OREGON REAL ESTATE ROUND TABLE

Category: Oregon Employment

  • 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!

     

     

  • Refinancing your Underwater Fannie Mae home loan


    The Fannie Mae DU Refi Plus home loan program is extended through this year and into 2012. This program may be able to help you refinance if you owe more than your home is worth. Check out this quick video:

    The Fannie Mae DU Refi Plus – Basics

    First of all, you need to make sure that your current loan is owned by Fannie Mae. You can check that at Fannie Mae’s website. All you need is your full address.

    You also need to be on time with your mortgage payments. If you are behind in your mortgage, you will need to discuss loan modification or other options with your lender.

    The biggest impediment when discussing the DU Refi Plus program is the issue of mortgage insurance. The best case scenario is if you do not have mortgage insurance on your current home loan.

    If you need to figure out your options when it comes to refinancing your home in Oregon or Washington, shoot me an email. You may not always like the answer, but knowing is better than the alternative.

    Thanks for taking a minute to check this post out!

     

    Picture: Jason HillardJason Hillard – homeloanninjas.com

    Mortgage Advisor in Oregon and Washington MLO#119032

    Pinnacle Mortgage Bankers

    a div of Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Corp

    503.799.4112

    jason@mypmb.us

    1706 D St Vancouver, WA 98663

    NMLS 81395 WA CL-81395

    Equal Housing Lender

  • Why Isn’t The Unemployment Crisis a National Emergency?, Economist’s View Blog


    Even though the president has pivoted “from deficit reduction to job creation,” and even though job creation was the theme of the weekly address Obama gave today, I can’t say I’m any more encouraged about the prospects for a significant job creation package than I was when I wrote this.]

    Labor markets are in terrible shape. Fourteen million people are unemployed, long-term unemployment remains near record highs, the ratio of job seekers to job openings is 4.3 to 1, and the employment to population ratio has dropped precipitously. Even if the economy grows at a robust average of 3.5% beginning in 2013, labor markets won’t fully recover until 2017. And if average growth is only 3.0% – well within the range of possibility – it will take until 2020. In short, labor markets are in crisis and the longer the crisis persists, the more permanent and growth-inhibiting the damage becomes.

    So it was welcome news to see President Obama pivot from deficit reduction to job creation in his widely anticipated speech last week. The president proposed a combination of spending and tax reduction policies, and he surprised many people with the boldness of his proposals and his passion and commitment to the issue. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to do much to help with the unemployment problem.

    There plenty of time to provide help, the dismal prospects for recovery detailed above make that clear. So the time it takes to implement job creation policies – the objection that there are not enough shovel ready projects – is not the issue. And while concerns over the deficit are valid for the long-run, they shouldn’t prevent us from doing more to help the jobless. The long-run debt problem is predominantly a health care cost problem, and whether or not we help the jobless doesn’t much change the magnitude of the long-run problem we face.

    The problem is the political atmosphere. Republicans may go along with doing just enough to look cooperative rather than obstructionist, but no more than that and the policies that emerge are unlikely to be enough to make a substantial difference in the unemployment problem. It won’t be anywhere near the $445 billion program the president has called for, which itself is short of what is needed to really make a difference.

    I don’t expect we’ll get much more help from the Fed either. There is quite a bit of disagreement among monetary policymakers over whether further easing would do more harm than good, and inflation hawks are standing in the way of those who want to aggressively attack the unemployment problem. As with Congress, the Fed is likely to adopt a compromise position and do the minimum it can while still looking as though it is trying to meet its obligation to promote full employment.

    Thus, despite the President’s newfound interest in job creation, and the call from some at the Fed to treat the unemployment problem the same way they would treat elevated inflation – as though “their hair was on fire” – the actual policies that come out of Congress and the Fed are unlikely to be sufficient to make much of a dent in the problem.

    It’s time for this to change. The loss of 8.75 million payroll jobs since the recession began should be a national emergency. But it’s not, and the question is why. Why has deficit reduction taken precedence over job creation? Why is our political system broken to the extent that a whole segment of the population is not being adequately represented in Congress?

    That brings me to an important difference between the response to this recession and the policies that followed the Great Depression. Many of the policies that were enacted during and after the Great Depression not only addressed economic problems, they also directly or indirectly reduced the ability of special interests to capture the political process. Polices that imposed regulations on the financial sector, broke up monopolies, reduced inequality through highly progressive taxes, accorded new powers to unions, and so on shifted the balance of power toward the typical household.

    But since the 1970s many of these changes have been reversed. Inequality has reverted to levels unseen since the Gilded Age, monopoly power has increased, financial regulation has waned, union power has been lost, and much of the disgust with the political process revolves around the feeling that politicians have lost touch with the interests of the working class. And it would be hard to disagree with that sentiment.

    We need a serious discussion of this issue, followed by changes that shift political power toward the working class, but who will start the conversation? Congress has no interest in doing so, things are quite lucrative as they are. Unions used to have a voice, but they have been all but eliminated as a political force. The press could serve as the gatekeeper, but too many outlets are controlled by the very interests that the press needs to take on and this gives them the ability to cloud most any issue. Presidential leadership could make a difference, and Obama’s election brought hope for change, but this president does not seem inclined to take a strong stand on behalf of the working class despite the surprising boldness of his job creation speech.

    Another option is that the working class itself will say enough is enough and demand change. There was a time when I would have scoffed at the idea of a mass revolt against entrenched political interests and the incivility that comes with it. We aren’t there yet – there’s still time for change – but the signs of unrest are growing and if we continue along a two-tiered path that ignores the needs of such a large proportion of society, it can no longer be ruled out.

    Related articles

  • HUD Cuts To Devastate Mortgage Counseling Agencies Across Nation, By Ben Hallman, IWATCHNEWS.ORG


    Housing counselors at Western Tennessee Legal Services were plenty busy, even before one of the region’s largest employers, a Goodyear tire factory in tiny Union City, shut its doors in July.

    The plant closing, which put nearly 2,000 employees out of work in a rural part of the state, meant more work for counselors like Emma Covington. Covington said she already takes 18 to 20 calls a day and meets in person with people who need counseling on foreclosures and other housing issues.

    Now, like many of its clients, the legal nonprofit will have to make do with less.

    Earlier this year, Congress defunded the $88 million grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that helped support more than 7,500 housing counselors across the country, including those at Western Tennessee. Funds run out Sept. 30.

    The cuts come at a terrible time, say counseling advocates.

    In the second quarter of 2011, more than 3.4 million home mortgages nationwide were 90 or more days delinquent or in the foreclosure process. More than one in five mortgage borrowers owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, according to government data.

    The counseling money may not be coming back. The House Appropriations Committee recently approved a budget for 2012 that also doesn’t include any HUD housing counseling dollars. A group of senators is trying to restore funding, but even if successful, it is unlikely that funds will reach counselors before next spring, at the earliest.

    The looming gap in funding and continued uncertainty about the program’s future means layoffs and reduced hours for counselors at nonprofits across the country at a time when demand for their services is greater than ever.

    “These are rough times for our clients and our staff,” said Steven Xanthopoulos, the executive director at Western Tennessee Legal Services. “We are faced with some hard decisions.”

    Western Tennessee may lay off as many as four employees when its $1.2 million HUD grant runs out at the end of this month, Xanthopoulos said. Many more counselors could lose their jobs at the 25 rural legal aid groups throughout Appalachia and the Mississippi River delta that the nonprofit supports with its share of the grant money, he said.

    The National Council of La Raza supports 50 housing counseling agencies that helped 65,000 families last year with about $1.2 million from HUD. Thirty of those agencies will close their doors if Congress does not restore the HUD housing counseling funding, said Graciela Aponte, a legislative analyst.

    “We are in the middle of foreclosure crisis,” Aponte said. “This is devastating for our families.”

    HUD grants also support one of the nation’s biggest housing counseling training programs. NeighborWorks America used a $3 million HUD grant to fund 1,200 housing counseling training scholarships to its mobile nonprofit training university last year. When the HUD money goes away, so will those scholarships, a spokesman said.

    The program – whose cost is modest, by Washington standards – is being suspended at least in part because HUD is a full year behind distributing the grant money to housing groups.

    “HUD has been slow to distribute the money and Congress zeroed in on that,” said Candace Mason, senior director of housing and national grants at the National Foundation for Credit Counseling.

    In recent testimony , a HUD official said that the agency has a plan to reduce the distribution timeframe to 180 days.

    Some have questioned the effectiveness of the programs but the Government Accountability Office cited several studies that show counseling helps struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure and prevent them from lapsing back into default – especially if the counseling occurs early in the foreclosure process.

    One study cited by the GAO found that clients who received counseling were 1.7 times as likely to be removed from the foreclosure process by their mortgage servicer as borrowers who did not. Clients who got loan modifications paid an average of $267 a month less than they would have otherwise, according to the study.

    Counseling advocates say there appears to be general antipathy toward HUD, an oft-criticized federal agency, from some members of Congress related to the agencies past failings.

    Congress also hasn’t yet provided $45 million mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law for HUD to set up a new Office of Housing Counseling, which will set counseling standards and dole out grants to agencies.

    Here, too, HUD has been slow to act. According to the GAO, a working group at HUD is “in the process of developing a plan” for how to organize that new office, but is unable to say when it will submit it.

    HUD already has an office that seems to have a similar function: the Office of Single-Family Housing. HUD officials say the primary change needed to create the new office is the reassignment of staffers who work on housing counseling activities, but also have other responsibilities.

    Staffers at the House committees responsible for the funding did not comment for this story.

    Foreclosure prevention made up the single-biggest slice of any housing counselor’s workload in 2009 and 2010, according to HUD, with nearly half of all queries coming from homeowners in trouble. What makes the HUD grants so valuable, housing counselors say, is that the money can be spent to help people resolve a variety of housing woes, in addition to foreclosure.

    For example, the Federal Housing Administration requires seniors who want a Home Equity Conversion, or reverse mortgage to first receive counseling. Since 2005, more than 486,000 seniors received one of those loans, about 3.6 percent of all counseling activity, according to HUD. 

    Many of these seniors, especially in rural areas, have nowhere else to turn, said Covington, the Tennessee housing counselor. “People can’t afford to travel to our office much less to Memphis and Nashville,” she said.

    Homes on the Hill, a Columbus, Ohio, counseling service, is already operating on a razor-thin margin in terms of both budget and staffing, said executive director Stephen Torsell. Counselors have

    had their hours cut and clients have faced long waits for an appointment – several weeks in many cases.

    The nonprofit receives HUD money through La Raza. The annual grant is quite small—about $75,000 per year—but like other housing nonprofits, Homes on the Hill uses the HUD money to solicit matching funds from private donors.

    There is still a chance that Congress will at least partially fund the housing counseling program for 2012. A Senate subcommittee recently signed off on $60 million in funding for 2012, but whether the funding makes it into law is uncertain

    Related articles

  • No End in Sight: Mortgage Loans Harder in High-Foreclosure Areas by Brian O’Connell, Mainstreet.com


    NEW YORK (MainStreet) — Here’s another bitter pill for homeowners to swallow: If you live in an area with a high foreclosure rate, the chances of someone getting a loan to buy your house significantly decreases.

    The news comes from the Federal Reserve’s latestreport, in which it concluded that mortgage lending was dramatically lower in communities and neighborhoods where foreclosures were surging, using data from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) and from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).

    “Home-purchase lending in highly distressed census tracts identified by the Neighborhood Stabilization Program was 75% lower in 2010 than it had been in these same tracts in 2005,” the report said. “This decline was notably larger than that experienced in other tracts, and appears to primarily reflect a much sharper decrease in lending to higher-income borrowers in the highly distressed neighborhoods.”

    The Fed uses the term “highly distressed” in place of the word “foreclosure”, but the message is clear: Banks and mortgage lenders are taking a big step back from lending to buyers who want a home in a high-foreclosure neighborhood.

    It’s the same deal for borrowers who want to actually live in a home and buyers who want to purchase the property as aninvestment, as neither party seems to be having much luck in getting a home loan in a highly distressed neighborhood, according to the Fed. The lack of credit extended to investors could really hurt neighborhoods crippled by foreclosures.

    “In the current period of high foreclosures and elevated levels of short sales, investor activity helps reduce the overhang of unsold and foreclosed properties,” the Federal Reserve says.

    Overall, the Fed reports that 76% fewer mortgage loans were granted to “non-owner occupant” buyers in 2010, compared to 2005.

    The Fed’s report reveals some other trends in the mortgage market:

    • Mortgage originations declined from just under 9 million loans to fewer than 8 million loans between 2009 and 2010. Most significant was the decline in the number of refinance loans despite historically low baseline mortgage interest rates throughout the year.  Home-purchase loans also declined, but less so than the decline in refinance lending.
    • While loans originated under the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance program and the Department of Veterans Affairs‘ (VA) loan guarantee program continue to account for a historically large proportion of loans, such lending fell more than did other types of lending.
    • In the absence of home equity problems and underwriting changes, roughly 2.3 million first-lien owner-occupant refinance loans would have been made during 2010 on top of the 4.5 million such loans that were actually originated.
    • A sharp drop in home-purchase lending activity occurred in the middle of 2010, right alongside the June closing deadline (although the deadline was retroactively extended to September). The ending of this program during 2010 may help explain the decline in the incidence of home-purchase lending to lower-income borrowers between the first and second halves of the year.

    All in all, the report offers a pretty bleak – but even-handed and thorough – review of today’s home-purchase market.

    Read more about the continuing effects of the housing crisis at MainStreet’s Foreclosure topic page.

    Related articles

  • U.S. To Have Tough Time in Suits Against 17 Banks Over Mortgage Bonds, by Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times


    Federal regulators allege the banks misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the safety of the bonds. But analysts say the two mortgage giants should have known that the loans behind the bonds were toxic.

    Reporting from Washington—

    The government’s latest attempt to hold large banks accountable for helping trigger the Great Recession could fall as flat as earlier efforts to punish Wall Street villains and compensate taxpayers for bailing out the financial industry.

    Federal regulators, in landmark lawsuits this month, alleged that 17 large banks misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the safety and soundness of $200 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities sold to the two housing finance giants, sending them to the brink of bankruptcy and forcing the government to seize them.

    Targets of other federal lawsuits and investigations have deflected such claims by arguing, for example, that the collapse of the housing market and job losses from the recession caused the loss in the value of mortgage-backed securities.

    The big banks, though, might have a more powerful defense: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were no novices at investment decisions.

    The two companies were major players in the subprime housing boom through the mortgage-backed securities market they helped create, and they should have known better than anyone that many of the loans behind those securities were toxic, some analysts and legal experts said.

    “I can’t think of two more sophisticated clients who were in a better position to do the due diligence on these investments,” said Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago investors’ lawyer specializing in securities lawsuits. “For them to claim they were misled in some form or fashion, I think, is an extremely difficult legal argument to make.”

    But the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has been running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since the government seized them in 2008, argued that banks can’t misrepresent the quality of their products no matter how savvy the investor.

    “Under the securities laws at issue here, it does not matter how ‘big’ or ‘sophisticated’ a security purchaser is. The seller has a legal responsibility to accurately represent the characteristics of the loans backing the securities being sold,” the FHFA said.

    The sophistication of Fannie and Freddie is expected to be the centerpiece of the banks’ aggressive defense. Analysts still expect the suits to be settled to avoid lengthy court battles, but they said the weakness of the case meant that financial firms would have to pay far less money than Fannie and Freddie lost on the securities.

    Stoltmann predicted that a settlement would bring in only several hundred million dollars on total losses estimated so far at about $30 billion.

    In the 17 suits, the FHFA alleged that it was given misleading data.

    For example, in the suit against General Electric Co. over two securities sold in 2005 by its former mortgage banking subsidiary, the FHFA said Freddie Mac was told that at least 90% of the loans in those securities were for owner-occupied homes.

    The real figure was slightly less than 80%, which significantly increased the likelihood of losses on the combined $549 million in securities, the suit said.

    GE said it “plans to vigorously contest these claims.” The company said it had made all its scheduled payments to date and had paid down the principal to about $66 million.

    The federal agency also has taken on some of the titans of the financial industry, including Goldman Sachs & Co., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., to try to recoup some of the losses on the securities. That would help offset the $145 billion that taxpayers now are owed in the Fannie and Freddie bailouts.

    The suits represent one of the most forceful government legal actions against the banking industry nearly four years after the start of a severe recession and financial crisis brought on in part by the crash of the housing market.

    The FHFA had been negotiating separately with the banks to recover losses from mortgage-backed securities purchased by Fannie and Freddie, but decided to get more aggressive.

    “Over the last couple of years, they’ve been doing sort of hand-to-hand combat with each of the banks,” said Michael Bar, a University of Michigan law professor who was assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions in 2009-10. “The suits are an attempt to consolidate those fights over individual loans.”

    Bar thinks the government has a legitimate case.

    “The banks will say, ‘You got what you paid for,’” he said. “And the investors will say, ‘No we didn’t. We thought we were getting bad loans and we got horrible loans.’”

    Edward Mills, a financial policy analyst with FBR Capital Markets, said the FHFA has a fiduciary responsibility to try to limit the losses by Fannie and Freddie. But the independent regulatory agency also probably felt political pressure to ensure that banks be held accountable for their actions leading up to the financial crisis, he said.

    “There’s still a feeling out there that most of these entities got away without a real penalty, so there’s still a desire from the American people to show that someone had to pay,” Mills said.

    Although the suits cover $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities, the actual losses that Fannie and Freddie incurred are much less. For example, the FHFA sued UBS Americas Inc. separately in July seeking to recover at least $900 million in losses on $4.5 billion in securities.

    The faulty mortgage-backed securities contributed to combined losses of about $30 billion by Fannie and Freddie, but a final figure is likely to change as the real estate market struggles to work its way through a growing number of foreclosures.

    Some experts worry that the uncertainty created by the lawsuits makes it more difficult for the housing market to recover, which adds to the pressure on the FHFA and the banks to settle.

    The government case also could be weakened by an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into whether Fannie and Freddie did to their own investors what they’re accusing the banks of doing — not properly disclosing the risks of their investments.

    Banks are expected to make that point as well. But both sides have strong motives to settle the cases and move on, said Peter Wallison, a housing finance expert at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

    “Within any institution there are people who send emails and say crazy things, and the more these things are litigated, the more they get exposed,” Wallison said.

    Because of flaws in its case and political pressures, the FHFA also will be motivated to settle, Wallison said.

    “There will be a settlement because the settlement addresses the political issue … that the government is going to get its pound of flesh from the banks,” he said.

    jim.puzzanghera@latimes.com

  • Tying Health Problems to Rise in Home Foreclosures , by S. MITRA KALITA , Wall street Journal


    The threat of losing your home is stressful enough to make you ill, it stands to reason. Now two economists have measured just how unhealthy the foreclosure crisis has been in some of the hardest-hit areas of the U.S.

    New research by Janet Currie of Princeton University and Erdal Tekin of Georgia State University shows a direct correlation between foreclosure rates and the health of residents in Arizona, California, Florida and New Jersey. The economists concluded in a paper published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research that an increase of 100 foreclosures corresponded to a 7.2% rise in emergency room visits and hospitalizations for hypertension, and an 8.1% increase for diabetes, among people aged 20 to 49.

    Each rise of 100 foreclosures was also associated with 12% more visits related to anxiety in the same age category. And the same rise in foreclosures was associated with 39% more visits for suicide attempts among the same group, though this still represents a small number of patients, the researchers say.

    Teasing out cause and effect can be delicate, and correlation doesn’t necessarily mean foreclosures directly cause health problems. Financial duress, among other issues, could lead to health problems—and cause foreclosures, too.

    The economists didn’t find similar patterns with diseases such as cancer or elective surgeries such as hip replacement, leading them to conclude that areas with high foreclosures are seeing mostly an increase of stress-related ailments.

     

    Tuesday brought news of further weakness in the housing market as the closely watched S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index came in 5.9% lower for the second quarter from a year earlier. Continued job losses and economic uncertainty could weigh on home prices and make for another wave of foreclosures, economists say.

    It may not just be foreclosure victims arriving at hospitals—but neighbors also grappling with depleting equity in their biggest investment.

    “You see foreclosures having a general effect on the neighborhood,” Ms. Currie says. “Everybody’s stressed out. There is a connection between people’s economic well being and their physical well being.”

    The situation got so bad for Patricia Graci, a 51-year-old Staten Island, N.Y., resident, that she canceled a recent court appearance related to the foreclosure on her house because she couldn’t get out of bed. After her husband lost his job as a painter in 2008, the Gracis relied on savings to pay their mortgage for two years.

    “Everything was going downhill. My savings were going down to nothing,” says Ms. Graci. “When I realized the money wasn’t there anymore, I started getting very anxious and depressed.”

    She says her lender advised her to default on her mortgage to qualify for a loan modification. Ms. Graci, who was an assistant bank manager and already had rheumatoid arthritis, says she began seeing a therapist and landed in the hospital with difficulty breathing in December 2009. A few weeks later came the foreclosure notice from the bank.

    “They told me it was more anxiety and stress that made me wind up in the hospital than the arthritis,” Ms. Graci says. After repeatedly missing work due to illness, Ms. Graci went on long-term disability.

    The areas that have the highest foreclosure rates also tend to have a large portion of their population unemployed, underemployed or uninsured. Ms. Currie says the research accounted for this by instituting controls for persistent differences among areas, such as poverty rates, as well as for county-level trends. Much of the 2005-2009 period examined came before unemployment peaked, too, she says. The researchers examined hospital-visit numbers and foreclosure rates in all ZIP Codes that had those data available.

    The areas that have the highest foreclosure rates also tend to have a large portion of their population unemployed, underemployed or uninsured. Ms. Currie says the research accounted for this by instituting controls for persistent differences among areas, such as poverty rates, as well as for county-level trends. The time period examined, 2005 to 2007, was before unemployment peaked, she says. The researchers examined hospital-visit numbers and foreclosure rates in all ZIP Codes that had those data available.

    They found that areas in the top fifth of foreclosure activity have more than double the number of visits for preventable conditions that generally don’t require hospitalization than the bottom fifth.

    At the local hospital in Homestead, Fla., a city of mostly single-family, middle-class homes about 30 miles from Miami, the emergency room has been bustling. Emergency visits to the hospital in 2010 more than doubled from 10 years earlier to about 67,000, and emergency department medical director Otto Vega says they will surpass 70,000 this year. Homestead has the highest rate of mortgage delinquencies in the U.S.—in June, 41% of mortgage holders in the hardest-hit ZIP Code of Homestead were 90 days or more past due on payments, according to real-estate data firm CoreLogic Inc.

    While the most common ailments are respiratory problems and pneumonia, Dr. Vega notes an increase in psychosomatic disorders, such as patients with chest pain and shortness of breath, and others who feel suicidal. “A lot of young people, less than 50 years old, have chest pain. You know it’s anxiety,” he says.

    Nationwide, overall emergency-room visits have also been rising, growing 5% from 2007 to 127.3 million in 2009, according to the American Hospital Association. But inpatient stays have largely kept pace with population growth over the last decade, says Beth Feldpush, a vice president for policy and advocacy at the National Association of Public Hospitals.

    The number of people covered by employer-sponsored insurance has been falling, she says. “When people don’t have insurance, they put off seeking care for too long and end up in the emergency room.”

    And some of those seeking treatment had medical conditions before foreclosure—but the stress of losing their homes has exacerbated their ailments.

    In 2008, Norman Adelman of Freehold, N.J., called his lender to ask for a forbearance of three or four months, saying he was about to undergo knee-replacement surgery. The lender complied and Mr. Adelman, who runs a home-energy business, says he began scaling back his work. He underwent needed tests and doctor visits.

    After two months of not paying his mortgage, he successfully applied for a loan modification, taking his monthly payment from $2,700 to $1,900. But then the loan was sold—and a new servicer didn’t recognize the terms of the arrangement, he says.

    Mr. Adelman is fighting the new lender but says he has been in and out of the hospital for the last two years. He never had his knees replaced and is now on antidepressants and antianxiety medication.

    “He’s deteriorated. He’s had sleepless nights,” says his wife, Shulamis. “You always have this fear of being thrown out. He’s just gotten worse and worse from not sleeping.”

    Earlier this month, after working with the nonprofit Staten Island Legal Services, Ms. Graci received a trial loan modification. “I’m happy but I am still scared,” she says. “I want a permanent solution. I don’t know if I am in the clear.”

    Write to S. Mitra Kalita at mitra.kalita@wsj.com

    Corrections & Amplifications
    The researchers examined the years 2005 through 2009. An earlier version of this article incorrectly implied the research only covered 2005 through 2007

     

     

    Related articles

  • Promoting Housing Recovery Parts 1 and 2, by Patrick Pulatie


    Previously, I have posted articles regarding housing and foreclosure issues. The purpose was to begin a dialogue on the steps to be taken to alleviate the foreclosure crisis, and to promote housing recovery.   Now, we need to explore how to restart lending in the private sector.  This will be a three part article, with parts I and II herein, and III in the next post.

    To begin, we must understand how we got to the point of where we are today, and whereby housing became so critical a factor in the economy. (This is only an overview. I leave it to the historians to fill in all the details.)

    Part One – Agreeing On The Problems

    Historical Backdrop

    At the beginning of the 20th century, the U.S. population stood about 76,000,000 people. By the end of 2000, the population was over 310 million. The unprecedented growth in population resulted in the housing industry and related services becoming one of several major engines of wealth creation during the 20th century.

    During the Depression, large numbers of farm and home foreclosures were occurring. The government began to get involved in housing to stop foreclosures and stimulate housing growth. This resulted in the creation of an FHA/Fannie Mae– like program, to support housing.

    WWII led to major structural changes in the U.S., both economically and culturally. Manufacturing and technological changes spurred economic growth. Women entered the work force in huge numbers. Returning veterans came back from the war desiring to leave the rural areas, begin families, and enter the civilian workforce. The result was the baby boom generation and its coming influence.

    From the 1950s through the 1970s, the US dominated the world economically. Real income growth was occurring for all households. Homeownership was obtainable for ever increasing numbers of people. Consumerism was rampant.

    To support homeownership, the government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that more people could partake in the American Dream. These entities would eventually become the primary source of mortgages in the U.S. F&F changed the way mortgages were funded, and changed the terms of mortgages, so that 30 year mortgages became the common type of loan, instead of 5 to 15 year mortgages.

    Storm clouds were beginning to appear on the horizon at the same time. Japan, Korea, Germany, and other countries had now come out of their post war depressions. Manufacturing and industrial bases had been rebuilt. These countries now posed an economic threat to the U.S. by offering improved products, cheaper labor costs, and innovation. By the end of the 1970s, for many reasons, US manufacturing was decreasing, and service related industries were gaining importance.

    In the 1980s and 1990s, manufacturing began to decline in the U.S. Service Industries were now becoming a major force in the economy. With the end of the Cold War in 1989, defense spending began to decline dramatically, further depressing the economy.

    In the early 1990s, F&F engaged in efforts to increase their share of the mortgage market. They freely admitted wanting to control the housing market, and took steps to do so, undermining lenders and competition, and any attempts to regulate them.

    In 1994, homeownership rates were at 64% in the US. President Clinton, along with Congress and in conjunction with Fannie and Freddie, came out with a new program with the intent to promote a 70% homeownership rate. This program was promoted even though economists generally considered 64% to be the maximum amount of homeownership that an economy could readily support. Above 64%, people would be 

    “buying” homes, but without having the financial capabilities to repay a loan. The program focused upon low income persons and minorities. The result was greater demand for housing and homeownership, and housing values began to increase.

    Lenders and Wall Street were being pushed out of the housing market by F&F, and had to find new markets to serve. F&F did not want to service the new markets being created by the government homeownership programs. The result was that Wall Street would naturally gravitate to that market, which was generally subprime, and also to the jumbo market, which F&F could not serve due to loan amount restrictions. This was the true beginning of securitized loan products.

    The events of 9/11 would ultimately stoke the fires of home ownership even further. 9/11 occurred as the US was coming out of a significant recession, and to keep the country from sliding back into recession, the Fed lowered interest rates and kept them artificially low until 2003. Wall Street, recognizing the promise of good financial returns from securitized loans, freed up more and more capital for banks and mortgage bankers to lend. This led to even greater demand for homes and mortgages.

    To meet the increased demand, home construction exploded. Ancillary services did well also, from infrastructure, schools, hospitals, roads, building materials, and home decor. The economy was booming, even though this was “mal-investment” of resources. (Currently, as a result of this activity, there are estimated to be from 2m to 3.5m in excess housing units, with approximately 400k being added yearly to housing stock.)

    It did not stop there. Buyers, in their increasing zeal, were bidding for homes, increasing the price of homes in many states by 50 to 100,000 dollars more than what was reasonable. The perception was that if they did not buy now, then they could never buy. Additionally, investors began to purchase multiple properties, hoping to create a home rental empire. This led to unsustainable home values.

    Concurrently, the Fed was still engaged in a loose money policy. This pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into the housing economy, with predictable results. With increasing home values, homeowners could refinance their homes, often multiple times over, pulling cash out and keeping the economy pumped up artificially. A homeowner could pull out 50,000 to 100,000 dollars or more, often every year or two, and use that money to indulge themselves, pretending they had a higher standard of living than what existed. The government knew that this was not a reasonable practice, but indulged in it anyway, so as to keep up an appearance of a healthy economy. Of course, this only compounded the problem.

    The end result of the past 40 years of government intervention (and popular support for that intervention) has been a housing market that is currently overbuilt and still overvalued. In the meantime, real wages have not increased since the mid 1990s and for large numbers of the population, negative income growth has been experienced. Today, all segments of the population, homeowners especially so, are saddled with significant mortgage debt, consumer debt, and revolving credit debt. This has led to an inability on the part of the population to buy homes or other products. Until wage and debt issues are resolved, employment increases, and housing prices have returned to more reasonable values, there can be no housing recovery.

    Current Status

    As all know, the current status of housing in the US is like a ship dead in the water, with no ability to steer except to roll with the waves. A recap:

    Private securitization once accounted for over 25% of all mortgage loans. These efforts are currently nonexistent except for one entity, Redwood Trust, which has issued one securitized offerings in 2010 and one in 2011. Other than this, Wall Street is afraid to invest in Mortgage Products (to say nothing of downstream investors).

    Banks are unable to lend their own money, which represented up to 15% of all lending. Most banks are capital impaired and have liquidity issues, as well as unknown liabilities from bad loans dating to the bubble.

    Additionally, banks are suffering from a lack of qualified borrowers. Either there is no equity in the home to lend on, or the borrowers don’t have the financial ability to afford the loan. Therefore, the only lending that a bank can engage in is to execute loans and sell them to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or VA and FHA. There are simply no other options available.

    F&F are buying loans from the banks, but their lending standards have increased, so the loan purchases are down. F&F still distort the market because of government guarantees on their loans (now explicit instead of implicit), and they are still able to purchase loans above $700k, which was implemented in response to the housing crisis.

    F&F are still having financial issues, with the government having bailed them out to the tune of $140b, with much more to come.

    VA is buying loans and doing reasonably well, but they serve a tiny portion of the market.

    FHA has turned into the new subprime, accepting credit challenged borrowers, and with loan to values of 95% or greater. Default rates on FHA loans are rising significantly, and will pose issues for the government when losses absorb all FHA loss reserves, which may have already happened (depending on how you look at the accounting).

    The Mortgage Insurance companies are financially depressed, with PMI being forced to stop writing new policies due to loan loss reserves being depleted. Likely, they will cease business or be absorbed by another company. Other companies are believed to be similarly in trouble, though none have failed yet.

    The US population is still overburdened with debt. It is believed that the household consumer debt burden is over 11%, for disposable income. This is far too high for effective purchasing of any products, especially high end. (There has been a lessening of this debt from its high of 14% in 2008, but this has primarily been the result of defaults, so most of those persons are not in a position to buy.)

    Patrick Pulatie is the CEO of LFI Analytics. He can be reached at 925-522-0371, or 925-238-1221 for further information. http://www.LFI-Analytics.com, patrick@lfi-analytics.com.

    Related articles

  • Pre-Foreclosure Short Sales Jump 19% in Second Quarter by Carrie Bay, DSNEWS.com


    An example of a real estate owned property in ...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Short sales shot up 19 percent between the first and second quarters, with 102,407 transactions completed during the April-to-June period, according to RealtyTrac.  Over the same timeframe, a total of 162,680 bank-owned REO homes sold to third parties, virtually unchanged from the first quarter.

    RealtyTrac’s study also found that the average time to complete a short sale is down, while the time it takes to sell an REO has increased.

    Pre-foreclosure short sales took an average of 245 days to sell after receiving the initial foreclosure notice during the second quarter, RealtyTrac says. That’s down from an average of 256 days in the first quarter and follows three straight quarters in which the sales cycle has increased.

    REOs that sold in the second quarter took an average of 178 days to sell after the foreclosure process was completed, which itself has been lengthening across the country. The REO sales cycle in Q2 increased slightly from 176 days in the first quarter, and is up from 164 days in the second quarter of 2010.

    Discounts on both short sales and REOs increased last quarter, according to RealtyTrac’s study, but homes sold pre-foreclosure carried less of a markdown when compared to non-distressed homes.

    Sales of homes in default or scheduled for auction prior to the completion of foreclosure had an average sales price nationwide of $192,129, a discount of 21 percent below the average sales price of non-foreclosure homes. The short sale price-cut is up from a 17 percent discount in the previous quarter and a 14 percent discount in the second quarter of 2010.

    Nationally, REOs had an average sales price of $145,211, a discount of nearly 40 percent below the average sales price of non-distressed homes. The REO discount was 36 percent in the previous quarter and 34 percent in the second quarter of 2010.

    Commenting on the latest short sale stats in particular, James Saccacio, RealtyTrac’s CEO, said, “The jump in pre-foreclosure sales volume coupled with bigger discounts…and a shorter average time to sell…all point to a housing market that is starting to focus on more efficiently clearing distressed inventory through more streamlined short sales.”

    Saccacio says short sales “give lenders the opportunity to more pre-emptively purge non-performing loans from their portfolios and avoid the long, costly and increasingly messy process of foreclosure and the subsequent sale of an REO.”

    Together, REOs and short sales accounted for 31 percent of all U.S. residential sales in the second quarter, RealtyTrac reports. That’s down from nearly 36 percent of all sales in the first quarter but up from 24 percent of all sales in the second quarter of 2010.

    States with the highest percentage of foreclosure-related sales – REOs and short sales – in the second quarter include Nevada (65%), Arizona (57%), California (51%), Michigan (41%), and Georgia (38%).

    States where foreclosure-related sales increased more than 30 percent between the first and second quarters include Delaware (33%), Wyoming (32%), and Iowa (30%).

     

    Related articles

  • Multnomahforeclosures.com: July 15th, 2011 Update.


    Multnomah County highlighted in Oregon; Portla...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Multnomahforeclosures.com was updated with the largest list of Notice Defaults to date. With Notice of Default records dating back nearly 3 years.  

    If you are planning on investing in real estate, want to learn the status of the home you are renting/leasing or about to rent or lease  you should visit Multnomahforeclosures.com.

    All listings are in PDF and Excel Spread Sheet format.

    Multnomah County Foreclosures

    Multnomah County Foreclosures
    http://multnomahforeclosures.com

     
     

    Fred Stewart 
    Broker
    Stewart Group Realty Inc.
    http://www.sgrealty.us/
    info@sgrealtyinc.com
    503-289-4970 (Phone)

    Related articles

  • Bend’s economy is coming back to life, By Ben Jacklet, Oregon Business Magazine


    Location of Central Oregon in Oregon based on ...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Shelly Hummel has been selling homes in Bend for more than 20 years, and she’s got the attitude to match: upbeat, confident, a dog-lover who took up skiing at age 4. She labors to keep things positive, but every so often her frustration slips free: “The banks just kept giving the builders money, without even looking at plans or doing drive-bys of the places they were selling. The market just exploded with new construction. Boom! Selling stuff off of floor plans. Unfortunately, selling them to people who had no business buying them. It was a perfect storm of stupidity.”

    We are touring the wreckage of that storm in Hummel’s Cadillac Escalade, driving down Brookswood Boulevard into a former pine forest that now hosts a swath of housing developments with names like Copper Canyon and Quail Pine. “This was the boundary line until 2003,” says Hummel. “These roads dead-ended. That home sold for $350,000. Now it’s on the market for $175,000. Short sale.”

    Hummel never intended to become a “certified distressed property expert” specializing in selling homes for less than is owed on their mortgages. But in Bend, she didn’t have much of a choice. No city in Oregon — or arguably, the nation — experienced a more dramatic reversal of fortunes during the Great Recession than Bend, the economic engine for Central Oregon. Home values got cut in half. Unemployment soared to over 16%. A once-promising aviation sector imploded. So did an overheated market for destination resorts. Brokers, builders and speculators once flush with cash woke up underwater and flailing. Banks renowned for their no-document, easy-money loans stopped lending. Layoffs led to notices of default; foreclosure brought bankruptcy.

    How does a community recover from economic meltdown? That is the central question I am trying to answer about Bend. I start my inquiry at the offices of Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO), an organization formed to diversify the economy after the last major recession in the region, in the 1980s. My meeting is with executive director Roger Lee, marketing manager Ruth Lindley and business development manager Eric Strobel. I turn on my digital recorder and say, “I’d like to hear your take on how the recession impacted Bend’s economy.”

    Silence. I read their expressions: Not this again.

    It takes some time, but over the course of the interview they paint a sharp portrait of what went wrong and why. A local housing boom “fueled by speculation, not solid economics,” in Lee’s words, crashed. The local crash coincided with a national housing slump that devastated Bend’s major traded sector of building supplies. The final blow was the collapse of the local general aviation industry. Cessna shut down its local plant in April 2009. Epic Aircraft, the other major employer at the airport, went bankrupt.

    “Aviation was our diversification away from construction and wood products,” says Strobel. “We had thousands of employees out at Bend Airport. It was the largest aviation cluster in the state… It just completely fell apart in six months.”

    Read more: Bend’s economy is coming back to life – Oregon Business http://www.oregonbusiness.com/articles/101-july-2011/5460-bends-economy-is-coming-back-to-life#ixzz1QVF66anh

     
    Related articles

  • Use Caution When Selling REO Properties, by Phil Querin, PMAR Legal Counsel, Querin Law, LLC Q-Law.com


    Foreclosure Sign, Mortgage Crisis
    Image via Wikipedia

    By now, most Realtors® have heard the rumblings about defective bank foreclosures in Oregon and elsewhere. What you may not have heard is that these flawed foreclosures can result in potential title problems down the road. 

    Here’s the “Readers Digest” version of the issue: Several recent federal court cases in Oregon  have chastised lenders for failing to follow the trust deed foreclosure law. This law, found inORS 86.735(1), essentially says that before a lender may foreclose, it must record all assignments of the underlying trust deed. This requirement assures that the lender purporting to currently hold the note and trust deed can show the trail of assignments back to the original  bank that first made the loan.

    Due to poor record keeping, many banks cannot easily locate the several assignments that  occurred over the life of the trust deed. Since Oregon’s law only requires assignment as a condition to foreclosing, the reality of the requirement didn’t hit home until the foreclosure crisis was in full swing, i.e. 2008 and after.

    Being unable to now comply with the successive recording requirement, the statute was frequently ignored. The result was that most foreclosures in Oregon were potentially based upon a flawed process. One recent federal case held that the failure to record intervening assignments resulted in the foreclosure being “void.” In short, a complete nullity – as if it never occurred.

    Aware of this law, the Oregon title industry is considering inserting a limitation on the scope of its policy coverage in certain REO sales. The limitation would apply where the underlying foreclosure did not comply with the assignment recording requirement of ORS 86.735(1). This means that the purchaser of certain bank-owned homes may not get complete coverage under their owner’s title policy. Since many banks have not generally given any warranties in their

    REO deeds, there is a risk that a buyer will have no recourse (i.e. under their deed or their title insurance policy) should someone later attack the legality of the underlying foreclosure.

    Realtors® representing buyers of REO properties should keep this issue in mind. While this is  not to suggest that brokers become “title sleuths,” it is to suggest that they be generally aware of the issue, and mention it to their clients, when appropriate. If necessary, clients should be told to consult their own attorney. This is the “value proposition” that a well-informed Realtor®  brings to the table in all REO transactions.

    ©2011 Phillip C. Querin, QUERIN LAW, LLC

    Visit Phil Querin’s web site for more information about Oregon Real Estate Law http://www.q-law.com

    Related articles

  • Proposed QRM Rule Released, 20% Down Payment Required, by Michael Kraus, Totalmortgage.com


    New proposed risk-retention rules, required as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform were released today by the FDIC, according to a report from Fox News.

    The new regulations would require mortgage originators to retain capital reserves equal to 5% of all but the safest mortgages. The mortgages that are exempt from the risk retention guidelines are termed “qualified residential mortgages” or QRMs. In order to qualify as a QRM, there must be a down payment of at least 20%. Additionally, anyone who has ever had a 60 day delinquency in their credit history will not qualify for a QRM. FHA loans will be exempt from the QRM rules, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages may also be exempt so long as these agencies are in government conservatorship.

    As we’ve discussed in the past, there could be a number of side effects for borrowers, among them increased mortgage rates for anyone who doesn’t qualify for a QRM. Another one of the side effects could be that the FHA Mortgage Share could increase significantly as these loans are exempt from the QRM rule.

    Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, spoke at an FDIC board meeting today and addressed the proposed rule. She said:

    “In thinking about the impact of this proposed rule, we need to keep in mind the following facts:
    First, the QRM requirements will not define the entire mortgage market, but only that segment that is exempt from risk retention. Lenders can – and will – find ways to provide credit on more flexible terms, but only if they then comply with the risk retention rules.
    Second, what matters to underserved borrowers is not just the volume of credit that is available, but also the quality of that credit. More than half of the subprime loans made in 2006 and 2007 that were securitized ended up in default, which hurt both borrowers and investors and triggered the financial crisis. By aligning the interests of borrowers, securitizers and investors, our new rules will help to avoid these outcomes and keep default rates at much lower levels. They will also help avoid another securitization-fed housing bubble which made home prices unaffordable for many LMI borrowers.
    Finally, the private securitization market, which created more than $1 trillion in mortgage credit annually in its peak years of 2005 and 2006, has virtually ceased to exist in the wake of the crisis. Issuance in 2009 and 2010 was just 5 percent of peak levels. This market needs strong rules that assure investors that the process is not rigged against them. The intent of this rulemaking is not to kill private mortgage securitization – the financial crisis has already done that. Our intent is to restore sound practices in lending, securitization and loan servicing, and bring this market back better than before.”
    The majority of homeowners with mortgages in this country would be unable to refinance into a QRM due to a lack of home equity. Additionally, the vast number of people who have gone through foreclosure or have even been two months delinquent would be unable to get a QRM. All of these people will likely pay increased mortgage rates if they were to refinance or get a new mortgage. I totally understand the reasoning behind the QRM. It also strikes me as being a classic case of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. What are your thoughts on the proposed rule? Let me know in the comments section below.

    Related Articles

  • QRM Rule Could Cause FHA Mortgage Share to Skyrocket, by Michael Kraus , Totalmortgage.com


    Recently I’ve spent a good deal of time discussing upcoming changes to risk-retention rules regarding mortgage origination that could potentially increase the cost of mortgages for a great many people.

    Under the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform, loan originators will be required to retain capital reserves equal to five percent of all but the safest mortgage loans. The safe loans that will be exempt from this risk retention are called “qualified residential mortgages” (QRMs). The definition for a QRM is expected to be released in the next couple of weeks, but the expectation is that in order to be a QRM, a mortgage loan will need a 20% downpayment. This means that those that do not have a down payment of this size will be subject to increased mortgage rates to make up for the risk retention on the part of the lender. The Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the FHA, and other regulatory and governmental agencies are responsible for defining a QRM.

    The rule is intended to ensure that lenders have “skin in the game”. In the past, some mortgage originators would make risky loans, and in turn bundle them into mortgage backed securities and sell them to investors, effectively passing all the risk to another party. These practices were partially to blame for the meltdown of the housing market. Theoretically, the QRM rule would end these risky lending practices.

    There is an exception to the QRM rule, and that is that loans issued or guaranteed through government agencies (not Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) are to be exempt from the rule. See section 941 of Dodd-Frank, specifically (ii):

    ‘‘(G) provide for—‘‘(i) a total or partial exemption of any securitization, as may be appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors;

    ‘‘(ii) a total or partial exemption for the securitization of an asset issued or guaranteed by the United States, or an agency of the United States, as the Federal banking agencies and the Commission jointly determine appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors, except that, for purposes of this clause, the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation are not agencies of the United States;

    ‘‘(iii) a total or partial exemption for any assetbacked security that is a security issued or guaranteed by any State of the United States, or by any political subdivision of a State or territory, or by any public instrumentality of a State or territory that is exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 by reason of section 3(a)(2) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(2)), or a security defined as a qualified scholarship funding bond in section 150(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as may be appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors; and

    ‘‘(iv) the allocation of risk retention obligations between a securitizer and an originator in the case of a securitizer that purchases assets from an originator, as the Federal banking agencies and the Commission jointly determine appropriate.

    As FHA mortgages would be exempt from QRM, it is very easy to imagine a situation where FHA loan volume greatly increases as a result of the rule change. The FHA only requires a down payment of 3.5%, but I can easily picture those with less than 20 percent down opting for an FHA mortgage in order to avoid higher mortgage rates resulting from the risk-retention requirements (obviously it will depend on whether or not the increased rates cost more or less than the FHA’s up front mortgage insurance premiums, which remains to be seen).

    In any case, this could put the FHA in a tough spot, as it is already undercapitalized, and was never really intended to do the volume of loans that it is doing presently. The VA and USDA could also see increased loan volume, but the increase wouldn’t be as great as with the FHA, as these loans are restricted to a smaller group of people.

    Related Articles

  • SBA opens 504 refinancing to more firms, by Kent Hoover, Portland Business Journal


    The U.S. Small Business Administration will allow more businesses to refinance their commercial real mortgages through its 504 loan program.

    The SBA initially restricted this new refinancing option to small businesses that faced balloon payments on their mortgages before Dec. 31, 2012. Beginning April 6, it will open the 504 refinancing option to businesses with balloon payments due after that date.

    “With the collapse of the real estate bubble, many small business owners have found themselves unable to refinance as a result of inflated real estate values at the time they took out their mortgage,” SBA Administrator Karen Mills said. “SBA’s temporary 504 refinancing program was first made available to those small businesses with the most immediate need. Today’s step opens this critical assistance to more small businesses, giving them the opportunity to restructure their debt and free up capital that will be essential to keeping their doors open and also their future ability to grow and create jobs.”

    The Small Business Jobs Act, which was enacted last September, allowed the 504 program to be used to refinance existing loans on owner-occupied commercial real estate through September 2012. To be eligible for refinancing, the mortgage must be at least two years old, and the business must be current on their payments for the past 12 months. Borrowers can refinance up to 90 percent of the current appraised property value or 100 percent of the outstanding mortgage, whichever is lower.

    The SBA’s 504 loans are used to finance fixed assets, primarily real estate. Typically, a 504 project includes a first mortgage from a private-second lender that covers 50 percent of the cost, an SBA-guaranteed second mortgage from a certified development company that covers 40 percent of the cost, and 10 percent equity from the small business borrower.

    Read more: SBA opens 504 refinancing to more firms | Portland Business Journal

  • Oregon economy climbs higher, by Suzanne Stevens, Portland Business Journal


    Oregon‘s economy showed continued growth in February, led by employment services payrolls, strong U.S. consumer sentiment and an increase in the interest rate spread.

    The University of Oregon Index of Economic Indicators rose 0.7 percent to 91.3 in February from January. The index has a benchmark of 100 set in 1997.

    While unemployment claims edged up, they remain well below 2010 levels and overall labor market trends are strong. Employment services payrolls, largely temporary employment, were up 3.2 percent and non-farm payrolls were also up, adding about 9,800 new jobs last month. Since October, the Oregon economy has added about 5,900 jobs each month.

    Other Oregon data reflected in the UO Index include:

    Initial unemployment claims rose slightly to 8,551 in February, up from 8,487 in January.
    Residential permits inched up to 629 from 627.
    U.S. consumer confidence rose to 73.1 from 71.2.
    New manufacturing orders for non-defense, non-aircraft capital goods dipped to 39,402 from 39,728.
    The interest rate spread between for 10-year treasury bonds and the federal funds rate widened to 3.42 from 3.22, a signal of investor confidence in the U.S. economy.
    The index has continued to climb since October 2010, when it was 88.9.

    Read more: Oregon economy climbs higher | Portland Business Journal

    Related Articles

  • Hundreds of Oregon foreclosure sales stopped after judges’ rulings by Brent Hunsberger, The Oregonian


    Sales of hundreds of foreclosed homes in Oregon have been halted or withdrawn in recent weeks after federal judges repeatedly questioned their legality, according to a number of real estate attorneys in the state.

    Lenders have withdrawn more than 300 foreclosure sales since February in Deschutes County alone, one of the Oregon area’s hardest hit by the housing collapse. About 130 of those notices were filed in the past week, attorneys say.

    Dozens of foreclosure listings by ReconTrust Co., the foreclosure arm of Bank of America Corp., have disappeared from its website, attorneys say. A BofA spokeswoman said the bank was canceling certain sales to ensure that those homeowners had fully explored options to avoid foreclosure.

    Since October, federal judges in five separate Oregon cases have halted foreclosures involving MERS, saying its participation caused lenders to violate the state’s recording law. Three of those decisions came last month, the key one in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Eugene.

    Attorneys say it’s not clear whether lenders in Oregon will simply start over or head to court to foreclose, steps that could prolong the crisis for months and drive up costs, attorneys say. Some suggest lenders might not have access to the documents they need to comply with state law.

    “A lot of us are questioning whether there is a solution,” said David Ambrose, a Portland attorney who represents lenders in mortgage transactions. “It’s pretty amazing. There are a lot of unanswered questions.”

    MERS is listed as an agent for lenders on more than 60 million U.S. home loans, about half of all such loans.

    Homeowners nationwide have challenged its standing. In New York last month, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled that MERS lacked authority to foreclose on homes it didn’t own.

    In Oregon, lenders can foreclose without going to court. But state law also requires that the loan’s ownership history, or assignments, be recorded with local county governments before proceeding with a nonjudicial foreclosure.

    In the Eugene court case, Donald E. McCoy III filed for bankruptcy protection in part to block U.S. Bank from foreclosing on his Central Point home. He then sued the bank and MERS, along with his original lender BNC Mortgage Inc., claiming they had not properly recorded BNC’s subsequent sale of the loan to investors.

    Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. Alley III found McCoy’s allegation persuasive and refused to grant the bank’s request for a dismissal.

    “Oregon law permits foreclosure without the benefit of judicial proceeding only when the interest of the beneficiary (lender) is clearly documented in a public record,” Alley wrote. “When the public record is lacking, the foreclosing beneficiary must prove its interest in a judicial proceeding.”

    In response to that ruling, First American Financial Corp., one of the nation’s largest title insurers, began warning lenders and buyers in title documents that it wouldn’t insure titles with a cloudy public record in Oregon, company attorney Alan Brickley said.

    “It’s simply saying we have a concern, and you should have a concern,” said Brickley, who’s based in Portland.

    But attorneys representing lenders and consumers say that warning will have a chilling effect on the sales of foreclosed homes in which MERS is involved.

    “If you can’t get title insurance, that almost stops the process,” Ambrose explained.

    And, in a potential deal breaker for other foreclosure cases, one of the nation’s largest title-insurance companies is warning lenders that it might not guarantee title in some cases.

    The developments underscore that the challenges disrupting foreclosures in other states have finally hit home in Oregon. Foreclosure sales in the state totaled 10,500 last year, or 28 percent of all home sales, according to RealtyTrac Inc. Federal agencies and state attorneys general are investigating the foreclosure and loan-modification practices of the nation’s largest banks.

    The legal concerns revolve around Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., a Reston, Va., corporation set up in the mid-1990s by the mortgage banking industry to rapidly record the ownership of mortgages so they could be packaged and sold as securities.

    MERS essentially allowed lenders to sell loans without recording each transaction with county recorder offices, experts say. That rapid and sometimes reckless securitization of such loans contributed to the 2008 financial crisis and housing slump. The problems clouding the foreclosure process — including last year’s robo-signing scandal that forced several big banks to suspend foreclosures in about two dozen states — continue to drag down the housing market today.

    U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown last month blocked two foreclosure sales by CitiMortgage Inc. and BAC Home Loan Servicing, saying the lenders had failed to properly record documents.

    Also last month, MERS told its member lenders in a memo distributed nationally to stop foreclosing in its name while it works to address the legal challenges.

    “It’s a fundamental change that they have to deal with and the question is whether they can,” said Margaret E. Dailey, a real estate attorney in Newport.

    The full impact of these developments is only now beginning to play out in Oregon. Not all foreclosures involve MERS.

    Dailey on Friday counted more than 70 foreclosures rescinded at the Lincoln County recorder’s office since the start of the year, including 45 in February.

    A review by The Oregonian of Deschutes County clerk’s office records shows that BofA’s ReconTrust withdrew more than 60 foreclosure sale notices Friday and 35 on Thursday.

    BofA spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens said the cancellations resulted from a review late last year of its foreclosure process. The bank wants to ensure that homeowners nearing a foreclosure sale have exhausted other opportunities, including loan modifications and short sales, she said.

    “We are not going through and saying rescind everything,” Bauwens said late Saturday.

    Experts caution that the rulings eventually could be overturned. But buyers and lenders probably will look to the Oregon Legislature for a potential fix, attorneys say. Already, one bill has been introduced, Senate Bill 484, that would make it harder for banks to sell or foreclose on properties using MERS.

    Related Articles

  • Wells Fargo closed nearly 500,000 Loans in 3rd Quarter, Thetruthaboutmortgage.com


    I recently noted that Wells Fargo was the top residential mortgage lender based on volume for the fourth consecutive quarter, ending in the third quarter, according to data fromMortgagestats.com.

    Well, as you may have suspected, the San Francisco-based bank and mortgage lender was also tops with respect to total number of loans closed.

    During the third quarter, the company closed 469,914 home loans, up five percent from the 446,403 loans closed a year earlier.

    In the second quarter, the bank closed less than 400,000 loans, but closed a staggering 581,961 in the second quarter of 2009, when the refinance boom got its legs, thanks to those record low mortgage rates.

    That, along with the reduced staff, may explain why it took so long to get an underwritingdecision on your loan.

    Gone are the days of same-day or 24-hour underwriting – now it’s a couple of weeks, if you’re lucky.

    Of course, loan origination volume is expected to slow this year, so maybe it’ll be easier to get that decision from the bank a little quicker.

    Check out the rest of the leaders in total residential home loans closed, along with their market share and year-over-year change.

    Quicken Loans was the biggest gainer (+65%), while Bank of America saw a more than 25 percent decline, but still held on to the second spot.

    Related Articles

  • Mortgage Rates Continue to Climb, Closing in on 5% Mark, by Carrie Bay, DSNEWS.com


    Borrowing costs on home loans continue to increase, with mortgage rates rising sharply for the past five weeks in a row. New data released Thursday show that the average rate for a 30-year mortgage jumped 22 basis points over the last seven days. Freddie Mac reports that rates for a 30-year fixed mortgage averaged 4.83 percent (0.7 point) for the week ending December 16, 2010. That’s up from last week’s average of 4.61 percent. Last year at this time, the 30-year rate was 4.94 percent.

    The GSE’s weekly rate survey is based on data gathered from about 125 lenders across the country, and it showed increases across the board.
    The 15-year fixed-rate mortgage this week averaged 4.17 percent (0.7 point) in Freddie’s study. Last week, it was 3.96 percent, and a year ago at this time, it was 4.38 percent.

    Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) also climbed higher. Freddie says the 5-year ARM averaged 3.77 percent (0.7 point) this week, up from 3.60 percent. Rates on 1-year ARMs came in at 3.35 percent (0.7 point), compared to 3.27 percent the previous week.
    A separate study released by Bankrate Thursday, which derives its figures from data provided by the top 10 banks and thrifts in the top 10 U.S. markets, shows that 30-year rates among its covered lenders already hit the 5.00 percent (0.4 point) mark this week. That’s up from a 4.89 percent average reported by Bankrate last week.
    It’s the first time since May that the 30-year rate has hit the 5 percent threshold in Bankrate’s study. As recently as November 3, mortgage rates were at a record low of 4.42 percent, according to the tracking firm’s analysis.
    The average 15-year fixed mortgage increased to 4.37 percent (0.38 point), and the larger jumbo 30-year fixed rate rose to 5.58 percent in Bankrate’s study.
    Adjustable rate mortgages were also higher, with the average 5-year ARM jumping to 3.95 percent and the average 7-year ARM climbing to 4.36 percent.
    Bankrate surveys a panel of mortgage experts each week to gauge which way they think rates are headed over the next seven days. Nearly three-quarters of the panelists, 73 percent, expect mortgage rates to increase and only 7 percent predict rates to decline. The other 20 percent forecast that rates will remain more or less unchanged over the next week.

    Related Articles

  • Zoning puts out Portland industrial businesses by, Nick Bjork, Daily Journal of Commerce


    Hanset Stainless, a steel fabricating business along the Columbia Slough in east Portland, has become an expert at adapting to survive. In the past few decades the company has shifted from manufacturing parts for restaurant equipment to manufacturing parts for electronic equipment. Now the company produces parts for medical supplies and architectural interiors.

    But Hanset Stainless’ owners worry the company’s adaptability could be in jeopardy because of a city plan to update environmental zones near Portland International Airport. Owners of businesses and properties in the area say they are concerned that the zoning changes being proposed would prohibit future expansions or development along the slough, which could push businesses not just out of the area but out of the city.

    “As we’ve changed and adapted, we’ve had to improve our technology, as well as expand and retrofit our shop,” said Luke Hanset, a project manager and an estimator with the company. “All of these changes required expansions to our building, and if we needed to shift again we wouldn’t be able to with this new zoning.”

    While companies like Hanset Stainless consider the slough to be one of the last sanctuaries for industrial business in Portland, the city sees the slough as an environmental gem that needs to be protected, said Jay Sugnet, a project manager with the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.

    Everything in the area that is at least 50 feet from the bank, including businesses like Hanset Stainless, is considered is to be in a conservation zone. If proposed zoning were to be approved by City Council, the area would become a protection zone.

    In a conservation zone, future development, improvements or expansions are allowed if the property owner also performs mitigative or restorative work worth 5 percent of the cost of the work. But in a protection zone, all three are strictly prohibited.

    That change could place Hanset Stainless in a precarious business position. The company’s compressor, which is essential for vital manufacturing equipment, sits within the proposed protection zone. Eventually, the compressor will need to be replaced, but a switch to a new compressor won’t be allowed in an area designated as a protection zone.

    “We would have to reroute and retrofit our entire building if the compressor went out because we wouldn’t be allowed to put a new one where it currently sits,” Hanset said.

    Hanset Stainless, however, isn’t the only business in the area that would be affected by the new zoning. The district would include 5,686 acres that sit between the Columbia River, the Columbia Slough, Northeast 13th Street and Interstate 205. The area has 354 industrial-zoned properties in use and approximately 260 acres of industrial-zoned, undeveloped properties – 37 percent of the city’s industrial land.

    “This is incredibly important to us,” said Corky Collier, executive director of the Columbia Corridor Association, a group of industrial professionals representing 28 square miles of industrial property, much of which is along the slough. “Not only do the changes in zoning devalue the undeveloped industrial land in the area, (but) it makes it nearly impossible to expand or improve the facilities currently in operation, most of which are out of date already.

    “This is a great area to redevelop, something the city likes to see happen with other commercial buildings around town. If the zoning is changed, it’s going to push industrial businesses away from the city, toward greenfield sites at the edge of the urban growth boundary.”

    Mark Childs, a senior vice president with Capacity Commercial, is working with a potential buyer on a manufacturing property he is brokering in the area. Fifty feet may not seem like much, Child said, but almost every manufacturing business in the area has a paved parking lot in the zone. Improvements would not be allowed if it became a protection zone.

    “This deal, a $1 million to $2 million deal, will be dead in the water if this passes,” Childs said. “The building is a little outdated and no matter who moves in, they will need to make improvements, if not expand the building.

    “If property A is in the city but has a 4-inch-thick binder about what can and can’t happen on it, and property B is out of the city but doesn’t have any binder, no one is even going to look at property A. This is going to push businesses out of the city.”

    The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability and the Port of Portland will be bringing the proposed zoning changes to the Planning Commission for a hearing on Aug. 24. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, it will go in front of City Council to be passed as an ordinance. Staff is targeting a council meeting sometime in October.

    “We understand that this could be a heavy hammer, and we hope to work with these industry groups, but this corridor is already constrained,” Sugnet said. “There aren’t many places in the city with as much wildlife, and we need to do something to protect that.”

    While Hanset agrees that both businesses and the city should be good stewards of the environment, he doesn’t agree with the path the city is taking.

    “We don’t mind mitigating our impact, but we need to be able to grow to afford it,” he said. “If the city is going to come on our private property and regulate, then (it) needs to compensate us for it because this is going to really hurt our resale value.”

    Daily Journal of Commerce

    Zoning puts out Portland industrial businesses