Mortgage workout or workover?

by Dan Krell

Earlier in December, a new mortgage relief program was announced as the Bush-Paulson Mortgage Plan. The plan, although not yet approved nor agreed to by all parties involved, is intended to help those home owners who have sub-prime mortgages with interest rates that will adjust significantly higher. Proposed details, as revealed in a December 5th, 2007 Financial Times article, include a five year interest rate freeze for sub-prime adjustable rate mortgages that were dated between 2005-2007 and whose rates are to increase between 2008-2010. Lender participation will be voluntary. Additional borrower qualifications include having less than three percent equity in their home, not being more than sixty days behind on their mortgage payment, as well as demonstrating an inability to afford any mortgage increase (www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4b23f82-a37c-11dc-b229-0000779fd2ac.html).

Many Wall Street investors have criticized any workout plan as excessive government intervention in a market that is already correcting itself. Some in the industry have described such intervention as delaying the inevitable for those in foreclosure, explaining that many home owners who can not afford a rate increase now would possibly not be able to afford a delayed (five year) rate increase. Other critics include self described “responsible“ home owners who feel they work hard to maintain their credit and pay their mortgage timely; they claim that any government intervention to help those in foreclosure sends the wrong message.

Others, including Presidential candidates, have criticized the President for not doing enough to help those home owners already in foreclosure. For example, Senator Hillary Clinton (as posted on her website HillaryClinton.com) criticized President Bush’s plan and proposed an alternative plan that includes immediate foreclosure moratoriums and across the board rate freezes. Although well intentioned, many proposed alternatives also have market and socio-economic consequences.

Unfortunately, many home owners who are facing foreclosure don’t know that a workout plan (know as a “loan modification”) may already be possible with their present lender. Of course the home owner must request it. Additionally, the proposed workout must make sense and the home owner must demonstrate a need as well as the ability to afford the modified payments. In many cases, lenders would rather work with financially troubled borrowers than foreclose; the foreclosure process is costly – for both the lender as well as the borrower.

The key to initiating a workout plan is for the home owner to communicate with their lender. Among the many reasons why home owners facing foreclosure do not communicate with their lender include lack of information of their options, misinformed of their options, and psychological stress (including apathy and feelings of hopelessness). The latter being the most prevalent because of the psycho-social complexity, which include the events that brought the home owner to their present financial problem as well as the time and effort involved in attempting to resolve any mortgage issues.

In an effort to assist home owners who are presently facing or at risk for foreclosure, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Housing Secretary Jackson created the Hope Now Alliance as a step in President Bush’s initiative to help American families keep their home. The Hope Now Alliance was created to facilitate communication between borrowers, lenders and housing counselors. For more information on loan work outs you can visit HUD.gov or HOPENOW.com.

This article is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. This article was originally published in the Montgomery County Sentinel the week of December 24, 2007. Copyright © 2007 Dan Krell.

Subprime Mortgage Woes – Again

by Dan Krell

The adage that we are doomed to repeat history unless we learn from it is once again demonstrated. The recent news that the subprime mortgage industry is in trouble should not be a big surprise. The fact that subprime lenders are in trouble is the consequence for an industry whose foundation is high risk.

If you are unaware of the subprime mortgage industry, here is a rudimentary primer. Subprime lenders provide mortgages to borrowers who would not otherwise qualify for a standard Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac loan. Most often, these borrowers have credit challenges; however, some have good credit but do not meet the Fannie/Freddie income, asset, and/or employment guidelines.

The subprime lenders’ underwriting guidelines dictated by investors who ultimately buy the mortgages on a secondary market (usually Wall Street). The attraction to investors is that they receive a high yield based on the risk. Generally, subprime underwriting guidelines become lenient when the market is favorable for these loans.

Up until about a year ago, the subprime mortgage industry exploded because the risk was countered by a safety net that was the record sellers’ market. Many subprime borrowers who fell behind in mortgage payments found themselves able to sell their home before foreclosure, pay off their mortgage, and make a little money in the deal.

Since the market has slowed, many subprime borrowers cannot sell to avoid foreclosure. This has impacted subprime lenders by the loss of revenue. Subprime investors have forced lenders to tighten their subprime underwriting guidelines to meet new requirements and lessen their risk.

The subprime mortgage industry has a cyclic history of loosening and tightening of underwriting guidelines. The last time the subprime industry was in a crisis was in the latter part of the 1990’s when mortgage fraud and illegal flipping schemes were widespread and took advantage of the loose subprime underwriting guidelines of the time.

At that time, subprime lenders lost millions on blatant fraud and real estate schemes. Some loan officers and mortgage companies found it easy to perpetrate fraud on loan files so as to have the loans approved. Additionally, schemes using tactics such as straw buyers or fraudulent appraisals were devised either to defraud lenders or take advantage of home buyers, or both.

In response, “due diligence” became the hot buzz word. Subprime lenders were forced to tighten their underwriting guidelines and institute a number of quality assurance checks, both prior to loan approval and post settlement.

Although we may not feel compassion for the lenders and investors of subprime mortgages, the unfortunate casualty is the consumer. The last few years found an explosion of minority home ownership that is unprecedented. Unfortunately, as reported in a front page article in the Washington Post (March 26, 2007), many of those affected by the perfect storm of a declining real estate market and high risk lending are recent immigrants and minorities.

In a year or two the cycle of subprime lending will return to liberal underwriting guidelines. Make no mistake, subprime lending is needed and is beneficial. Hopefully we in the real estate industry have learned the lesson to practice our profession responsibly by ensuring that borrowers understand the risks and realties of subprime mortgages. If we don’t, we are doomed to repeat history.

This column is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. This article was originally published in the Montgomery County Sentinel the week of March 26, 2007. Copyright © 2007 Dan Krell.

Know Thy Lender

by Dan Krell © 2007

To protect the public interest, most professionals involved in real estate transactions in the state of Maryland are licensed. Realtors, title attorneys, real estate appraisers, and insurance agents are all regulated by the State. As of January first loan officers working for mortgage brokers, or as they are now titled mortgage loan originators, are now regulated as well. Loan officers working for federally chartered banks are exempt. The law is the fruition of efforts to help curb the fraud, predatory lending, and other problems that exist in the industry.

Make no mistake, the mortgage industry is already heavily regulated by the Federal Government as well as the State. Mortgage loans that are originated are required to comply with federal regulations such as the Truth in Lending act, regulation Z, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The state of Maryland has additional requirements that need to be met as well.

By licensing mortgage loan originators, the state of Maryland has placed accountability directly on the loan officer. Many are hoping that the new licensing laws will force loan officers to do their due diligence and act responsibly such as when issuing approval letters, loan commitments, or rate locks. Additionally, the new regulations will help curb predatory lending and hopefully reduce settlement table surprises.

Before January first, consumers’ source of recourse was to make complaints against the mortgage company to the Maryland office of Financial Regulation and/or the Maryland Attorney General’s office. Now, an offending loan officer will be held accountable for his/her actions and misdeeds and may face penalties for violations.

Another positive aspect of the new regulations is the limiting of opportunists that come and go when the market is favorable and hopefully weed out those with bad intentions. In addition to a criminal background check and finger printing, requirements for licensure include either three years of experience in the lending industry or the completion of a forty hour “pre-licensing” class.

Although the law went into effect on January 1, 2007, a recent Baltimore Sun article (Md. Warns Loan Officers: Get License, 12/22/2006) stated that many loan originators had not filed for their license and boasted about their intentions of not filing. Maryland regulators are taking this seriously as they are planning to “round up” those violators. The bottom line is, as stated in the article by the deputy commissioner of financial regulation, if someone is talking to the public they need to be licensed.

As a precaution, the Maryland Association of Mortgage Brokers offers these suggestions to consumers: never sign a blank document; read all documents carefully and ask questions and don’t be hurried into signing anything you do not clearly understand; stop the entire transaction if you feel you are not getting clear answers; be wary of telephone or mail solicitations, especially if the promises seem “too good to be true”; do not be pressured into applying for more money than you need; even a small increase in the total loan can result in big interest payments over time; get copies of all loan documents, especially anything you have signed.

If you are unsure of your loan officer’s license status you can check with the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (www.dllr.state.md.us).

This column is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice.  Copyright © 2007 Dan Krell .

How your interest rate effects you

Last week, I was in Starbucks talking about interest rates and the current real estate market. It was not unusual that I was in Starbucks nor conducting business there, as it seems that Starbucks, these days, maybe second to the golf course in the culmination of business. This day, I happened to be talking with Ken Cusick. Ken and I were discussing the vulnerability of those homeowners who purchased their home with adjustable mortgages, primarily interest only mortgages and their mortgage rates. Ken had a lot to say about this topic. Ken is the principal of Cusick Financial, LLC, a financial consulting firm located in Olney, MD specializing in residential and commercial financing.

Ken and I agreed that many homeowners have a great mortgage rate because of the historically low interest rates we have had recently. I expressed my concern about the many homeowners who have bought their home with an interest only or variable rate mortgage to either allow them to buy more home than they normally could afford, or to keep payments down. After all, the interest rates for these mortgages usually started between three to four percent. This cut the mortgage payment by at least a few hundred dollars a month, if not more.

Ken had a few things to say in response, as well as a few words of advice. First, Ken asserted that because the interest only and variable rate mortgages are tied to short term indices, they usually tend to be a better deal than 30-year mortgages (which are tied to long term bonds and indices). Depending on the type of index the mortgage is tied to, the interest rate can change annually or even as frequently as monthly. He stated that the unusually low interest rate environment we have had in the past five years has made housing more affordable, which paradoxically led to the significant increase in home prices we have experienced.

Second, Ken stated that those homeowners who have a fixed rate mortgage would always be able to afford their home as long as their income never decreases and they never need to sell their home. Even if there is a correction in the real estate market to lower home prices, these homeowners are in good shape.

Third, homeowners who have interest only or variable rate mortgages are subject to the volatility of the market as rates rise and fall, and are at significant risk. As interest rates rise, their monthly mortgage payments rise. Additionally, as interest rates rise, the cost of housing rises and housing demand decreases. This creates difficulty for those who were betting on interest rates to stay low because the affordability of the mortgage becomes an increasing burden on those who may not be able to afford higher payments. Add that to the possibility of their home being devalued increases the burden of loss.

Ken’s advice was simple. If the homeowner could not afford the mortgage payment with an increase of of interest by two to three percentage points, then they should refinance into a fixed rate mortgage. He admits the payment will be higher, but the comfort that the payment will not change should be peace of mind in an uncertain future.

If, however, the mortgage rate does not adjust in three to five years and the homeowner intends to sell in within that time period, Ken says to hang in there. The logic is that the only risk the homeowner takes is the possibility of the home depreciating in value. If the mortgage balance is 70% to 80% of the current home value, then the risk is much less.

To many, Ken’s advice would seem a bit too conservative. I, however, believe that this advice to be the consensus of good financial planning.

by Dan Krell © 2005

This column is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice.