $100 k This indicates that it would be more economical to default.  Of course, some people might point out that it will be removed from your record after 7 years.  If you plug 7 years instead of 25 years into the equation, almost no assumptions about rates will lead to the option of keeping your house being preferable. So in a nutshell, the value of your credit is probably less than $100k in a purely mathematical sense.  But there are other factors too.  If you don't have that borrowing ability maybe you wouldn't be able to borrow money to start the business of your dreams.  If you are a rock star entrepreneur, then time-value of money to you could be 1,000% yield, sure, then maybe you could make the above numbers work (to favor keeping the house).  I've also neglected ethics.  As other people point out, it would be like stealing from the bank. Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow.  All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case.  Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government.  How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is.  In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices. What about the debt attached to more recently purchased properties, purchased at the price before the market gets flooded with baby-boomer homes? I'm not an expert in real estate finance, but it sounds like if that downward pressure on prices isn't slight, financial institutions will be taking that risk for anyone who defaults on a mortgage after their property loses a substantial amount of its value.  It seems like immigration could play an important role in offsetting this and keeping the prices stable, but that's a politically unpredictable issue to say the least. There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone. When I read that part of his post, it reminded me more of credit companies rather than banks. People default on credit all the time. I have no idea what the regulations are on the amount of credit that a company can issue, though.  And this is sort of part of what actually happened in the beginning of the economic crunch. A bunch of people began to trade for credit (debt) against what they thought the *future* value of their house or other real estate would be. After a while, people stopped being able to afford property at its future value, so they stopped buying it. When people then tried to sell their property for the future value that they had borrowed against, they couldn't, so they couldn't pay back their debt.  Because real estate had become a popular investment vehicle for the middle class, this was able to reach a kind of critical mass, and shortly afterward the effects rippled back into the credit market, which also had its own crunch -- a bunch of credit just disappeared overnight because so many people had assumed a level of debt that they could not actually fulfill their promises on once the future value of their home became completely imaginary. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/1064061/house-flippers-triggered-the-us-housing-market-crash-not-poor-subprime-borrowers-a-new-study-shows/) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Analyzing a huge dataset of anonymous credit scores from Equifax, a credit reporting bureau, the economists-Stefania Albanesi of the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Geneva&amp;#039;s Giacomo De Giorgi, and Jaromir Nosal of Boston College-found that the biggest growth of mortgage debt during the housing boom came from those with credit scores in the middle and top of the credit score distribution-and that these borrowers accounted for a disproportionate share of defaults.  &gt; The mortgages these prime borrowers were able to secure were much bigger than those taken out by poor homebuyers.  &gt; Shoar&amp;#039;s work reveals that borrowing and defaults had risen proportionally across income levels and credit score, but that those with sounder credit ratings drove the rise in delinquencies.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xfbx2/house_flippers_triggered_the_us_housing_market/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~202565 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **credit**^#1 **borrowed**^#2 **mortgage**^#3 **score**^#4 **crisis**^#5" My first thought was that it must be due to inflation, which causes such differences in many cases since a creditor needs to make back more than the rate of inflation in order not to effectively lose money. But it seems that Paraguay currently has only a very modest rate of inflation, about 3%. Other possible reasons for different credit rates: The latter is most likely. It means that if debtors are generally poor and are often completely unable to pay back the loan, or if there is no effective way to force uncooperative debtors to pay (e.g. when there are weak laws or overworked courts), then creditors will lose a lot of money to defaults and have to raise rates to compensate for this. The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades.   The risks would be large. "House prices do not go up.  Land prices in countries with growing economies tend to go up.  The price of the house on the land generally depreciates as it wears out. Houses require money; they are called money pits for a reason.  You have to replace HVAC periodically, roofs, repairs, rot, foundation problems, leaks, electrical repair; and all of that just reduces the rate at which the house (not the land) loses value. To maintain value (of the house proper), you need to regularly rebuild parts of the house.  People expect different things in Kitchens, bathrooms, dining rooms, doors, bedrooms today than they do in the past, and wear on flooring and fixtures accumulate over time. The price of land and is going to be highly determined by the current interest rates.  Interest rates are currently near zero; if they go up by even a few percent, we can expect land prices to stop growing and start shrinking, even if the economy continues to grow.  So the assumption that land+house prices go up is predicated on the last 35 years of constant rigorous economic growth mixed with interest rate decreases.  This is a common illusion, that people assume the recent economic past is somehow the way things are ""naturally"".  But we cannot decrease interest rates further, and rigorous economic growth is far from guaranteed. This is because people price land based on their carrying cost; the cost you have to spend out of your income to have ownership of it.  And that is a function of interest rates.  Throw in no longer expecting land values to constantly grow and second-order effects that boost land value also go away. Depending on the juristiction, a mortgage is a hugely leveraged investment.  It is akin to taking 10,000$, borrowing 40,000$ and buying stock.  If the stock goes up, you make almost 5x as much money; if it goes down, you lose 5x as much.  And you owe a constant stream of money to service the debt on top of that. If you want to be risk free, work out how you'd deal with the value of your house dropping by 50% together with losing your job, getting a job paying half as much after a period of 6 months unemployment.  The new job requires a 1.5 hour commute from your house.  Interest rates going up to 12% and your mortgage is up for renewal (in 15 years - they climbed gradually over the time, say), optionally. That is a medium-bad situation (not a great depression scale problem), but is a realistic ""bad luck"" event that could happen to you.  Not likely, but possible. Can you weather it?  If so, the risk is within your bounds.  Note that going bankrupt may be a reasonable plan to such a bit of bad luck.  However, note that had you not purchased the house, you wouldn't be bankrupt in that situation. It is reasonably likely that house prices will, after you spend ~3% of the construction cost of the house per year, pay the mortgage on the land+house, grow at a rate sufficient to offset the cost of renting and generate an economically reasonable level of profit.  It is not a risk-free investment. If someone tries to sell you a risk-free investment, they are almost certainly wrong." I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage!  that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis. The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered  a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.