Blown Mortgage » Mortgage News/Insight

The Obama Administration Has a Brainstorming Session with the Hardest Hit States; What Should the TARP Fund Be Spent On?

Andrew — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:33:38 +0000

When everybody was saying HAMP’s loan modification was dead as a dodo the Obama Administration has revamped the program under a new Hardest Hit Fund enhancement. This enhancement promises to allocate $600 million from the TARP fund to finance innovative ways of keeping people in their homes or avoid outright foreclosures. This help has been focused on specific states that have been particularly hard hit by the financial crisis. Throwing more money at an idea is not really a novel concept. What is kind of novel is that the Administration is asking for suggestions on how to spend it best.

The first HFA initiative targeted five states based on the rate of decline in house prices (over 20%). The idea was to help people with underwater and subprime mortgages. However, the situation has changed, the fastest demographic joining the list of troubled homeowners are unemployed homeowners with prime mortgages but with not enough income to pay for them. That is why the Administration is now targeting states with a high rate of unemployment (over 12%). There are five states that comply with this criterion: North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Oregon. The key though, is that each state can use the fund as they see fit, well, within reason.

These states can now apply for this enhancement of the existing HFA fund. What gives this new enhancement an actual chance of being useful is that each state has some freedom in deciding how to use the money. The program does qualify the allowable uses of the money, but it gives officials in each state the freedom to decide the particulars. The guidelines are rather broad: 1) Protect home values, 2) Preserve homeownership and promote jobs and economic growth, and 3) Provide public accountability.

This gives states a chance to find creative ways to use the money in the most effective way. Relying on the creative thinking of government officials might or might not be a stroke of genius; time will tell. The administration has encouraged eligible states to submit proposals on how the cash should be spent in their counties. The schemes the TARP fund could be used for includes:

1) Unemployment Programs. This is actually already in place. Troubled homeowners that are currently unemployed will be provided with a temporary loan modification, or forbearance period, where the mortgage payments will be reduced to 31% of their current income.

2) Loan Modifications. This is a rather boring alternative, which will simply give financial institutions and lenders more money for accepting loan modifications.

3) Principal balance reduction. This is a more interesting option; reducing the balance of a loan to offset underwater mortgages and allow for further modifications.

4) Second Lien Reductions. This is also something now done by the HAFA program. It basically means junior lien holders of mortgages are paid off / compensated for allowing a short sale to go ahead even though they know too well they will not get a dime from it.

These are some of the ideas already on the table; the hope is that new and wonderful suggestions will crop up like some kind of multi-state brainstorm. What would you do with the cash? Obama seems to be open to suggestions.

Share At:

Hide Sites

New VA Loan GFE Rules

Blaughridge — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:44:40 +0000

The VA has recently offered some insight into how lenders should disclose loan origination fees in relation to the industry’s new Good Faith Estimate.

Lenders and prospective military homebuyers alike should probably stop and take notice: Starting May 1, all VA loan applications must adhere to these new disclosure procedures.

Revisions to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, aimed to make the home-buying process more transparent for consumers. But there’s been some confusion among VA mortgage lenders regarding exactly how those origination fees should be explained.

The revamped Good Faith Estimate lumps together all of the fees originators receive from the purchase. The Department of Veterans Affairs limits origination fees for veterans to one percent, along with a few other acceptable fees.

The VA offers lenders a choice for disclosing fees when their total origination fee is higher than that 1 percent threshold.

If there’s room, lenders can itemize their charges in the 800 lines of the HUD-1Settlement Statement. A new origination statement must be created if there isn’t enough space. That new statement must also be signed and dated by the borrower.

Lenders who would rather just include a separate origination statement should not create an itemized list for the HUD-1 document.

VA officials have suggested that lenders start implementing these guidelines at once to prepare for the May 1 deadline.

The agency also recently noted that lenders do not need to issue an Interest Rate and Discount Disclosure Statement for VA loans when they’ve already used the new Good Faith Estimate and HUD-1 documentation.

Share At:

Hide Sites

Mortgage Bonds Rise Rates Could Follow

Andrew — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:46:22 +0000

Fannie and Freddie are on soaring. For five days in a row Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage securities have rose. Interesting the rise in mortgage bonds is not due to an increase in the mortgage refinancing and modifying but in a reduction in refinancing, well below the forecasted levels.
Bloomberg.com reported yesterday a rise in Fannie Mae’s current-coupon 30 year fixed rate mortgage bonds of 0.09 to 4.8 percent. This is the highest since June 18.

What has driven this rise in Mortgage Bonds?

The Treasury Department has published reports with higher benchmark rates due to a recent report that showed a slowing down in the number of jobs lost in the United States.

What are the effects?

This rise in mortgage rates has caused refinancing to slow down. This is evident when you see the drop of 21 percent on the number of prepayments last month to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities. This drop was sharper than analysts predicted triggering the rise in mortgage bonds.
The rise in mortgage rates after record lows in interest rates has slowed down the number of mortgage refinancing, making it much harder homeowners without the best credit rating to get their mortgage refinance approved.

How Is The Obama Administration Reacting?

The Obama Administration announced a loosening of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rules in order to boost the number of borrowers that refinance and modify their loans by increasing the percentage of the home value the mortgage can represent to 125% of the house’s value. This helps homeowners that have seen the value of their house drop refinance.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also planning to reduce their home financing costs. Currently even the government sponsored mortgage companies charge up to 2% of loan balances with sub-premium customers with low equity or credit scores.
The Bottom Line

An increase in mortgage bond rates is not necessarily good news for borrowers as it will increase interest rates but the rise is being pushed by lower unemployment growth which is a good news for the overall economy. Government mortgage companies Freddie Mac and Fannie May must also reinvest their “profits” in aiding borrowers in trouble by either reducing their fees or the principal on loans which can be good news for borrowers in the future.

Share At:

Hide Sites

The home price increase that isn’t

Constantine von Hoffman — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:54:26 +0000

The media organizations are abuzz with bad information this morning.

CNN: Home price index up for 1st time in 3 years
Wall St. Journal: Home Prices Post Monthly Increase
Financial Times: US home prices rise in May

What they all said was that month-to-month prices rose 0.5%, according to Standard & Poor’s and Case-Shiller. Coming on the heals of yesterday’s stories about a third straight month of increased home sales, this would seem to be very important. And it would have been – if it had been true.

When Case-Schiller reports they first put out a raw set of numbers and then a seasonally adjusted set (sales go up in the fall, down in winter, etc.). I suspect these stories were based on the first set of numbers. In the non-adjusted number, the 20-city composite index actually went up 0.6%! Unfortunately adjust for the seasons and they decreased by 0.22% Seasonally adjusted prices fell in 12 of the 20 Case-Shiller cities.

(While the WSJ did update its story, it hasn’t changed the headline – leading to very confusing reading.)

The fact that even a half-a-percent improvement in prices caused reporters to get all hot and bothered shows exactly how desperate we are for anything resembling good economic news. Look at how CNN tried to put lipstick on this pig: “On an annual basis, home prices in the 20 cities fell 17.1%, but it was the fourth straight month that the year-over-year decline lessened.” Break out the champagne!

While it is undoubtedly a good time to buy a house, it is still a very tough time to sell one and no amount of spin will change that.

Share At:

Hide Sites

Mortgage interest rates drop but illegal mortgage fees could negate savings

Andrew — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:17:09 +0000

Mortgage interest rates drop but illegal mortgage fees could negate savings

The steep drop in interest rates has caused a shopping frenzy in many western countries with buyers looking for a good deal. The rise in applications has not been in proportion to the number of sales but the figures are still encouraging.

If your credit score is in good shape and you have some savings for a down payment and some more for three to six months mortgage payments you could do very well with either a refinance of your current mortgage or with a new mortgage. Even the high end jumbo mortgages have opened up as the interest rates for large mortgages starts to drop also.

However illegal mortgage fees could nullify the savings you make on your mortgage refinance, loan modification or new mortgage.

How can you identify illegal mortgage fees and what can you do about it?
Illegal mortgages how to find them and avoid them.

It would be hard to list all the possible ways of charging illegal fees from borrowers. Three principles might be more useful: Lenders deserve to be paid for their work and services. They should not charge for services they did not perform and they should not receive illegal kickbacks.
For lowly borrowers like us finding out about illegal kickbacks is pretty much impossible unless we invest counterproductive amounts of money investigating lenders what is more feasible is to check for lenders that mark up on service other companies or individuals provide. For instance if your bank requires a valuation of your property by a qualified surveyor and the company charges the bank $300 the bank is not allowed to charge a handling fee or markup in any other way fees for work they have not carried out.

As I mentioned above it is difficult to provide a comprehensive list of fees you must beware of but this will give you an idea. Banks cannot put mark-ups or get kickbacks for that matter on:
-   Appraisals
-   Settlement fees. That is settlement fees charged by other banks or institutions. Banks will charge settlement fees when you pay loan early as well as other circumstances unless you have negotiated some other arrangement.
-   Credit reports.
-   Flood certifications.
-   Pest inspections.
-   Title insurance and title searches.

This is important to understand because most of us would expect that banks are allowed to charge a handling fee for services they arrange but they aren’t, although that hasn’t stopped many lenders to try and get away with it.
There is an opportunity to find a good mortgage deal or to refinance your mortgage, do your homework find the right mortgage for you, but whatever you do make sure you don’t lose all your savings on illegal mortgage fees.

Share At:

Hide Sites

Mortgage modification law threatens right to representation in California

Jay Hammond — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:46:49 +0000

What poses the greater threat to homeowners during the current mortgage crisis, predatory mortgage modification companies or the costs of hiring an attorney to represent them during the modification or foreclosure process?

According to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, lawyers’ retainers and fees represent the greatest threat to homeowners. Over the weekend he demanded state legislature include a clause prohibiting attorneys from accepting retainers for performing legal services to prevent foreclosures in SB 64 if they wanted him to sign the bill into California law.

SB 64 is intended to protect homeowners from mortgage modification companies. It seems that preventing homeowners from retaining legal representation to work on their behalf would not constitute protecting the homeowner. Of course, to give the Governor the benefit of the doubt, his intent in demanding the clause may be to assure all homeowners are able to retain counsel whether they can afford it or not.

At issue is whether eliminating retainers or allowing lawyers representing homeowners during the mortgage modification process to receive payment or security deposits upfront will effectively limit their ability to represent their clients. According to Martin Andleman of ML-Implode this is exactly the effect this will have.

“SB 04 will essentially deny homeowners their right to counsel guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments, by making it so that no lawyer would be able to take on such a client,” Andleman explained.

The National Association of consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) agrees, saying “While there have been a very few law firms implicated in loan modification abuses, adequate legal recourse against bad actors in our profession already exists, including disbandment and criminal prosecution for fraud. Because other fly-by-night scammers can pack up and move on to greener pastures on very short notice and don’t have a bar license to lose, it is understandable why consumer advocates would seek protections for consumers against those predators. However, placing blanket retainer restrictions on attorneys whom consumers may need to represent them is an unconscionable effort to interfere with their legal rights.”

The simple fact is, retainers are a standard business practice for attorneys. Retainers assure lawyers that they will be paid for their services at the time they are rendered, something that is particularly important in situations like mortgage modifications which can take months to resolve or may be over in a matter of weeks.

In addition, the possibility exists that lawyers may not get paid for the work they do on mortgage modifications if they have to wait until the process is complete. Loan modifications are not the solution to every financial problem homeowners encounter. In fact, some homeowners may still end up losing their home to foreclosure or filing for bankruptcy after their mortgage is modified raising serious questions regarding how attorneys would be paid in these circumstances. Also, consumer filing bankruptcy commonly consult attorneys during that process and it makes no sense for consumers not to have the same protections while trying to prevent bankruptcy.

“Homeowners are scared, emotional, unknowledgeable and panicked when at risk of losing their homes,” said Andleman. “For the government to support a position that they should go to their lender alone is criminal. It is the worst abuse of power I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

If consumers do not benefit from the elimination of retainers, the question must be asked: who does? The obvious answer is lenders and mortgage servicers who will be more likely to be dealing directly with homeowners rather than attorneys. This gives lenders a distinct advantage in negotiations. Beyond the favorable terms lenders are likely to insist on before agreeing to modify a mortgage there are also the fees banks will collect. Data collected by the federal government indicates banks will earn $38 billion in fees this year and that’s just from overdraft fees. Imagine what else might be hidden in the fine print.

When you dig a little deeper it becomes obvious that the clause eliminating retainers in SB 94 is just not in the best interest of homeowners. It may even prove to be instrumental in prolonging the current crisis rather than shortening it. As with so much in this crisis it is “buyer beware”.

“The modifications that the loan servicers are offering homeowners, if they will even talk to them, are short term fixes that will leave the homeowners facing foreclosure at a later date,” said Alan Jablonski, a Long Beach, CA based consumer tights attorney and author of “Successfully Navigating the Mortgage Maze”.

Share At:

Hide Sites

Builders, Realtors attack new regs on home appraisal

Constantine von Hoffman — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:27:32 +0000

A bill in congress would suspend a set of rules designed to reform the relationship between mortgage brokers and appraisers. The Home Valuation Code of Conduct, which went into effect on May 1, prevents lenders from directly picking appraisers for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac secured mortgages. This was aimed at eliminating conflicts of interest suspected of inflating home values. Under HVCC lenders must contract with third parties known as appraisal management companies which then select the appraisers.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR), The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and other groups say HVCC appraisals under-value properties. In a release, the NAHB said more than a quarter “of builders are seeing signed sales contracts fall through the cracks because appraisals on their homes are coming in below the contract sales price.” HVCC critics say this is because lenders now have to use lowest bidder appraisers allegedly unfamiliar with local market conditions. Another interpretation is that the appraisers are setting prices that show actual – as opposed to hoped for – market conditions.

It is interesting to note that the complaints are carefully worded to imply the problem is with the appraiser and not with the seller’s pricing. As the NAHB put it: “Of those who are reporting appraisal problems, 54 percent said that the appraisal amount was actually less than the cost of building the home.” This is very different from saying the appraisal was wrong. Instead the claim is that the property is no longer worth as much as what it cost to build it. Is that really any surprise?

The NAR used some incredibly artful phrasing in a release: “Among Realtor® respondents obtaining an appraisal for a client, 55 percent reported a perceived decrease in appraisal quality.” (Emphasis added) It is also worth noting that the appraisers are protesting the new regulations because the management companies are taking a chunk of the fees that used to go to the appraisers. They say that paying lower fees means using “appraisers from distant locations with less experience and training, or more pointedly: those who will work for less."

In response to these complaints Freddie Mac issued rules clarification stating appraisers "must be familiar with the local market,” choose "appropriate comparable sales," and certify they are "most similar" to the property being appraised.

We do not require appraisers to use Real Estate Owned (REO), foreclosure or short sales. However, if the appraiser determines that these are representative of the properties available to typical purchasers for the market in which the property is located, appraisers must consider their use.

(PDF of letter available here)

So, yes the appraisers do have to consider all market conditions and not just those that push home prices up.

Share At:

Hide Sites

Fed study: Obama mortgage plan should give money to borrowers, not banks

Constantine von Hoffman — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:21:32 +0000

A study by the Boston Fed has found that the administration’s mortgage rescue plan has failed to provide that all important profit incentive. According to today’s Boston Globe:

Mortgage lenders don’t try to rework most home loans held by borrowers facing foreclosure because it would probably mean losing money.

The Boston Fed’s findings suggest the Obama administration’s major effort to solve the foreclosure crisis by giving the lending industry $75 billion to rewrite delinquent loans to more affordable levels is not likely to work.

One of the study’s coauthors, Boston Fed senior economist Paul S. Willen, said the government would be better off giving the money directly to struggling borrowers to help them with their payments, rather than to lenders that are averse to working out the troubled loans.

“Loan modification is not profitable for lenders,” Willen said. “If it were profitable, they would go out and hire staff.”

Hard to argue with that logic.

Writing at the WSJ, Stan Liebowitz makes a strong case for the idea that now is exactly not the time for the government to be stepping in and fiddling with the markets.

What is really behind the mushrooming rate of mortgage foreclosures since 2007? The evidence from a huge national database containing millions of individual loans strongly suggests that the single most important factor is whether the homeowner has negative equity in a house — that is, the balance of the mortgage is greater than the value of the house. This means that most government policies being discussed to remedy woes in the housing market are misdirected.

The difference in policy implications is enormous: A significant reduction in foreclosures will happen when and only when housing prices stop falling and unemployment stops rising.

(Hat tip to the HousingDoom blog)

Leibowitz is hardly a laissez faire type. He just thinks that the economy would be best served by having government do what it should have been doing all along: Requiring, monitoring and enforcing strong underwriter standards.

We are at a crossroads where we can undo the damage to the housing market by strengthening underwriting standards in a reasonable way. But to do so political leaders must face up to the actual causes of the mortgage crisis, not fictitious causes that fit political agendas and election strategies.

Yeah, I’m not holding my breath on that one.

Constantine von Hoffman is a veteran business journalist and social media consultant. He write the blog CollateralDamage, a satirical look at marketing and business.

Share At:

Hide Sites

HUD Expands Making Home Affordable Eligibility

Jay Hammond — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:20:31 +0000

On July 1, 2009, U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan announced an expansion of the Making Home Affordable Refinance Program to include borrowers who are current but up to 125 percent underwater on their mortgage. The announcement was made while the Secretary toured a Las Vegas neighborhood with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Congresswoman Dina Titus.

“This decision is part of our ongoing efforts to maximize the effectiveness of the Making Home Affordable program and adapt to an ever-changing housing market,” said Treasury Secretary Tim Geither. “By expanding refinance eligibility, we can bring relief to more struggling homeowners more quickly. It’s a crucial step in our broader efforts to get America’s housing market and economy on the path to recovery.”

Las Vegas is the ground zero of the foreclosure crisis. Not only does the area lead the nation in foreclosures, more than two-thirds of current mortgage holders in the market have mortgages higher than their property is currently worth. Prior to the announced expansion, only those borrowers whose first mortgage did not exceed 105 percent of the current market value of their property were eligible for the program.

Donovan also announced plans to deploy HUD Foreclosure Rapid Response Teams to assess the area hardest hit by foreclosure, starting in Las Vegas. The Las Vegas team will consist of two-senior-level HUD Field staff having experience in Single Family Housing and community outreach. Over they next two weeks these team members will be determining the need in Nevada and surrounding areas. HUD will commit two full-time employees to implement the Foreclosure Rapid Response Team’s recommendations.

Additionally, HUD plans to deploy two Fair Housing equal opportunity specialists to the Las Vegas HUD office. HUD receive about 100 housing discrimination complaints annually from Nevada residents, more than double what was received in 2005. The Fair Housing specialists will conduct local outreach and education as well as receiving discrimination complaints and conducting investigations. With a local presence, HUD’s Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity office should make it easier for Nevada Residents to obtain justice and relief , to educate housing consumers about predatory lending and to conduct program compliance and monitoring in more than 3,000 public housing units and over 8,500 Section 8 Vouchers.

Share At:

Hide Sites

Is Trust Returning to the Mortgage Industry?

Jay Hammond — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:12:57 +0000

“The economy is based on trust,” said Dean Johnson, associate professor of finance at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan.

In situations like the recent housing bubble, or even the stock market collapse of 1929, where markets were driven by debt and fueled by the false expectation that values can only increase, trust can be a very fragile thing.

“One little blip and everything started to unwind,” Johnson said. “The particulars are different, but the basics are familiar.”

Trust, however, seems to be coming back, according to Johnson. If people are cautious and not spending money, the government and financial industry must take action to encourage capital liquidity. During the first half of 2009, this is exactly what they have been doing. And if the effects have not been as immediate as some would like and others needed, at least their efforts are beginning to take effect.

Why does Johnson believe trust is returning? He points to the Volatility Index, or VIX, which measures investors’ expectations of how volatile the stock markets will be. The VIX reached all-time highs in 2008.

“People think of it as the fear gauge,” Johson explained. “it’s encouraging that the VIX, though still high be historical standards, is down about 60 percent from what it was at its peak in November.”

Other, more recent, signs that trust is being rebuilt in the American housing/real estate markets and the financial industry include:

USA Today reports that while the construction market remains weak the housing market may be improving slightly. Residential construction reportedly dropped to the lowest level since December 1995. Pending homes sales increased slightly in May, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR).
Proposed legislation to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency is making progress at the federal level, according to the Washington Post. The Post reports that the Treasury Department’s proposal for a new federal agency to consolidate the plethora of state and federal regulators responsible for overseeing the lending industry arrived on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
At the end of June, Fannie Mae, which is still under the conservatorship of the federal government, reported its mortgage portfolio grew at a compound annual rate of more than 35 percent in May. A report from Dow Jones appearing in the Wall Street Journal indicates a large jump in the issuing of mortgage-backed securities offset continued rises in single-family and multi-family mortgage delinquencies.

Notes of caution, however, are also being heard. Yale University economist and co-founder of the S&P/Case-Schiller home-price index, Robert Schiller told Bloomberg: “At this point, people are thinking the fall is over. The market is predicting the declines are over.” At the same time he is “not optimistic that we’re going to see any sharp rebound.”

Johnson agrees with Schiller.

“It’s still a risky market,” Johnson stresses. “This is the first time in history that you’ve been better off if you’d put your money under a mattress 10 years ago. But hopefully, this indicates that the financial markets are returning to normal.”

Of course this doesn’t mean the housing market or the financial industry will be returning to the halcyon days of pre-mortgage crisis days anytime soon. It doesn’t matter how badly investors, bankers, consumers, lenders, the government or the world at large want it.

“There’s no easy fix,” Johnson concluded. “We have to take our medicine. It took 20 years to create the over-leverage and it will take time to undo that.”

Share At:

Hide Sites