Yes.
Think about it. Anyone who lends money does so understanding that there is a risk that the borrower will refuse, or will be unable to re-pay the loan. Let’s do a quick example on $100,000 at 4% for 30 years.
Your payment would be $477.42, which you happen to faithfully pay for 5 years before you lose your job and fall behind.
During that 5 year period (60 payments) you paid out $28,645.00 of which $19,393.00 was pure interest to the bank. The balance on your note at this point is $90,748.00. The bank has already recovered nearly $20,000 of it’s initial risk in the first 5 years. Subtract the total interest from the balance of your loan, and you’re left with a break-even settlement.
If you offered a settlement of $71,355.00 ($90,748 – $19,393) which would be 78.6% of the balance owed, the bank would break even on you. Anyone who is persistent could make that deal happen.
So again, the answer is yes.
What if the settlement was less than the break even? You could still do it, because the risk involved involves a possibility of loss, which the bank has a tolerance for if they see that they’re going to lose more money in the future. Banks would rather cut their losses (loss mitigation) sooner than later.
So you offer $50,000 to pay off a $90,000 balance. On the surface that looks like a 55% payout, but remember that you’ve already paid them $20K or so. So a $50,000 settlement on $90,000 with an original loan of $100,000 is actually only a 30% loss.
If the bank had an insurance policy on the money, then there will be a claim that will close the gap even more, resulting in even more loss mitigation.
The bottom line is that any time someone owes someone else money, and the lender can see clearly that they are in a situation where they need to cut their losses, they will definitely cut their losses. You’d do it to if someone owed you money and offered you a “take it or leave it” settlement.
