Home loan: loss payable clause in favor of lender for home insurance?
Why doesn't it seem right to you? The lender financed the house and has the first right claim (mortgage) on it, so if you have any insurance proceeds they're first offsetting your debt to the lender. Same as if you were selling the house - first the loan is paid off, whatever is left goes to you. If the property is not lost, then the proceeds are going to you and you keep paying the mortgage. So if a pipe burst and you need to replace the flooring, the insurance will cover it, and you'll get the proceeds. If the building is lost and you're paid the fair market/rebuild value, then you first need to pay off the mortgage. Its standard. Here's a good rule of thumb. In any situation where you are required to purchase insurance (Auto Liability, Property Mortgage Insurance, etc.) you can safely assume that you aren't the primary beneficiary. You are being required to buy that insurance to protect someone else's investment.
"SIPC is a corporation - a legal entity separate from its owners. In the case of SIPC, it is funded through the fees paid by its members. All the US brokers are required to be members and to contribute to SIPC funds. Can it go bankrupt? Of course. Any legal entity can go bankrupt. A person can go bankrupt. A country can go bankrupt. And so can anything in between. However, looking at the history of things, there are certain assumptions that can be made. These are mere guesses, as there's no law about any of these things (to the best of my knowledge), but seeing how things were - we can try and guess that they will also be like this in the future. I would guess, that in case of a problem for the SIPC to meet its obligation, any of the following would happen (or combinations): Too big to fail - large insurance companies had been bailed out before by the governments since it was considered that their failure would be more destructive to the economy than the bailout. AIG as an example in the US. SIPC is in essence is an insurance company. So is Lloyd's of London. Breach of trust of the individual investors that can lead to a significant market crash. That's what happened in the US to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They're now ""officially"" backed by the US government. If SIPC is incapable of meeting its obligation, I would definitely expect the US government to step in, even though there's no such obligation. Raising funds through charging other members. If the actuary calculations were incorrect, the insurance companies adjust them and raise premiums. That is what should happen in this case as well. While may not necessarily solve a cashflow issue, in the long term it will allow SIPC to balance, so that bridge loans (from the US government/Feds/public bonds) could be used in between. Not meeting obligations, i.e.: bankruptcy. That is an option, and insurance companies have gone bankrupt before. Not unheard of, but from the past experience - again, I'd expect the US government to step in. In general, I don't see any significant difference between SIPC in the US and a ""generic"" insurance coverage elsewhere. Except that in the US SIPC is mandatory, well regulated, and the coverage is uniform across brokerages, which is a benefit to the consumer." At the top result of the Google search, on the Google results page it's sumarized as applicable to every lender participating in FDIC: The terms equal housing lender and equal opportunity lender are synonymous and refer to all banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in the United States. Such banks are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, or familial status. Having a highly liquid emergency fund can lubricate the wheels for disaster recovery.  For example, several years ago I returned from a vacation to discover that, during my absence, a plumbing fixture had broken and my house was flooded. Since we had sufficient liquidity to cover the cost of the repairs in our emergency fund, the insurance company was much easier to deal with, and the relationships between the contractor, bank, and insurance company were much smoother. The bank was able to approve the insurance in minutes versus days. Ironically, we didn't actually have to touch our emergency fund precisely because we had it. Clarification - I make it a point to have no debt. "In the United States if the person insures an article and then claims a loss of that article, the insurance replaces the missing/destroyed article. If later on the item is found the original is owned by the insurance company. The person who purchased the policy doesn't get to keep both.  Of course if the item was so valuable to be priceless the insurance company would be open to an exchange of items or money.  But if they suspect fraud...then it becomes a legal matter. Even when a life isn't involved it can be a source of dispute: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/spencer/spencers-art-law-journal5-7-10.asp INSURED V. INSURER: WHEN STOLEN ART IS RECOVERED, WHO OWNS IT? Kenneth S. Levine  This essay is about the word ""subrogation,"" which frequently appears   in insurance policies. An insured painting is stolen and the insurance   company pays the owner’s claim for the value of the painting. Many   years later, when the painting is recovered, its value is many times   what it was when the insurance claim was paid. The insurance company   takes the position that it owns the painting, while the owner says I   own the painting, less the value of the insurance proceeds received.   The resolution of this dispute depends on the meaning of the word   ""subrogation"" in the insurance policy. When life insurance is involved, the item being replace is the lost stream of income. The question of returning money and how much would be a legal issue. They would also want to know if there was fraud, and who was involved." Houses burn down a lot more frequently than banks fail. Also, I'll bet the odds that FDIC will insure the loss of money in a bank is much higher than the odds of a homeowner's policy believing a huge pile of cash burned up in your house AND even then your policy probably wouldn't have coverage limits high enough to reimburse you for substantial cash losses. Oh yeah, then there is theft, floods,etc. The biggest danger is that routine inflation will eat up that money faster than the rats in the basement. Now, having some cash for a small emergency on hand isn't a terrible idea, but using your closet as a personal bank doesn't seem very smart. Those choices aren't mutually exclusive.  Yes, most discussion of the mortgage interest deduction ignores the fact that for a standard itemizer, much, if not all of this deduction can be lost.  For 2011, the std deduction for a single is $5,800. It's not just mortgage interest that's deductible, state income tax, realestate tax, and charitable contributions are among the other deductions. If this house is worth $350K, the property tax is about $5K, and since it's not optional, I'd be inclined to assume that it's the deduction that offsets the std deduction. Most states have an income tax, which tops off the rest. You are welcome to toss this aside as sophistry, but I view it as these other deductions as 'lost' first.  I'm married, and our property tax is more than our standard deduction, so when doing the math, the mortgage is fully deductible, as are our contributions.  In your case, the numbers may play out differently. No state tax? Great, so it's the property tax and deductions you'd add up first and decide on the value the mortgage deduction brings.  Last, I don't have my mortgage for the deduction, I just believe that long term my other investments will exceed, after tax, the cost of that mortgage. You would need to check the original mortgage papers you signed with the originators.  Chances are you agreed to allow the mortgage to be sold and serviced by other parties. Refinancing would also put you in the same boat unless you got them to take that clause out of the mortgage/refinance papers. Also, chances are most small banks and originators simply can not keep mortgages on their books. There are also third parties that service loans too that do not actually own the mortgages as well. This is another party that could be involved out of many in your mortgage.  I would also not worry about 127/139 complaints out of 1,100,000 loans. Most probably were underwater on their mortgage but I am sure a few are legitimate complaints.  Banks make mistakes (I know right!).  Anyway, good luck and let me know if you find out anything different. I believe your statement is mostly correct:  ...all the expert recommendations are based on an inflexible conventional wisdom that presumes that all renters are relatively resource-poor. When you purchase a $50 electronic item at the store and are offered an extended warranty for $3, most people turn it down, not only because they don't think it's worth it, but also because in the event that the item fails between say years 1 and 3, they don't worry enough about that $50 to care if they have to buy a new one, or live without it. The percentage of your net worth also matters. For example, if you had an entire loss tomorrow, you'd be out $20K if you needed to re-purchase your possessions. (30K minus 10K in current coverage.) $20K is approximately 1/44 or 2.3% of your net worth. If a catastrophe occurs and you only lose 2.3% of your net worth, some might consider that lucky, so from that point of view it isn't really a big deal. But on the flip side, if the extra insurance only costs you $50 more per year, you may not even notice that dent in your net worth either. I think for most people, the value of items in their home may be their net worth, or at least a much larger percentage of it, in which case the insurance makes more sense. For someone in your position, it probably doesn't make much difference either way. If you had $300K in valuables in your house, perhaps your point of view would be different. Are there any other losses that can be expected beyond the above? The lender may have to invest some money into the house in order to get it in shape to sell. Also, while the lender possesses the house they are liable to the property taxes and possibly utilities. are there any statutes or pressures to motivate the financial institution to get fair price when the property is sold? The lender is motivated to at least break even when selling the property in order to limit losses on their investment. This means they are very motivated to seek a higher price, but they're also motivated to sell the property quickly in order to limit their losses due to property taxes. Usually the lender takes a loss of the investment if foreclosure occurs; only 10 percent to 20 percent  of auctioned foreclosed houses did yield a surplus. When the lender sells the foreclosed property using a realtor, they're motivated to sell it as quickly as possible so long as they break even. In this case there is little motivation to sell the property for a surplus. If the property is being sold via auction, then time is not a factor and the lender will just sell to the highest bidder. They all have rules about what type of insurance you must have;  and if you don't have the required insurance,  they will offer to contract one for you.  That's fair enough,  I had to prove to my CU that the insurance I have was up to their standards,  no biggy.  Where it becomes a scam,  is when i) the lender refuses to accept your existing insurance as valid no matter what;  ii) buys an insurance on your behalf without asking/giving you the option of getting your own;  and iii) buys an overpriced insurance (e.g., insurance for the fair market value of your house rather than the cost of rebuilding it...),  likely from themselves  (and possibly iv) uses this as a pretext to foreclose your house). Good! The article says it was some kind of collateral protection insurance that customers were signed up for despite it being unrequired for the loan. The accusations is that WF racketeered about 800,000 loans by bundling in this bunk insurance cost as part of the loan structure. I'm glad you're not caught up in it. Agreed...all good points. Another point I usually bring up too is that auto loans are secured. You mention the liquidity aspect of the collateral involved here, which should help lower the loss given default on many of these defaulting loans. Repossessing a car and selling it likely doesn't have the same lead time and legal drama associated with it than foreclosing on and re-selling homes.  I guess I should let a true ABL guy opine on this aspect of things as I am by no means an expert on ABL LGDs. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. "The ""just accounting"" is how money market works these days. Lets look at this simplified example: The bank creates an asset - loan in the amount of X, secured by a house worth 1.25*X (assuming 20% downpayment). The bank also creates a liability in the amount of X to its depositors, because the money lent was the money first deposited into the bank by someone else (or borrowed by the bank from the Federal Reserve(*), which is, again, a liability). That liability is not secured. Now the person defaults on the loan in the amount of X, but at that time the prices dropped, and the house is now worth 0.8*X. The bank forecloses, sells the house, recovers 80% of the loan, and removes the asset of the loan, creating an asset of cash in the value of 0.8*X. But the liability in the amount of X didn't go anywhere. Bank still has to repay the X amount of money back to its depositors/Feds. The difference? 20% of X in our scenario - that's the bank's loss. (*) Federal Reserve is the US equivalent of a central bank." You can't insure for more than the financial cost of the event that you're insuring against, but that can be more than the current market value of the item. If you'd need to buy a new one, then that's your financial loss. New-for-old cover is common for property insurance. You submitted a claim for damage to the deck. The insurance company notified the mortgage company. Now the mortgage company wants to make sure that the collateral for the loan is still in good condition. They want you to make the repairs that you insisted needed to be done. They may even require you to use a licensed contractor before releasing the funds. Once you own the house without a mortgage, then you can decide for yourself if minor repairs need to be done.