OREGON REAL ESTATE ROUND TABLE

Author: Fred Stewart

  • America’s Credit and Housing Crisis: New State Bank Bills, Marketoracle.co.uk


    Seventeen states have now introduced bills for state-owned banks, and others are in the works.  Hawaii’s innovative state bank bill addresses the foreclosure mess.  County-owned banks are being proposed that would tackle the housing crisis by exercising the right of eminent domain on abandoned and foreclosed properties.  Arizona has a bill that would do this for homeowners who are current in their payments but underwater, allowing them to refinance at fair market value.

    The long-awaited settlement between 49 state Attorneys General and the big five robo-signing banks is proving to be a majordisappointment before it has even been signed, sealed and court approved.  Critics maintain that the bankers responsible for the housing crisis and the jobs crisis will again be buying their way out of jail, and the curtain will again drop on the scene of the crime.

    We may not be able to beat the banks, but we don’t have to play their game.  We can take our marbles and go home.  The Move Your Money campaign has already prompted more than 600,000 consumers to move their funds out of Wall Street banks into local banks, and there are much larger pools that could be pulled out in the form of state revenues.  States generally deposit their revenues and invest their capital with large Wall Street banks, which use those hefty sums to speculate, invest abroad, and buy up the local banks that service our communities and local economies.  The states receive a modest interest, and Wall Street lends the money back at much higher interest.

    Rhode Island is a case in point.  In an article titled “Where Are R.I. Revenues Being Invested? Not Locally,” Kyle Hence wrote in ecoRI Newson January 26th:

     

    According to a December Treasury report, only 10 percent of Rhode Island’s short-term investments reside in truly local in-state banks, namely Washington Trust and BankRI. Meanwhile, 40 percent of these investments were placed with foreign-owned banks, including a British-government owned bank under investigation by the European Union.

    Further, millions have been invested by Rhode Island in a fund created by a global buyout firm . . . . From 2008 to mid-2010, the fund lost 10 percent of its value — more than $2 million. . . . Three of four of Rhode Island’s representatives in Washington, D.C., count [this fund] amongst their top 25 political campaign donors . . . .

    Hence asks:

    Are Rhode Islanders and the state economy being served well here? Is it not time for the state to more fully invest directly in Rhode Island, either through local banks more deeply rooted in the community or through the creation of a new state-owned bank?

    Hence observes that state-owned banks are “[o]ne emerging solution being widely considered nationwide  . . . . Since the onset of the economic collapse about five years ago, 16 states have studied or explored creating state-owned banks, according to a recent Associated Press report.”

    2012 Additions to the Public Bank Movement

    Make that 17 states, including three joining the list of states introducing state bank bills in 2012: Idaho (a bill for a feasibility study), New Hampshire (a bill for a bank), and Vermont (introducing THREE bills—one for a state bank study, one for a state currency, and one for a state voucher/warrant system).  With North Dakota, which has had its own bank for nearly a century, that makes 18 states that have introduced bills in one form or another—36% of U.S. states.  For states and text of bills, see here.

    Other recent state bank developments were in Virginia, Hawaii, Washington State, and California, all of which have upgraded from bills to study the feasibility of a state-owned bank to bills to actually establish a bank.  The most recent, California’s new bill, was introduced on Friday, February 24th.

    All of these bills point to the Bank of North Dakota as their model.  Kyle Hence notes that North Dakota has maintained a thriving economy throughout the current recession:

    One of the reasons, some say, is the Bank of North Dakota, which was formed in 1919 and is the only state-owned or public bank in the United States. All state revenues flow into the Bank of North Dakota and back out into the state in the form of loans.

    Since 2008, while servicing student, agricultural and energy— including wind — sector loans within North Dakota, every dollar of profit by the bank, which has added up to tens of millions, flows back into state coffers and directly supports the needs of the state in ways private banks do not.

    Publicly-owned Banks and the Housing Crisis

    A novel approach is taken in the new Hawaii bill:  it proposes a program to deal with the housing crisis and the widespread problem of breaks in the chain of title due to robo-signing, faulty assignments, and MERS.  (For more on this problem, see here.)  According to a February 10th report on the bill from the Hawaii House Committees on Economic Revitalization and Business & Housing:

    The purpose of this measure is to establish the bank of the State of Hawaii in order to develop a program to acquire residential property in situations where the mortgagor is an owner-occupant who has defaulted on a mortgage or been denied a mortgage loan modification and the mortgagee is a securitized trust that cannot adequately demonstrate that it is a holder in due course.

    The bill provides that in cases of foreclosure in which the mortgagee cannot prove its right to foreclose or to collect on the mortgage, foreclosure shall be stayed and the bank of the State of Hawaii may offer to buy the property from the owner-occupant for a sum not exceeding 75% of the principal balance due on the mortgage loan.  The bank of the State of Hawaii can then rent or sell the property back to the owner-occupant at a fair price on reasonable terms.

    Arizona Senate Bill 1451, which just passed the Senate Banking Committee 6 to 0, would do something similar for homeowners who are current on their payments but whose mortgages are underwater (exceeding the property’s current fair market value).  Martin Andelman callsthe bill a “revolutionary approach to revitalizing the state’s increasingly water-logged housing market, which has left over 500,000 ofArizona’s homeowners in a hopelessly immobile state.”

    The bill would establish an Arizona Housing Finance Reform Authority to refinance the mortgages of Arizona homeowners who owe more than their homes are currently worth.  The existing mortgage would be replaced with a new mortgage from AHFRA in an amount up to 125% of the home’s current fair market value. The existing lender would get paid 101% of the home’s fair market value, and would get a non-interest-bearing note called a “loss recapture certificate” covering a portion of any underwater amounts, to be paid over time.  The capital to refinance the mortgages would come from floating revenue bonds, and payment on the bonds would come solely from monies paid by the homeowner-borrowers. An Arizona Home Insurance Fund would create a cash reserve of up to 20 percent of the bond and would be used to insure against losses. The bill would thus cost the state nothing.

    Critics of the Arizona bill maintain that it shifts losses from collapsed property values onto banks and investors, violating the law of contracts; and critics of the Hawaii bill maintain that the state bank could wind up having paid more than market value for a slew of underwater homes. An option that would avoid both of these objections is one suggested by Michael Sauvante of the Commonwealth Group, discussed earlierhere: the state or county could exercise its right of eminent domain on blighted, foreclosed and abandoned properties.  It could offer to pay fair market value to anyone who could prove title (something that with today’s defective title records normally can’t be done), then dispose of the property through a publicly-owned land bank as equity and fairness dictates.  If a bank or trust could prove title, the claimant would get fair market value, which would be no less than it would have gotten at an auction; and if it could not prove title, it legally would have no claim to the property.  Investors who could prove actual monetary damages would still have an unsecured claim in equity against the mortgagors for any sums owed.

     

    Rhode Island Next?

    As the housing crisis lingers on with little sign of relief from the Feds, innovative state and local solutions like these are gaining adherents in other states; and one of them is Rhode Island, which is in serious need of relief.  According to The Pew Center on the States, “The country’s smallest state . . . was one of the first states to fall into the recession because of the housing crisis and may be one of the last to emerge.”

    Rhode Islanders are proud of having been first in a number of more positive achievements, including being the first of the 13 original colonies to declare independence from British rule.  A state bank presentation was made to the president of the Rhode Island Senate and other key leaders earlier this month that was reportedly well received.  Proponents have ambitions of making Rhode Island the first state in this century to move its money out of Wall Street into its own state bank, one owned and operated by the people for the people.

    Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.  In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how a private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back.  Her websites are http://WebofDebt.com and http://EllenBrown.com. 

    Ellen Brown is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Ellen Brown

    © Copyright Ellen Brown 2012

    Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article33365.html

    Related articles

  • Mass Court May Rule on Retroactivity of some Foreclosures Tied to ‘Naked Mortgages’, by Jann Swanson Mortgagenewsdaily.com


    Another next major marker in the convoluted foreclosure landscape will probably come in the next few weeks when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is expected to rule on Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae).  This is another in a series of cases challenging the right of various lenders and nominees to foreclose on delinquent mortgages based on assertions that those parties do not own or at least cannot prove they own the enabling legal documents.

    Eaton raises an additional point that has excited interest – whether or not that foreclosure can be challenged and compensation enforced on a retroactive basis or whether such retroactivity exacts too high a cost or permanently clouds title.

    The details of the case are fairly standard, involving a note given by Henrietta Eaton to BankUnited and a contemporaneous mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS).  The mortgage was later assigned by MERS to Green Tree servicing and the assignment did not reference the note.  The Eaton Home was subsequently foreclosed upon by Green Tree which assigned its rights under the foreclosure to Fannie Mae which sought to evict Eaton.  Eaton sued, charging that the loan servicer did not hold the note proving that Eaton was obliged to pay the mortgage.

    The Massachusetts Superior Court relied on a January, 2011 ruling in U.S. Bank V. Ibanez in which the court held that the assignment of a mortgage must be effective before the foreclosure in order to be valid and that as holder of the note separated from the mortgage due to a lack of effective assignment, the Plaintiffs had only a beneficial interest in the mortgage note and the power of sale statute granted foreclosure authority to the mortgagee, not to the owner of the beneficial interest.

    In Eaton the lower court said it was “cognizant of sound reason that would have historically supported the common law rule requiring the unification of the promissory note and the mortgage note in the foreclosing entity prior to foreclosure. Allowing foreclosure by a mortgagee not in possession of the mortgage note is potentially unfair to the mortgagor. A holder in due course of the promissory note could seek to recover against the mortgagor, thus exposing her to double liability.”

    In its brief to the Supreme Judicial Court, Fannie Mae contests the lower court ruling on the grounds that:

    1.  Requiring unity of the note and mortgage to foreclose would create a cloud on the Title and result in adverse consequence for Massachusetts homeowners.

    2.  A ruling requiring unity of the note and mortgage to conduct a valid foreclosure should be limited to prospective application only (because)

    A.  Such a ruling was not clearly foreshadowed and

    B.  Retroactive application could result in hardship and injustice.

    The case has been the impetus for filings of nearly a dozen amicus briefs from groups such as the Land Title Association, Real Estate Bar Association, and foreclosure law firms, most in response to a SJC request for comment on whether any ruling should be applied retroactively and if so what the impact would be on the title of some 40,000 homes foreclosed in the last few years.

    Of particular interest is a brief filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, conservator of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which some observers said might be the first time the agency had intervened in a particular foreclosure case.

    FHFA asked the court to apply any decision to uphold the lower court decision prospectively rather than retrospectively.  It’s argument:  applying a ruling retroactively would be “a direct threat to orderly operation of the mortgage market.”   FHFA also said “Retroactive application of a decision requiring unity of the note and the mortgage for a valid foreclosure would impose costs on U.S. Taxpayers and would frustrate the statutory objectives of Conservatorship.”

    “There presently is no mechanism or requirement under Massachusetts law to record the identity of the person entitled to enforce the note at the time of foreclosure,” FHFA said.  “Therefore, a retroactive rule requiring unity of the note and mortgage for a valid foreclosure would potentially call into question the title of any property with a foreclosure in its chain of title within at least the last twenty years.”

    A contrary opinion was advanced in a brief filed by Georgetown University Law School Professor Adam Levitin who called the ruling that a party cannot foreclose on a “naked mortgage” (one separated from the note) merely a restatement of commercial law and “to the extent that the mortgage industry has disregarded a legal principle so commonsensical and uncontroversial that it has been encapsulated in a Restatement, it does so at its peril.”

    Levitin argues that it is impossible to know how widespread the problem of naked mortgages may be either in Massachusetts or nationwide so this should temper any evaluation of the impact of retroactivity.  He also states that there are several factors “that should assuage concerns about clouded title resulting from a retroactively applicable ruling requiring a unity of the note and mortgage.”  He points out that adverse possession, pleading standards, burdens of proof and equitable defenses such as laches all combine to make the likelihood of challenging past foreclosure unlikely and sharply limiting the retroactive effect of a ruling.

    Kathleen M. Howley and Thom Weidlich, writing for Bloomberg noted that a decision to uphold the lower court “could lead to a surge in claims from home owners seeking to overturn seizures.”

    According to Howley and Weidlich, the SJC ruled last year on two foreclosure cases that handed properties back to owners on naked mortgage grounds.  The Ibanez case, referenced above dealt with two single family houses, but in Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez the court handed an apartment building back to the previous owner five years after the foreclosure.  In the interim a developer had purchased the building and turned it into condos.  The condo owners lost their units without compensation and the building now stands vacant.

    The decision may be available before month’s end and as Massrealestateblog.com said, “For interested legal observers of the foreclosure crisis, it really doesn’t get any better than this”.

    Related articles

  • Short Sale Listing: 4921 SW CORBETT AVE Portland, Or. $299,000


    [object HTMLTextAreaElement]

    via Short Sale Listing: 4921 SW CORBETT AVE Portland, Or. $299,000.

  • Prototype of Standardized Monthly Mortgage Statement is Released, by Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times


    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau‘s proposed statement is designed to provide clear information about the loan on a single page and wouldn’t change each time your loan is sold to a new servicer.

     

     

    Reporting from Washington—

    Your monthly mortgage bill soon could get easier to understand, and it wouldn’t change each time your loan is sold to a new servicer.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has developed a proposed standardized mortgage servicer statement designed to provide clear information about the loan on a single page.

    The prototype released Monday included a breakdown of how much of the monthly payment went to principal, interest and escrow. The form also detailed the outstanding principal, maturity date, prepayment penalty and, for adjustable-rate mortgages, the time when the interest rate could change.

    “This information will help consumers stay on top of their mortgage costs and hold their mortgage servicers accountable for fixing errors that crop up,” said Richard Cordray, the agency’s director. “Given the widespread mortgage servicing problems we’ve seen over the past few years, consumers need clear disclosures they can count on.”

    Although many servicers already provide such information on their monthly statements, there are no industrywide standards, the agency said.

    Such standards are a good idea, and initial reaction from servicers to the agency’s proposal was positive, said Rod J. Alba, senior counsel in the mortgage markets division at the American Bankers Assn.

    The agency posted a working draft of the standardized statement on its website,http://www.consumerfinance.gov to solicit input from the public and industry before a version of the form formally is proposed this summer.

    Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said simplified mortgage statements would help resolve the broad mortgage servicing problems that were at the heart of last week’s federal and state settlement with five of the nation’s largest banks over botched foreclosure paperwork.

    The consumer agency is required under the 2010 financial reform law to put new mortgage servicing rules in place to help consumers, Cordray said. The law has specific requirements for mortgage statements, including a phone number and email address for the customer to get information about the loan, as well as information about housing counselors.

    The new mortgage statement is the latest consumer financial paperwork the agency is trying to simplify.

    In May, it released two prototypes for shorter, easier-to-understand disclosure forms that lenders would have to give home buyers before they close on a mortgage. The agency has been receiving comments on the forms and tested them last month in Philadelphia.

    And in December, the agency proposed a simplified credit card agreement form to make it easier to understand interest rate terms and comparison shop.

    The agency also is developing a new disclosure rule for hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages that would require consumers to be notified months before their first interest rate increase, as well as to be provided with a good-faith estimate of the new monthly payment.

    jim.puzzanghera@latimes.com

    Related articles

  • Successful Short Sales: It All Starts with the Seller, by Gee Dunsten, Rismedia.com


    RISMEDIA, Monday, February 13, 2012— Last month, I outlined the reasons why you should get back on the short sales bandwagon if you’ve fallen off. In the current market, more and more lenders are coming around to the realization that short sales are a favorable option after all and, therefore, are processing and closing short sales at a much faster pace.

    That said, there are critical steps that must be taken throughout the short sale process.

    First and foremost, make sure the home seller is truly eligible for a short sale. A credible, documented financial hardship resulting from a loss of employment, divorce, major medical crisis, death, etc., must exist. This financial hardship needs to be proven with proper documentation as well as detailed financial statements, paystubs, bank statements and tax returns.

    To properly identify and qualify a potential short sale client, conduct a thorough interview right up front—and be sure to leave no stone unturned. This will prevent you from futilely pursuing a short sale with the lender. I use the following Short Sale Seller Questionnaire with my clients:

    1. Is your property currently on the market? Is it listed with an agent?
    2. Is this your primary residence?
    3. When was the property purchased?
    4. What was the original purchase price?
    5. Who holds the mortgage?
    6. What kind of loan do you have?
    7. Do you have any other liens against your property?
    8. Who is on the title (or deed) for the property?
    9. Who is on the mortgage?
    10. Do you have mortgage insurance?
    11. Are you current with your payments? If not, how far in arrears are you?
    12. How much do you owe?
    13. Why do you need/want to sell?
    14. What caused you or will be causing you to miss your mortgage payment obligation?
    15. Do you have funds in accounts that could be used to satisfy the deficiency?
    16. Are you currently living in the property? If not, is the property being maintained?
    17. How soon do you need to move?
    18. Are you up to date on your condo or HOA payments (where applicable)?
    19. Do you owe any back taxes?
    20. Are you considering filing for bankruptcy protection?
    21. Are you currently pursuing a loan modification with your lender?
    22. Who is occupying the property?
    23. Do you hold or are you subject to any type of security clearance related to your job?
    24. What are your plans after you sell?
    25. Are you looking to receive any money from the sale of your home?
    26. How much income are you currently making from all sources?
    27. Do you anticipate any income change in the not-too-distant future?
    28. Do you have a pen and a piece of paper to make a couple of notes?

    Emphasize that inaccurate or missing information will potentially delay or completely thwart the short sale process. Next month, we’ll take a close look at working with lenders to secure a short sale.

    George “Gee” Dunsten, president of Gee Dunsten Seminars, Inc., has been a real estate agent and broker/owner for almost 40 years. Dunsten has been a senior instructor with the Council of Residential Specialists for more than 20 years. To reach Gee, please email, gee@gee-dunsten.com. For an extended version of this article, please visit www.rismedia.com.

     

     

    Related articles

  • Short Sale Listing: 2710 SW OLD ORCHARD RD, Portland Or. $695,000


    [object HTMLTextAreaElement]

    via Short Sale Listing: 2710 SW OLD ORCHARD RD, Portland Or. $695,000.

  • Has Housing Really Bottomed? Oftwominds.com


    Massive intervention by Federal agencies and the Federal Reserve have kept the market from discovering price and the risk premium in real estate. That sets up a “catch the falling knife” possibility for impatient real estate investors.

     

    A substantial percentage of many households’ net worth is comprised of the equity in their home. With the beating home prices have taken since 2007, existing and soon-to-be homeowners are keen to know: Are prices stabilizing? Will they begin to recover from here? Or is the “knife” still falling?

    To understand where housing prices are headed, we need to understand what drives them in the first place: policy, perception, and price discovery.

    In my December 2011 look at housing, I examined systemic factors such as employment and demographics that represent ongoing structural impediments to the much-awaited recovery in housing valuations and sales. This time around, we’re going to consider policy factors that influence the housing market.

    Yesterday while standing in line at our credit union I overheard another customer at a teller’s window request that her $100,000 Certificate of Deposit (CD) be withdrawn and placed in her checking account because, she said, “I’m not earning anything.” The woman was middle-aged and dressed for work in a professional white- collar environment — a typical member, perhaps, of the vanishing middle class.

    Sadly, she is doing exactly what Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve policies are intended to push people into doing: abandoning capital accumulation (savings) in favor of consumption or trying for a higher yield in risk assets such as stocks and real estate.

    It may strike younger readers as unbelievable that a few decades ago, in the low-inflation 1960s, savings accounts earned a government-stipulated minimum yield of 5.25%, regardless of where the Fed Funds Rate might be. Capital accumulation was widely understood to be the bedrock of household financial security and the source of productive lending, whether for 30-year home mortgages or loans taken on to expand an enterprise.

    How times — and the US economy — have changed.

    Now the explicit policy of the nation’s private central bank (the Federal Reserve) and the federal government’s myriad housing and mortgage agencies is to punish saving with essentially negative returns in favor of blatant speculation with borrowed money. Official inflation is around 3% and savings accounts earn less than 0.1%, leaving savers with a net loss of about 3% every year.  Even worse — if that is possible — these same agencies have extended housing lenders trillions of dollars in bailouts, backstops and guarantees, creating institutionalized moral hazard on an unprecedented scale.

    Recall that moral hazard simply means that the relationship between risk and return and has been severed, so risk can be taken in near-infinite amounts with the assurance that if that risk blows up, the gains remain in the hands of the speculator. Another way of describing this policy of government bailouts is “profits are private but losses are socialized.” That is, any profits earned from risky speculation are the speculator’s to keep, while all the losses are transferred to the public.

    While the housing bubble was most certainly based on a credit bubble enabled by lax oversight and fraudulent practices, the aftermath can be fairly summarized as institutionalizing moral hazard.

    Policy as Behavior Modification and Perception Management

    Quasi-official pronouncements by Fed Board members suggest that the Fed’s stated policy of punishing savers with a zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP) is outwardly designed to lower the cost of refinancing mortgages and buying a house. The first is supposed to free up cash that households can then spend on consumption, thereby boosting the economy. With savings earning a negative yield, consuming more becomes a tangibly attractive alternative. (How keeping the factories in Asia humming will boost the American economy is left unstated.)

    This near-complete destruction of investment income from household savings yields a rather poor return. Plausible estimates of the total gain that could be reaped by widespread refinancing hover around $40 billion a year, which is not much in a $15 trillion economy.

    There are real-world limits on this policy as well. Since the Fed can’t actually force lenders to refinance underwater mortgages, millions of homeowners are unable to take advantage of lower rates. From the point of view of lenders, declining household incomes and mortgages that exceed the home value (so-called negative equity) have lowered the creditworthiness of many homeowners.

    As a result, the stated Fed policy goal of lowering mortgage payments to boost consumer spending has met with limited success. Somewhat ironically, the mortgage industry’s well-known woes — extended time-frames for involuntary foreclosure, lenders’ hesitancy to concede to short sales (where the house is sold for less than the mortgage and the lender absorbs a loss), and strategic/voluntary defaults — may be putting an estimated $80 billion in “free cash” that once went to mortgages into defaulting consumer’s hands.

    The failure of the Fed’s policies to increase household’s surplus income via ZIRP leads us to the second implicit goal, lowering the cost of home ownership via super-low mortgage rates, which serves both as behavior modification and perception management. If low-interest rate mortgages and subsidized Federal programs that offer low down payments drop the price of home ownership below that of renting an equivalent house, then there is a substantial financial incentive to buy rather than rent.

    The implicit goal is to shape a general perception that the bottom is in, and it’s now safe to buy housing.

    First-time home buying programs and FHA (Federal Housing Authority) and VA (Veterans Administration) loans all offer very low down-payment options to qualified buyers. This extends a form of moral hazard to buyers as well as lenders: If a buyer need only scrape up $2,000 to buy a house, their losses are limited should they default to this same modest sum. Meanwhile, lenders working under the guarantee of FHA- and VA-backed loans are also insured against losses.

    The Fed’s desire to boost home sales by any means available is transparent. By boosting home sales, it hopes to stem the decline of house valuations and thus stop the hemorrhaging of bank losses from writing down impaired loan portfolios, and also stabilize remaining home equity for households, which has shrunk to a meager 38% of housing value.

    As many have noted, given that about 30% of all homes are owned free and clear, the amount of equity residing in the 70% of homes with a mortgage may well be in the single digits. (Data on actual equity remaining in mortgaged homes is not readily available, and would be subject to wide differences of opinion on actual market valuations.)

    Broadly speaking, housing as the bedrock of middle class financial security has been either destroyed (no equity) or severely impaired (limited equity).  The oversupply of homes on the market and in the “shadow inventory” of defaulted/foreclosed homes awaiting auction has also impaired the ability of homeowners to sell their property; in this sense, any remaining equity is trapped, as selling is difficult and equity extraction via HELOCs (home equity lines of credit) has, for all intents and purposes, vanished.

    The Fed’s strategy, in conjunction with the government-owned and -operated mortgage agencies that own or guarantee the majority of mortgages in the US (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, and the VA), is to stabilize the housing market through subsidizing the cost of mortgage borrowing by shifting hundreds of billions of dollars out of savers’ earnings with ZIRP.

    Since roughly 60% of households either already own a home or are ensnared in the default/foreclosure process, then the pool of buyers boils down to two classes: buyers who would be marginal if not for government subsidies and super-low mortgage rates, and investors seeking some sort of return above that of US Treasury bonds. The Fed has handed investors two choices to risk a return above inflation: equities (the stock market) or real estate. Given the uneven track record of stocks since the 2009 meltdown, it is not much of a surprise that investors large and small have been seeking “deals” in real estate as a way to earn a return.

    Recent data from the National Association of Realtors concludes that cash buyers (a proxy for investors) accounted for 31% of homes sold in December 2011. Even in the pricey San Francisco Bay Area, where median prices are still in the $350,000 range, investors accounted for 27% of all sales. Absentee buyers (again, a proxy for investors) paid a median price of around $225,000, substantially lower than the general median price.

    This data suggests that “bargain” properties are being snapped up for cash, either as rental properties or in hopes of “flipping” for a profit after some modest cleanup and repair.

    Price and Risk Premium Discovery

    There is one lingering problem with the Fed and the federal housing agencies’ concerted campaigns to punish capital accumulation, push investors into equities or real estate, and subsidize marginal buyers to boost sales at current valuations. The market cannot “discover” price or establish a risk premium when the government and its proxies are, in essence, the market.

    By some accounts, literally 99% of all mortgages in the U.S. are government-issued or -guaranteed. If any other sector was so completely owned by the federal government, most people would concede that it was a socialized industry. Yet we in the US maintain the fiction of a “free market” in mortgages and housing.

    To establish a truly free and transparent market for mortgages and housing, we would have to end all federal subsidies and guarantees/backstops, and restore the market as sole arbiter of interest rates — i.e., remove that control from the Federal Reserve.

    Everyone with a stake in the current market fears such a return to an open market because it is likely that prices would plummet once government subsidies, guarantees, and incentives were removed. Yet without such an open market, buyers can never be certain that price and risk have truly been discovered. Buyers in today’s market may feel that the government has removed all risk from buying, but they might find that they “caught the falling knife;” that is, bought into a false bottom in a market that has yet to reach transparent price discovery.

    So, the key question still remains for anyone who owns a home or is looking to soon own one…how close are we to the bottom in housing prices?

    In Part II: Determining the Housing Bottom for Your Local Market, we tackle that question head-on. Because local dynamics inevitably play such a large role in determining fair pricing for any given market, instead of giving a simple forecast, we instead offer a portfolio of tools and other resources for analyzing home values on a local basis. Our goal is to empower readers to calculate an informed estimate of “fair value” for their own markets — and then see how closely current local real estate prices fit (or deviate) from it.

    Click here to access Part II of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).

    This article was originally published on chrismartenson.com.

    Related articles

  • Short Sale Listing: 505 N BALDWIN ST Portland, Or. $235,000


    [object HTMLTextAreaElement]

    via Short Sale Listing: 505 N BALDWIN ST Portland, Or. $235,000.

  • New Real Estate Loan Tax Hitting Market Now, by Brett Reichel, Brettreichel.com


    To pay for a two month extension in the payroll tax, Congress (both sides of the aisle), and the President have decided to tax real estate loans for the next ten years. This was voted in recently, and will now start affecting real estate transactions.

    It’s not been publicized as a tax because it’s been identified as an increase in the agency’s “Guarantee Fee”. But the money does not go to the agency’s, it goes directly to the US Treasury. The fee is only 10bps(bps stands for “basis points” which means 1/100th of a percent, or .1%). But, when market factors come into play(like lock term, etc.), it will be more. The largest US mortgage lender said recently that some programs will be affected as much as 80 bps.

    This will not be an additional fee on the Good Faith Estimate, but will be factored into pricing. Industry estimates conclude that the typical borrower will pay approximately $4,000 more during the life of their loan.

    Let’s face it, this is a tax. A couple interesting thoughts come to mind when considering this new tax.

    First, since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now a funding source for the US budget this works against the goal of both parties to “wind them down”, or eliminate them and replace them with private funding sources.

    Second, for those of you who will immediately jump on this as “liberal” spending….the “conservatives” were also in favor of this new tax, despite their signing of the “no new taxes” pledge.

    Third, housing has led the economy out of recession historically. Housing is still hurting nationally. The Federal Reserve has kept interest rates low to stimulate the economy and just last week wrote a letter to Congress expressing the importance of housing in revitalizing the economy. It makes you wonder why all these “job creators” in Washington, D.C. are for this tax that will serve as an additional barrier to stimulating housing and create jobs.

    It would appear that the Nation’s leaders have other priorities. What they are, who knows

     

     

    Brett Reichel
    Brettreichel.com

     

    Related articles

  • Short Sale Listing: 1337 SW LINNEMAN AVE Gresham, Or. $230,000


    [object HTMLTextAreaElement]

    via Short Sale Listing: 1337 SW LINNEMAN AVE Gresham, Or. $230,000.

  • Short Sale Listing: 1212 NE 157TH AVE Portland, Or. $219,900


    [object HTMLTextAreaElement]

    via Short Sale Listing: 1212 NE 157TH AVE Portland, Or. $219,900.

  • Fannie, Freddie overhaul unlikely, by Vicki Needham, Thehill.com


    An overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is unlikely again this year despite recent Republican efforts to move the issue up the agenda.

    Congressional Republicans, along with some Democrats — and even GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich — are renewing calls to craft an agreement to reduce the involvement of Fannie and Freddie in the nation’s mortgage market.

    But without a broader accord, passage of any legislation this year is slim, housing experts say.

     

    Jim Tobin, senior vice president of government affairs for the National Association of Home Builders, concedes that despite a mix of Democratic and Republican proposals, including a push by the Obama administration last year, congressional leaders probably won’t get far this year on a plan for Fannie and Freddie, the government-controlled mortgage giants.

     

    Tobin said there are “good ideas out there” and while he expects the House to put some bills on the floor and possibly pass legislation, the Senate is likely to remain in oversight mode without any “broad-based legislation on housing finance.”

    “We’re bracing for a year where it’s difficult to break through on important policy issues,” he said this week.

    While the issue makes for a good talking point, especially in an presidential election year, congressional efforts are largely being stymied by the housing market’s sluggish recovery, prohibiting the hand off between the government and private sector in mortgage financing, housing experts say.

    David Crowe, chief economist with NAHB, said that the market has hit rock bottom and is now undergoing a “slow climb out of the hole.”

    The House has taken the biggest steps so far — by mid-July the Financial Services Committee had approved 14 bills intended to jump-start reform of the government-sponsored enterprises.

    “As we continue to move immediate reforms, our ultimate goal remains, to end the bailout of Fannie, Freddie and build a stronger housing finance system that no longer relies on government guarantees,” panel Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said last summer.

    Meanwhile, a number of GOP and bipartisan measures have emerged — Democrats and Republicans generally agree Fannie and Freddie are in need of a fix but their ideas still widely vary.

    There are a handful of bills floating around Congress, including one by Reps. John Campbell (R-Calif.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and another by Reps. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) and Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y), which would wind down Fannie and Freddie and create a new system of privately financed organizations to support the mortgage market.

    “Every one of those approaches replaces them [Fannie and Freddie] with what they think is the best alternative to having a new system going forward that would really fix the problem and would really give certainty to the marketplace and allow housing finance to come back, and therefore housing to come back, as well,” Campbell said at a markup last month.

    There’s another bill by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and bills in the Senate being pushed by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.).

    Corker, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, made the case earlier this week for unwinding government support for the GSEs while promoting his 10-year plan that would put in place the “infrastructure for the private sector to step in behind it.”

    “A big part of the problem right now is the private sector is on strike,” Corker said.

    He has argued that his bill isn’t a silver bullet, rather a conversation starter to accelerate talks.

    “So what we need to do is figure out an orderly wind-down,” Corker said in November. “And so we’ve been working on this for some time. We know that Fannie and Freddie cannot exist in the future.”

    He suggested getting the federal government this year to gradually wind down the amount of the loans it guarantees from 90 percent to 80 percent and then to 70 percent.

    “And as that drops down, we think the market will send signals as to what the difference in price is between what the government is actually guaranteeing and what they’re not,” he said.

    Even Gingrich, who has taken heat for his involvement with taking money while doing consulting work for the GSEs, called for an unwinding during a December interview.

    “I do, in fact, favor breaking both of them up,” he said on CBS’ Face the Nation. “I’ve said each of them should devolve into probably four or five companies. And they should be weaned off of the government endorsements, because it has given them both inappropriate advantages and because we now know from the history of how they evolved, that they abused that kind of responsibility.”

    In a white paper on housing last week, the Federal Reserve argued that the mortgage giants should take a more active role in boosting the housing market, although they didn’t outline suggestions for how to fix the agencies.

    The central bank did argue that “some actions that cause greater losses to be sustained by the GSEs in the near term might be in the interest of taxpayers to pursue if those actions result in a quicker and more vigorous economic recovery.”

    Nearly a year ago, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asked Congress to approve legislation overhauling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within two years — that deadline appears to be in jeopardy.

    The Obama administration’s initial recommendations called for inviting private dollars to crowd out government support for home loans. The white paper released in February proposed three options for the nation’s housing market after Fannie and Freddie are wound down, with varying roles for the government to play.

    About the same time last year, Bachus made ending the “taxpayer-funded bailout of Fannie and Freddie” the panel’s first priority.

    While an overhaul remains stalled for now there is plenty of other activity on several fronts.

    In November, the Financial Services panel overwhelmingly approved a measure to stop future bonuses and suspend the current multi-million dollar compensation packages for the top executives at the agencies.

    The top executives came under fire for providing the bonuses but argued they need to do something to attract the talent necessary to oversee  $5 trillion in mortgage assets.

    Earlier this month, the Federal Housing Finance Agency announced that the head of Fannie received $5.6 million in compensation and the chief executive of Freddie received $5.4 million.

    Under the bill, the top executives of Fannie and Freddie could only have earned $218,978 this year.

    Last week, Fannie’s chief executive Michael Williams announced he would step down from his position once a successor is found. That comes only three months after Freddie’s CEO Charles Haldeman Jr. announced that he will leave his post this year.

    The government is being tasked to find replacements, not only for the two mortgage giants which have cost taxpayers more than $150 billion since their government takeover in 2008, but there is talk that the Obama administration is looking to replace FHFA acting director Edward DeMarco, the overseer of the GSEs.

    In a letter to President Obama earlier this week, more than two dozen House members said DeMarco simply hasn’t done enough to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.

    The lawmakers are pushing the president to name a permanent director “immediately.”

    Also, in December, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued six former executives at Fannie and Freddie, alleging they misled the public and investors about the amount of risky mortgages in their portfolio.

    In the claims, the SEC contends that as the housing bubble began to burst, the executives suggested to investors that the GSEs were not substantially exposed to sub-prime mortgages that were defaulting across the country.

    Related articles

  • There Is No Bubble and Even if There Is It’s Not a Problem, by Economist’s View Blog


    The big story today seems to be the Fed’s comments about the housing bubble in transcripts from their meetings in 2006. The transcripts show what we already knew, that the Fed was never fully convinced there was a housing bubble, and asserted that even if there was the dmage could be contained — they could easily clean up after it pops without the economy suffering too much damage:

    Greenspan image tarnished by newly released documents, by Zachary A. Goldfarb, Washington Post: The leaders of the Federal Reserve went around the room saluting Alan Greenspan during his last major meeting as chairman of the central bank Jan. 31, 2006. …

    Some six years later, Greenspan’s record — sterling when he left the central bank after 18 years — looks much more mixed. Many economists and analysts say a range of Fed policies contributed to the financial crisis and resulting recession. These included keeping interest rates low for an extended period, failing to take action to stem the bubble in housing prices and inadequate oversight of financial firms.

    The Thursday release of transcripts of Fed meetings in 2006 shows that top leaders of the Fed — several of whom continue to hold key positions today — had a limited awareness of the gravity of the threat that the weakness in the housing market posed to the rest of the economy. And they had what turned out to be an excessive optimism about how well things would turn out. …

    A Fed economist reported in a 2006 meeting that “we have not seen — and don’t expect — a broad deterioration in mortgage credit quality.” That turned out to be incorrect.

     

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/

     

    Related articles

  • Short Sale Listing: 2926 NE 65TH AVE Portland, Or $269,000


    [object HTMLTextAreaElement]

    via Short Sale Listing: 2926 NE 65TH AVE Portland, Or $269,000.

  • Mortgage Slang 101 – Mortgage Insurance, Brett Reichel, Brettreichel.com


    Mortgage insurance is viewed nearly universally as a bad thing, but in reality, it’s a tool to be used that is very good for home buyers, the housing market and the economy in general.

    Why do many complain about mortgage insurance?  Because it’s expensive, and sometimes difficult to get rid of when it’s no longer necassary.  If that’s the case, why do I say it’s good for buyers and the economy?  Because it’s a tool that allows people to buy a home with less than twenty percent down.

    Mortgage insurance insures the lender against the risk of the buyers default on the loan.  It does NOT insure the buyers life, like many people think.

    The single biggest hurdle for home buyers is accumulating an adequate down payment.  Lenders want buyers to put twenty percent down for two reasons.  First, a buyer with a large down payment is less likely to quit making their payments.  Second, if a buyer does default, the more the buyer put down usually means more equity in the house when the lender forecloses, which means the lender loses less money.

    But, if a buyer wants to buy a $200,000 and has to put up a twenty percent down, that will equal a $40,000 down payment!  Hard to save up, for most buyers.  BUT, with the use of mortgage insurance, that buyer might be able to put as little as $6,000 down!  A lot easier to save.

    So, mortgage insurance can be a very benficial tool.

    With that being said, don’t let your lender shoehorn you into only considering monthly mortgage insurance.  There are other options such as single premium mortgage insurance, or “split” mortgage insurance.  These programs can be more expensive up front, but sometimes much less expensive over time.  They don’t work for everyone, but they certainly should be looked into.

     

    Brett Reichel
    Brettreichel.com

    Related articles

  • Are you ready to take out your first mortgage loan?, By Melissa Gates


    Whether you’re looking to buy a home in New Jersey, New York, Carolina, Texas or anywhere in the United States of America, you have to inevitably take out a mortgage loan to finance the property. Apart from the ultra-rich people, no one is able to finance their own property with their funds as this requires a huge amount of money. For all the laymen who come from mediocre families, taking out a mortgage loan is the only option left. If you’re a first-time homebuyer, you must not be aware of the basics of taking out a home mortgage loan. If you don’t choose a loan within your affordability, it is most likely that you have to take out a  loan in the near future after paying all the closing costs and other fees. Its better you take the required steps before. Read on to know some basic facts that are taken into consideration by your lender while lending you a loan.

     

    1. Your credit score: The most vital fact that is taken into consideration by the mortgage lenders is your credit score. You’re entitled to take out a free copy of your credit report from any of the three credit reporting agencies and by doing this you can easily take the steps to boost your score before applying for a home mortgage loan. With an exceptionally good credit score, you can grab the best mortgage loan in the market and thereby save your hard-earned dollars.

     

    2. The amount of loan you can afford: This point is to be taken into consideration by you so that you don’t overstretch yourself while getting yourself a mortgage loan. Take out a loan within your affordability so that you don’t have to burn a hole in your pocket while repaying the loan. Consider all the other factors needed to determine the amount of loan that you can afford.

     

    3. The total income earned by you in a month: The gross monthly income that you earn in a month is another important document that is checked by the lender so that he can determine whether or not you can repay the loan on time after managing all your other debt obligations that you owe. If you want to secure a lower interest rate on the home mortgage loan, you should boost your income in a month and then apply for the loan.

     

    Apart from the above mentioned factors, the mortgage lenders take the debt to income ratio into account as they also need to see whether or not the borrower can make timely payments on the home mortgage loan. Manage your personal finances so that you don’t have to opt for refinance in the future.

     

    Related articles

  • Mortgage Guaranty Insurance — Market Collapsing, Insurers Next?, by Gavin Magor, Weissratings.com


    This week, President Obama announced that the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) would be extending the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) to an estimated additional one million homeowners.  In practice what this means is that homeowners that have a Fannie Mae (OTCBB: FNMA) or Freddie Mac (OTCBB: FMCC) backed loan and owe more than 125% of the value of their home may qualify for a restructuring.

    Mortgage insurers were pummeled by claims in the first half of the year, losing $2.4 billion in the six months through June–$618 million in the first quarter plus another $1.7 billion in the second quarter. The third-quarter numbers are not yet available; however, with no sign of significant improvement in the economy for the remainder of the year it appears that 2010 losses will be matched in 2011.

     

    Gavin Magor, senior financial analyst at Weiss Ratings, has more than 25 years of international experience in credit-risk management, insurance, commercial lending and analysis. He leads the firm’s insurance ratings division and developed the methodology for Weiss’ Sovereign Debt Ratings.

     

    http://weissratings.com/news/articles/mortgage-guaranty-insurance-market-collapsing-insurers-next/

     

    Given the state of the mortgage guaranty market, will the insurers even be there to support these loans, or more broadly, any loans?

    The mortgage guaranty industry is dominated by six insurance groups.  Subsidiaries of MGIC Investment Corporation (NYSE: MTG), Radian Group (NYSE: RDN), Genworth Financial (NYSE: GNW), PMI Group (NYSE: PMI), American International Group (NYSE: AIG) and Old Republic International Corporation (NYSE: ORI) wrote 93% of the $4.4 billion of premiums in 2010 with just five companies writing 80% of the total.

    These same companies also recorded $1.7 billion or 71% of the combined $2.4 billion losses.  United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co (an AIG subsidiary) is the only large insurer that recorded a profit during 2010 and for the first two quarters of 2011.  Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp (MGIC) recorded a profit in 2010 after reserve adjustments.

    Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, a group representing the major mortgage insurers, reports that new insurance written increased each month from April through August. It is this business that reflects an improved borrower profile according to the insurers and is expected to perform better than the pre-2008 policies.

    On the downside, it reports that primary defaults have increased each month since March and the cure rate, reflecting the resolution of defaults, has declined as many months as it has improved, but the trend is down. A report from RealtyTrac on October 13 reported that first-time defaults rose 14% between July and September 2011 over the prior quarter.  Consequently, in-force insurance declined on a month-by-month basis, since February, down a total of $27.1 billion or 4.4% to $598.6 billion at the end of August.

    Earned premiums dropped 7.9% during 2010, with the larger insurers dropping 9.1%.  With $3.5 billion out of the $4.4 billion of premiums earned by the largest insurers, only Radian Guaranty Inc experienced a rise in premiums, increasing 3.5%.  The remainder experienced declines anywhere from 6.4% to 21.6%.  

    Capital and surplus reported by mortgage insurers dropped 7% from the first to second quarters of 2011, and $1 billion or 13% since December 2010. Assets declined $608 million or 2.3% between March and June.

    Two substantial groups, PMI and Old Republic, wrote 24.6% of 2010 earned premiums but were forced to effectively withdraw from the market at the end of the third quarter of 2011. Two PMI subsidiaries were placed into receivership by the state insurance regulator.  One, PMI Mortgage Insurance Company, recorded 11.6% of the total mortgage premiums earned in 2010.

    The market for mortgage guaranty paper has therefore shrunk. The line of business is not profitable at this stage for the majority of insurers. The concern is that the losses will continue to grow and, with limited growth in real estate sales requiring mortgage insurance, there will be additional withdrawals from the market and or potential failures.

    Two of the largest mortgage insurers are Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC), a subsidiary of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. and Genworth Mortgage insurance Corporation (Genworth), a subsidiary of Genworth Financial Inc.  These two companies, ranking first and third respectively in market share, hold 35% of the market with Radian sandwiched in between. 

    Despite the apparent similarities, they could not have more disparate approaches and confidence in the mortgage guaranty market. Both companies write only one line of business and both increased their market penetration in 2010, but the similarities end there.  MGIC represents 72% of the assets of its parent while Genworth only represents 2.5% of its parent and thus  is not the major focus of the group. This difference in relevance within each group is demonstrated in the contrasting approaches to the current market difficulties.

    1. MGIC slightly increased its market penetration during 2010, from 22.9% to 23.1%, despite a 7.3% fall in earned premiums from $1.1 billion to $1.02 billion. This increase did not translate into profits however. Only a $619 million release ofclaims reserves prevented a loss in 2010.  It’s noteworthy though that MGIC was profitable for each of the “Great Recession” years of 2007 to 2009.
    2. Although MGIC recognizes that the loan origination market is not growing, it contends that it is positioned to operate in the restricted market and that it is sufficiently capitalized to take advantage of the better quality business now available.
    3. Like MGIC, Genworth slightly increased its market penetration during 2010, from 11.7% to 11.9%, despite a 6.4% fall in earned premiums from $558.2 million to $522.6 million. Unlike MGIC it recorded losses in each of the years from 2008 to 2010.
    4. On the other hand, Genworth sees that the future of the mortgage insurance market lies in the regulatory and legislative actions taken to change the real estate market. It recognizes that there could be some industry consolidation.

    What these two insurers appear to be demonstrating clearly is that whether the mortgage guaranty business is core to a group or not the odds are currently stacked against them because of the legacy business. 

    Mortgage insurers have traditionally, like most property and casualty insurers, earned substantial income from investments. A drop in investment income should be expected to continue based on the current interest rate environment and bond pricing, drying up this revenue source

    The investment dilemma is a challenge for all P&C insurers.  There is a growing reliance on investments for profits; at the same time there are reduced yields in the current investment environment. With unsustainable underwriting losses, insurers must navigate among undesirable alternatives:  1) seeking higher investment returns by purchasing riskier securities; or 2) increasing premiuns at the risk of dampening demand for mortgages

    This is another area where MGIC and Genworth have differed. Genworth has increased its junk bond investments from 1.7% of its total portfolio in 2008 to 3.4% in 2010.  This is in line with the general trend among all P&C insurers. MGIC has, on the other hand, reduced its junk holdings which has resulted in an annualized decline of 21% in investment income putting additional pressure on the profitability of the main underwriting business.

    Something has to give and, as we saw in the third quarter, both PMI and Old Republic International Corp were forced to stop writing new policies due to insufficient capital.  PMI is on the brink of collapse, and two subsidiaries were seized by the regulator in September. Despite opportunities to write more, and presumably profitable, business with a smaller competitive field it seems reasonable to assume that there will be additional insurers that withdraw from the market, are seized by regulators, or are sold. 

    Genworth appears to be a prime example of a company in the wrong place at the wrong time and it could be jettisoned by its parent sooner rather than later.  MGIC on the other hand IS the business and appears to be girding its loins for the fight ahead, hoping that it will be able to successfully get through the unprofitable pre-2008 book of business and emerge stronger, with a profitable book of new business and positioned to take advantage of future recoveries in the housing market.

     

    Related articles

  • The Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP): What You Need to Know, by Hayley Tsukayama, Washington Post


    On Monday, the federal government announced that it would revise the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), implementing changes that The Washington Post’s Zachary A. Goldfarb reported would “allow many more struggling borrowers to refinance their mortgages at today’s ultra-low rates, reducing monthly payments for some homeowners and potentially providing a modest boost to the economy.”

    The HARP program, which was rolled out in 2009, is designed to help. Those who are “underwater” on their homes and owe more than the homes are worth. So far, The Post reported, it has reached less than one-tenth of the 5 million borrowers it was designed to help. Here’s a quick breakdown of what you need to know about the changes.

    What was announced? The enhancements will allow some homeowners who are not currently eligible to refinance to do so under HARP. The changes cut fees for borrowers who want to refinance into short-term mortgages and some other borrowers. They also eliminate a cap that prevented “underwater” borrowers who owe more than 125 percent of what their property is worth from accessing the program.

    Am I eligible? To be eligible, you must have a mortgage owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, sold to those agencies on or before May 31, 2009. The current loan-to-value ratio on the mortgage must be greater than 80 percent. Having a mortgage that was previously refinanced under the program disqualifies you from the program. Borrowers cannot not have missed any mortgage payments in the past six months and cannot have had more than one missed payment in the past 12 months.

    How do I take advantage of HARP?According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the first step borrowers should take is to see whether their mortgages are owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. If so, borrowers should contact lenders that offer HARP refinances.

    When do the changes go into effect?The FHFA is expected to publish final changes in November. According to a fact sheet on the program, the timing will vary by lender.

    Related articles

  • Real Estate News On The National Scene, by Phil Querin, Q-Law.com


    The credit and real estate meltdowns, coupled with the subsequent foreclosure crisis, caused many politicians, all with differing motives, to shift into high legislative gear.  Without commenting on motivation, which is an admittedly fertile area for discussion, let’s take a look at the national legislative scene to see what has occurred[1], and whether things are better today than in 2008.

    MERS. I am addressing this issue at the beginning, primarily to get it out of the way.  I for one am suffering from “MERS Fatigue,” which is a malady afflicting many of us who watch and wait for something new to occur on this front.

    It’s important to understand that MERS, which is the catchy acronym for the “Mortgage Electronic Registration System”, was never a creature of statute.  It was born and bred by the lending and title industries in the late 1990s, for reasons that most people already know.  But because of its national scope – affecting approximately 60% of all home mortgages – MERS bears mentioning here.

    Despite all the national attention, the MERS controversy is really one that can only be resolved on the local level, since real estate recording and foreclosure statutes occur on a state – not national – level.  In Oregon, although there have been several federal court rulings, MERS’ legality is still up in the air.  This is because the local federal judges, who are supposed to follow Oregon law, have no binding Oregon appellate court precedent to follow when it comes to MERS.  The result is that there have been divergent federal court rulings.  And, the topic is so contentious at the Oregon legislature that there is little political appetite to tackle the problem, since few can agree on a solution.

    So, the news is that there is no news.  It will take months for the one state court case currently on appeal to find its way to the Oregon Court of Appeals or Supreme Court.  And, although there is a slight chance of a breakthrough in the upcoming session, 2012 does not appear to be a year in which we will see a legislative answer.

    Fannie and Freddie. Since the fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, these two Government Sponsored Enterprises or “GSEs” have come under government ownership and control.  For a summary of the issues from the Congressional Budget Office, go to  the link here.  Since the private secondary mortgage market effectively disappeared between 2007-2008, this means that today, there is no viable buyer of residential loans except the federal government. To some observers, depending on their political bent, this is a good thing; but to others, it’s bad.

    One thing is certain; as long as the federal government, through Fannie and Freddie, dictate borrower qualifications, LTVs, and conforming loan limits[2], the conventional mortgage market will continue to be tight.  This does not bode well for higher end homes, especially.  Unfortunately, we don’t have to go back very far in time to remember what happened in the “private label” secondary mortgage market (i.e. non-GSE market) where home loans were handed out like party favors, and those who should never have qualified did.

    While there is much talk about doing away with Fannie and Freddie, it is unlikely any time soon.  However, what is occurring, albeit slowly and somewhat quietly, is a move to shift some of the GSEs’ loans to the private sector, where the risk would not be backed by the federal government.  If this works, perhaps more will follow.  While there may be some investors for such loans, it is likely that without a governmental safety net, the nascent private secondary market will demand a higher rate of return to offset the higher risk.

     

    In the meantime, the loans of choice appear to be through the FHA.  While the paperwork may be daunting, the LTVs are good and the bar to borrower qualification is much lower and more flexible than conventional loans.

    The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. In recognition of Wall Street’s role in the credit and mortgage meltdowns, Congress established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. On July 21 of this year, it was opened for business. This is no ordinary federal agency.  It is a super agency, responsible for regulating many, many areas of consumer finance and mortgage loans.[3]

    Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and Presidential Advisor, was the driving force behind the Agency’s creation.  She was a zealous advocate for the consumer.  Unfortunately, the political reality was that she may have been too zealous.  Instead of being appointed director, Richard Cordray, former Ohio Attorney General, was appointed to head the agency.  However, his nomination is currently tied up in Congress, and he may not be confirmed.  Many Republicans oppose the idea of so much power being wielded by a single person rather than a board of Senate-confirmed appointees.  So as it stands, the CFPB – this mega agency that was created to oversee so many aspects of consumer law – has a website, is hard at work making manuals and processing paperwork, yet has no director to oversee enforcement of anything.

    Risk Retention, Skin in the Game, and the QRM. Mindful of the risks created when banks used their own safety net capital to trade in high risk loans, known as “proprietary trading,” the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act enacted Section 619, which placed severe restrictions on the ability of banks to use their funds to place risky bets (known as the “Volker Rule”).  Billions of dollars of these bets failed in 2008, leading up to the massive government bailouts that taxpayers funded.  What is the status of the Volker Rule today?  It’s still out for public comment, with banks arguing that the Rule will reduce their revenues and thereby force them to increase the cost of loans to borrowers. Given that big banks are still suffering the reputational fallout from the bailouts, the Volker Rule -with most of its teeth – may actually become law. When? Who knows.[4]

    Also mindful of the risks created through sloppy underwriting of securitized loans, Dodd-Frank sought to require that banks retain a 5 percent interest in the risk of loss on those loans. This risk retention rule has been referred to as “skin in the game,” and was intended to require banks to share a portion of the risks they securitized to others.  Instead of investors taking on the entire risk of a slice of securitized loans, banks would have to hold back 5% on their own balance sheet.

    However, the law made a major exception; it provided that through rule making, a standard be set for certain loan types with statistically lower default rates for which risk retention would be unnecessary.  This exception became known as the “Qualified Residential Mortgage” or “QRM.”  The QRM rules were intended to impose high standards for documentation of income, borrower performance, low debt-to-income ratios and other quality underwriting requirements.  Although they were to be the exception, not the rule, today, most lenders want these standards to be flexible rather than inflexible, so that there is more wiggle room for their loans to qualify as QRMs and thereby remain exempt from risk retention.  The argument in favor of looser loan standards is the fear that an inflexible QRM exemption will impair access to home loans by low and moderate income borrowers. This debate continues today, and there is some reason to believe that these rules will be substantially diluted before becoming law.

     

    PCQ Editorial Comment: It was not so long ago that certain banks criticized borrowers of 100% home financing as creating “moral hazard” – i.e. they took risks because they had no financial risk of default since they had no down payment to lose.  Today, the concept of “moral hazard” seems to have been forgotten by those same banks opposing risk retention rules.  They now expect their borrowers to have “skin in the game” – hence the higher down payment rules – but deny the need to do so themselves.  “Pot meet Kettle.”

    Conclusion. So, notwithstanding the fact that this country teetered on the brink of disaster in 2008, the politicians’ rush to legislate has continued to move at a snail’s pace.  Query:  Is the American consumer really better off today than in 2008?

    [1] This article will not cover Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (“MARS”), since the much ballyhooed national law was never intended to apply to Realtors®, even though that realization did not come soon enough to avoid all sorts of unnecessary industry handwringing and forms creation. All of the Oregon-specific legislation has been discussed in my prior articles.

    [2] On September 30, 2011, Fannie’s high loan limits for certain high housing cost parts of the country expired.  In portions of California, this may result in otherwise qualified buyers having to wait a year or two to save for the additional down payments.

    [3] Here is a listing of its responsibilities: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve: Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity Act); Regulation C (Home Mortgage Disclosure); Electronic Fund Transfers (Regulation E); Regulation H, Subpart I (Registration of Residential Mortgage Loan Originators); Regulation M (Consumer Leasing); Regulation P (Privacy); Regulation V (Fair Credit Reporting); Regulation Z (Truth in Lending); Regulation DD (Truth in Savings); FDIC: Privacy of Consumer Financial Information; Fair Credit Reporting Registration of Residential Mortgage Loan Originators; Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: Adjustable Rate Mortgages Registration of Residential Mortgage Loan Originators; Privacy of Consumer Financial Information; Fair Credit Reporting;  Office of Thrift Supervision: Adjustments to home loans; Alternative Mortgage  transactions; Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators; Fair Credit Reporting; Privacy of Consumer Financial Information; National Credit Union Administration: Loans to members and lines of credit to members; Truth in Savings; Privacy of Consumer Financial Information; Fair Credit Reporting Requirements for Insurance; Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators; Federal Trade Commission: Telemarketing Sales Rule; Privacy of Consumer Financial Information; Disclosure Requirements for Depository Institutions Lacking Federal Depository Insurance; Mortgage Assistance Relief Services; Use of Pre-notification Negative Option Plans; Rule Concerning Cooling-Off Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other Locations; Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses; Credit Practices; Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Business Opportunities Fair Credit Reporting Act Procedures for State Application for Exemption from the Provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; Department of Housing and Urban Development: Hearing Procedures Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act; Civil Monetary Penalties; Land Registration Purchasers’ Revocation Rights; Sales Practices, and Standards Formal Procedures and; Rules of Practice Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; Investigations in Consumer Regulatory Programs. For source, link here.

    [4] It is rumored that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, both of whom changed their charters from securities firms to become “banks”, in order to be eligible for taxpayer funded bailout money, are now considering exiting that status, precisely so they will not have to comply with the Volker Rule – if it passes.

    Related articles

  • Is The National Association Of Realtors Hurting The Real Estate Market? by Brett Reichel, Brettreichel.com


    Yesterday, a fairly sophisticated home buyer called me about a pre-approval.  He and his wife own a home, and a vacation home.  This is a successful business couple who are doing well in the residential construction market despite the current economy.  He indicated that they wanted to buy a new primary residence.  His question to me was “We can get together about 10% down.  Can we even buy a new home with less than 20% down?”

    It’s no wonder they are confused.  Every other article where leadership of the National Association of Realtors is quoted, every press release they issue usually has the quote that “tight lender guidelines are hurting the real estate market”  or “buyers need to have 20% down and be perfect to accomplish a purchase” or some words like that. 

    Unfortunately, these types of statements are blatantly untrue in most markets, and are very damaging to the real estate market at large and to home buyers and sellers everywhere. 

    It’s true that lenders are giving loan applications MUCH greater scrutiny than they have in any time since 1998.  Rampant mortgage fraud on the part of borrowers, Realtors, lenders, and mortgage originators have required lenders to check and recheck everything represented in a loan application.  Unfortunatley, until we get everyone to realize that the “silly bank rules” they are breaking consititutes a federal crime we are stuck with the extra scrutiny.  Fortunately, the new national loan originator licensing and registration systems should make loan officers everywhere realize the seriousness of this issue and root out fraud before it get’s to the point of a loan being funded.  The safety of our banking and financial systems is too important to allow the kinds of games that have been played over the last few years. 

    The National Association of Realtors is right about appraisals.  Appraisals remain a very serious issue.  Pressure from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on lenders results in pressures by lending institutions on appraisers to bring in appraisals very conservatively.  It’s common for appraisers to use inappropriate appraisal practice due to the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac form1004mc, which results in innacurate appraisal (see previous posts).

    It’s also true that underwriting guidelines are stricter than they were during the golden age of loose underwriting (1998 thru 2008).  What people don’t realize that underwriting guidelines are easier now than they’ve been in any previous time frame.  In fact, it’s a great time to buy for many folks who have been priced out of markets previously.

    How can I make that type of claim?  Because I remember the “bad old days”…..Prior to 1997-1998, debt-to-income ratio’s were much stricter than they are now.   A debt-to-income ratio compares your total debt to your total income.  In the old days, if you put 5% down on a conventional loan, you couldn’t have more than 36% of your total income go towards your debt.  Now?  If you’ve been reasonably careful with your credit, have decent job stability, and a little savings left over for emergency it’s pretty easy to get to a ratio of 41%!  With only 5% down!  On FHA loans, it’s really easy to go to 45% DTI with only 3.5% down!   In fact, there are times that we go even higher.

    Is that obvious in the mass media?  No.  They paint a dire picture based, in part, on the statements of NAR. 

    So, if you are a Realtor, press NAR to paint a more positve picture of financing.  Nothing that is “puffed up”, just reality.  If you are a buyer, don’t be fooled by what you read in the mainstream press.  Talk to a good, local, independent mortgage banker.  They’ll give you a clear path to home ownership and join the ranks of homeowners!