HUD

Late To The Party Again? CFPB Issues New “Ability To Repay” Mortgage Rule

by Rich Vetstein on January 10, 2013 · 0 comments

in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CPFB, Fannie Mae, FHA, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

CPFB copy

New Rule Aims To Prevent Predatory Lending

The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has just issued what it deems “one of its most important rules to date.” It’s called the Ability To Repay Rule. The rule will ensure that a borrower should be able to afford their mortgage payment. Sounds like common sense, right? Yes and no, according to the agency. The CFPB is trying to prevent the subprime and predatory lending crisis of several years ago by requiring that lenders jump through several strict underwriting hoops for “fail-free” loans.

“When consumers sit down at the closing table, they shouldn’t be set up to fail with mortgages they can’t afford,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. “Our Ability-to-Repay rule protects borrowers from the kinds of risky lending practices that resulted in so many families losing their homes. This common-sense rule ensures responsible borrowers get responsible loans.”

The Qualified Mortgage (QM). The key feature of the new rule is the establishment of a “qualified mortgage” — with no risky loan features – such as interest-only payments or balloon payments – and with fees that add up to no more than 3% of the loan amount. In addition, these loans must go to borrowers whose debt does not exceed 43% of their income. These loans would carry extra legal protection for lenders under a two-tiered system that appears to create a compromise between the housing industry and consumer advocates.

End of No-Doc Loans. In the past, lenders could get away with offering low- or no-doc loans (they required few financial documents, if any, from the borrower and then could sell off the risky loans to investors). With the new rule, lenders must do a proper financial background. That means sizing up borrowers’ employment status; income and assets; current debt obligations; credit history; monthly payments on the mortgage; monthly payments on any other mortgages on the same property; and monthly payments for mortgage-related obligations.

Risky borrowers will have a harder time securing a loan. The lender must prove the borrower has “sufficient assets” to pay back the loan eventually. According to the CFPB, that’s determined by calculating debt-to-income ratio of no more than 43%.

Bye-bye to teaser rates. Lenders love to roll out juicy low introductory rates on mortgages to lure borrowers in, but under the new rule, they must calculate a borrower’s ability to repay his loan based on the true mortgage rate –– including both the principal and the interest over the long-term life of the loan.

The rule does not go into effect until January 1, 2014. This new rule has the potential of really shaking up the mortgage industry. We will be tracking future developments. We appreciate comments from mortgage professionals below.

More info:  CFPB Blog — Ability to Pay Rule
The Mortgage Porter: CFPB’s Qualified Mortgage Rule and The Ability to Repay

{ 0 comments }

Massachusetts Real Estate Law 2012 Year In Review (And Predictions For 2013)

by Rich Vetstein on December 23, 2012 · 0 comments

in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CPFB, Disclosures, Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, HUD, Landlord Tenant Law, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Medical Marijuana, Mortgage Crisis, Realtors, Title Defects

2011-20121I always look forward to recapping the year that was, and bringing out the crystal ball to predict the year ahead. This year, like years prior, was an active year for Massachusetts real estate law, with several important court rulings, legislative developments, and emerging legal trends. The year 2013 is expected to be just as busy.

Eaton v. Fannie Mae and Fannie Mae v. Hendricks Foreclosure Rulings

Another year, another pair of huge foreclosure rulings by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. On June 22, 2012, in Eaton v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, the SJC held that lenders must establish they hold both the promissory note and the mortgage in order to lawfully foreclose. This posed major problem for the vast majority of conventional mortgages which lenders securitized and sold off on the secondary mortgage market, thereby splitting the note and mortgage among various securitized trusts and mortgage servicers. Responding to pleas from the real estate bar, the SJC declined to apply its ruling retroactively, thereby averting the Apocalyptic scenario where thousands of foreclosure titles would have been called into question. My prior post on the Eaton ruling can be read here.

The FNMA v. Hendricks case had the potential to change Massachusetts foreclosure practice, but the SJC rejected the challenge. The court upheld the validity of the long-standing Massachusetts statutory form foreclosure affidavit which provided that the foreclosing lender has complied with the foreclosure laws,rejecting the borrower’s claim that the affidavit was essentially robo-signed.

New Medical Marijuana Law Has Landlords, Municipalities Smoking Mad

Burned up Massachusetts landlords and anti-pot local pols are still fuming with concern over the state’s newly passed but hazy medicinal marijuana law. The law — rolling out Jan. 1 — mandates the opening of at least 35 medicinal marijuana dispensaries, and grants users the right to grow a two-month supply of marijuana at home if they cannot get to a dispensary because they are too sick or too broke. The new law also potentially opens landlords up to federal prosecution for violating the federal controlled substances laws. Many towns and cities are contemplating banning dispensaries or passing zoning by-laws regulating their locations. My prior post on the new marijuana law can be read here.

539wApartment Rental Occupancy Limits

In 2013, the SJC will consider the Worcester College Hill case which will significantly impact landlords renting apartments to students and in other multi-family situations. The question is whether renting to 4 or more unrelated persons in one apartment unit requires a special “lodging house” license which would, in most cases, make it cost-prohibitive to rent to more than 3 unrelated persons. (Lodging houses require a built-in fire sprinkler system, for example). The SJC will hear oral arguments in the case on January 7, 2013.

Foreclosure Prevention Act Passed

On August 3, 2012, Governor Deval Patrick signed the Foreclosure Prevention Act. The new law requires that lenders offer loan modifications on certain mortgage loans before foreclosing. Unfortunately, the law did not fix the problem with existing title defects resulting from the U.S. Bank v. Ibanez case in 2010. (Sen. Moore’s office plans to re-introduce Senate Bill 830 in 2013). My prior post on the new law can be read here.

SJC To Consider Realtor’s Liability for Erroneous MLS Info

Sometime in 2013, the SJC will issue a very important opinion in the controversial DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre Ltd. disclosure case where a Realtor was held liable for failing to verify the zoning of a listing on the Multiple Listing Service. The Court will also consider whether the exculpatory clause found in the Greater Boston Real Estate Board’s standard form purchase and sale agreement legally prohibits a buyer’s misrepresentation claim against the real estate agent. The Massachusetts Association of Realtors and the Greater Boston Real Estate Board have filed friend of the court briefs urging the SJC to limit Realtors’ disclosure obligations in the case. My prior post on the case can be read here.

Good Faith Estimate, TIL, and HUD-1 Settlement Statement To Change Dramatically

In the second major overhaul of closing disclosures in three years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be rolling out in 2013 a new “Lending Estimate” and “Closing Estimate” which will replace the current Good Faith Estimate, Truth in Lending Disclosure, and HUD-1 Settlement Statement. The changes are part of the Dodd-Frank Act, and has the lending and title insurance industries scrambling to figure out who should be ultimately responsible for the accuracy of closing fees and other logistics in delivering these new disclosures. My prior posts on the topic can be read here.

mw_1011_FISCAL_CLIFF_620x350Fiscal Cliff Anxiety Syndrome

The Year In Review would not be complete without mention of the dreaded Fiscal Cliff. As of this writing, President Obama and the House (which even rejected its own Speaker Boehner’s last proposal) have been unable to work out a deal to resolve the more than $500 billion in tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts scheduled to take effect after Jan. 1, 2013. If there is no deal, and the country goes over the fiscal cliff, the consensus is that it will have quite a negative effect on the economy and the real estate market in particular.

Upcoming Event! On January 8, 2013, we are sponsoring a breakfast seminar with veteran real estate journalist Scott Van Voorhis, who will offer his predictions on 2013. Please email me to sign up. The Facebook Event invitation is here. The venue is Avita in Needham, 880 Greendale Ave., Needham, MA.

_____________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney who hopes the White House and Congress can get their acts together and pass a compromise bill to avoid the Fiscal Cliff.

{ 0 comments }

Lender/Settlement Agent Regulatory Alert: Nov. 6 Deadline to Prevent Proposed CFPB Disclosure Rule From Delaying Closings

by Rich Vetstein on November 4, 2012 · 2 comments

in Closings, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disclosures, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, RESPA, Truth in Lending

Mandatory 3 Business Day Waiting Period Will Delay Closings

Action Needed: Comment On Proposed Rule

While our attention has been diverted from more important issues such as Hurricane Sandy and the election, please be advised that November 6, 2012 is the last day for lenders, settlement agents, Realtors and the public to comment on the controversial new combined Truth and Lending/HUD-1 Disclosure rules proposed by the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). For those who don’t know, the CFPB has proposed a major overhaul to closing disclosures, combining the Truth In Lending and the HUD-1 Settlement Statement into a single 5 page disclosure form.

Of paramount concern to the real estate community is the proposed Three Business Day Rule, which would require that lenders provide the final Closing Disclosure (the new HUD-1) at least 3 business days prior to the closing. The major problem with this rule is that if there are changes in settlement and closing figures between the time of disclosure and the closing, the consumer must be provided a new form, and the closing must be delayed for at least 3 business days. ((There is an exception for adjustments between buyer and seller, such as a repair credit and for items under $100.))

In today’s lending environment, last minute changes to settlement numbers are common, and given the crush of underwriting tasks, final closing figures are typically provided 24-48 hours prior to the closing, or even the day of closing. Moreover, there are often delays getting information from outside sources — real estate tax information from municipalities, insurance information from independent agents, final water/sewer readings, oil bills and 6d condo fees from Realtors, and payoffs from sellers — all of which are out of the control of the lender and the closing attorney.

If there are last minute changes to settlement numbers, the proposed rule will delay closings for at least 3 business days, which could be catastrophic. This will have an unintended ripple effect on both the borrower and other parties, especially where the borrower is doing a “sell-buy” on the same day.

The CFPB is out of touch with the real estate industry on this rule. Indeed, at a recent symposium on the new rules, the CFPB’s new general counsel was reported as being very surprised that last-minute changes in settlement figures were relatively common. Delaying closings for 3 business days through delays of no fault of the lender or settlement agent hurts all the parties to the transaction. The rule is regulatory overkill.

CLICK THIS LINK TO COMMENT ON THE NEW CFPB RULE (CLICK SUBMIT A FORMAL COMMENT)

Tell the CFPB that the 3 Business Day Rule is a bad idea, and give anecdotal stories about how delays in closings will affect your business. And please share this post with fellow lenders, mortgage bankers, closing attorneys and Realtors.

________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is a Massachusetts real estate attorney with offices in Framingham and Needham, MA. You can reach him at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

{ 2 comments }

Why Have Obama And Romney Ignored the Housing and Real Estate Market?

by Rich Vetstein on October 8, 2012 · 4 comments

in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fannie Mae, Foreclosure, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Realtors, Rental Housing

All Politics Aside, It’s Time To Bring Housing & Real Estate Back To the Forefront

In the most tweeted, Facebook-ed and instant polled Presidential Campaign ever, there is one topic which has been met with surprisingly deafening silence: the U.S. Housing and Real Estate Market. During last week’s debate, we heard a lot about tax plans and cuts, energy, health care and jobs, but nothing on the real estate market. Nothing…This year’s presidential candidates have mostly avoided discussing an industry that’s largely responsible for the last five years of economic pain. But why?

For sure, the subject of housing remains an extremely sensitive one. President Obama might prefer that the real estate market, whose imbalances sparked the financial crisis, to remain a ghost issue because of a lackluster record at combating the foreclosure epidemic. He is also blamed for not doing enough on the loan modification front with the dismal HAMP and HARP programs. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, might like to steer clear of the topic because a hard stance on housing could alienate voters whom he needs to win. I’m not here to debate one particular side or candidate, but rather to simply pose the question of why no talk on real estate?

Obama Falls Short of Expectations?

“Obama’s major housing initiatives have fallen short of expectations, and so Obama doesn’t have big victories to point to,” said Jed Kolko, chief economist for listing service Trulia. “The housing market is still struggling in many parts of the country, so this is not a problem that’s been solved.” The administration’s flagship relief program, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), has helped 1 million homeowners obtain lower interest rates, principal reductions, more time to pay their mortgages or any combination of the three. But that pales in comparison to the 3 to 4 million homeowners whom the program was supposed to help. Meanwhile, the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), designed to help 5 million homeowners refinance their mortgages into lower interest rates, has benefited only about 1.5 million homeowners.

Romney Gun-Shy On Housing?

Romney’s housing platform includes the potential elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that prospect may be just too scary and radical to everyday voters and homeowners who have relied on the government giants to stabilized the formerly free-falling real estate market. “To stake out what you think Fannie and Freddie’s future is is to alienate somebody,” commented Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute. “Realtors and home builders tend to be politically active — and Republicans,” noted Mr. Calabria. Indeed, Romney’s free-market stance on housing, if articulated bluntly, could unsettle many distressed homeowners as well. He has said that he believes that the housing market should naturally “hit bottom,” and has harshly criticized Obama’s relief programs.

Let’s Get The Housing Dialogue Going!

Over the past several months, I’ve enjoyed healthy (and even civil) political discussion on the issues on my Facebook feed. (Please join in!). The real estate market and housing always comes up, whether it’s in the context of folks not able to refinance their underwater mortgages, the loss of their equity, or the impact of unemployment on the general real estate sector. Granted, the real estate market has made significant gains since the bottom fell out in 2008, but folks are still hurting out there and it’s really been the Fed and its low interest rates which have largely kept the market from imploding. So, we should be talking about all the issues. And that means federally assisted refinancing for underwater mortgages, Fed policy on interest rates, and the future of the GSE’s. Oh and by the way, where did all that foreclosure crisis settlement money go? I have yet to hear about anyone who has received any assistance from that fund.

Well, if Obama and Romney aren’t going to talk housing and real estate, we can do it here on this blog. Feel free to post your comments, diatribes or soapbox speeches in the comment section below. You can use the Facebook comments too. Keep the debate civil please!

{ 4 comments }

FHA Softens Condominium Lending Guidelines, But Barriers Remain

by Rich Vetstein on September 13, 2012 · 1 comment

in Condominium Law, FHA, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages

Condo Sales May Get Slight Boost, But Financing Rules Remain Tight

Responding to lender, condominium association and consumer outcry that the existing FHA condominium lending guidelines are too strict, the Federal Home Administration (FHA) on September 13, 2012 announced a round of changes which will hopefully make it easier for borrowers to qualify for FHA condo loans. The full FHA announcement can be found here.

While some of the changes are a step in the right direction, I think overall they are a mixed bag, as FHA left some of the most onerous provisions intact. I’m skeptical that these new changes will have a major impact on condominium sales, but of course, any loosening of the strict requirements is a good thing.

Condo Fee Delinquency Rule Increased to 60 Days Overdue
FHA is softening its stance on delinquent monthly condo fees and home owner association (HOA) dues. FHA is now allowing up to 15% of a project’s units to be 60-days delinquent on condo fees, up from just 30 days delinquent under the prior rule. This change acknowledges the depressed economy which has caused many condo unit owners to have trouble paying their condo fees. This is definitely a good change.

Expanded Investor Purchasing Allowed
Under the new rules, investors can come in and buy more units in a project than they could previously. They can now buy up to 50% of the project units, up from just 10% before, but with an important caveat:  the developer must convey at least 50% of the units to individual owners or be under contract as owner-occupied.

Owner Occupancy Limits and Total FHA Financing Percentage Unchanged
The biggest disappointment of the new rules is that the main impediment to FHA condo financing remains unchanged, and that’s the 50% rule. Before any new buyer can obtain FHA financing, 50% of a project’s units be sold to third party buyers. This is what I’ve called the Catch-22. FHA provides the most first time home financing, so how can a developer expect to sell out his project if he cannot offer initial FHA financing? Doesn’t make any sense. I agree with the National Association of Realtors and the Community Association Institute on this one. Get rid of the 50% rule or decrease it to 25% or less.

Another restriction that hasn’t changed is the number of units that can have an FHA-backed loan. Only half the units can have FHA financing, so a borrower can’t get FHA approval if his unit would put the number of FHA financed units over 50%. That limitation remains unchanged, and that’s a killer for a lot of projects.

Spot Approvals Remain Dead
Mortgage lenders used to love FHA “spot approvals” which could by-pass the involved standard FHA approval process in order to get individual unit financing. Problem was is that they love spot approvals way too much, and they got abused. Ah, a few bad apples ruin it for everyone. FHA did not resurrect spot approvals from the dead on this go-around. Maybe they will be back when the economy gets better.

More Commercial Space OK
Projects can also have more space devoted to non-residential commercial uses than before. You see this a now in Boston with Starbucks and a bank office on the ground floor of a new condominium building. Up to this point, only 25% of project space could be used for commercial purpose. Now 50% of the project can be commercial, although certain authority for approval is reserved for the local FHA office. This will benefit the newer mixed use projects in urban markets.

Fidelity Insurance Coverage Required

Important for all condominium professional management companies. If the condominium engages the services of a management company, the company must obtain its own fidelity coverage meeting the FHA association coverage requirements or the association’s policy must name the management company as an insured, or the association’s policy must include an endorsement stating that management company employees subject to the direction and control of the association are covered by the policy. This is a substantial change to the previous requirements that required management companies to obtain separate fidelity insurance for each condominium.

______________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts condominium attorney who regularly advises condominium associations on FHA certification issues. Please contact Mr. Vetstein at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.


{ 1 comment }

CFPB Releases New Mortgage Disclosures Replacing Good Faith Estimate, Truth and Lending Disclosure, and HUD-1 Settlement Statement

by Rich Vetstein on July 11, 2012 · 1 comment

in Closings, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disclosures, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Refinances, Truth in Lending

Concise Disclosures Aimed At Reducing Borrower Confusion and Helping Comparison Shopping

As part of a continuing overhaul of the home mortgage market, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Monday issued proposed rules to bolster fairness and clarity in residential lending, including requiring a new good-faith estimate of costs for homebuyers and a new closing settlement statement.

My understanding is that the new “loan estimate” would replace the current Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and the current Truth in Lending Disclosure (TIL). The new closing disclosure would replace the current HUD-1 Settlement Statement. The new disclosures are open to industry and public comment for 120 days, after which they will be finalized and codified as law. For more details on the new disclosures, go to the CFPB site here.

Here is the new Loan Estimate.

201207 Cfpb Loan-estimate

Here is the new Closing Disclosure

201207 Cfpb Closing-disclosure

I’m interesting in hearing comments on the new forms from mortgage professionals, real estate attorneys and borrowers. Please comment below!

_______________________________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate closing attorney who has closed thousands of purchase and refinance transactions. Please contact him if you need legal assistance purchasing residential or commercial real estate.

{ 1 comment }

Leaving With Keys and Carpal Tunnel: Why Do Buyers Sign So Many Closing Documents?

by Rich Vetstein on June 19, 2012 · 3 comments

in Closings, Deeds, Disclosures, Fannie Mae, FHA, HUD, Insurance, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Real Estate Taxes, RESPA, Safety, Title Insurance, Truth in Lending

Real Estate Crash Has Resulted In Many More Forms and Disclosures

These days buyers are leaving closing rooms with not only their keys but a mild case of carpal tunnel syndrome! The reason for sore forearms and wrists is the voluminous stack of closing documents which are now required to be signed and notarized at every Massachusetts real estate purchase or refinance closing.

One of my opening “break the ice” lines at closings is to suggest that the buyers start massaging their writing hands. Then I show them the 2 inch stack of documents they must review and sign, and they usually say, “Are you serious? We have to sign all that?” Yep, I reply. You can thank Fannie Mae and the real estate collapse for that! All the new rules and regulations passed in the last 5 years have resulted in, you guessed it, more forms. Do you think the Feds and state ever eliminate old or out-dated forms? Nope.

Let me quickly go over some of the more important — and less important — documents signed at a typical Massachusetts real estate closing.

The Closing Documents

  • HUD-1 Settlement Statement. This is arguably the most important form signed at closing. It breaks down all the closing costs, lender fees, taxes, insurance, escrows and more. We did a full post on the HUD-1 and all the closing costs you can expect to pay here. Under the newer RESPA rules, most closing costs must be within 10% tolerance of the Good Faith Estimate provided by the lender (which you will also re-sign at closing).
  • Promissory Note & Mortgage. These two documents form what I like to call the “mortgage contract.” The promissory note is the lending contract between borrower and lender and sets the interest rate and payment terms of the loan. It is not recorded at the registry of deeds. The Mortgage or Security Instrument is a long (20+ page) document and provides the legal collateral (your house) securing the loan from the lender. The Mortgage gets recorded in the county registry of deeds and is available to public view. Read a full explanation of the Note and Mortgage in this post.
  • Truth in Lending Disclosure (TIL). The Truth in Lending should really be called “Confusion In Lending,” as the federal government has come up with a confusing way to “explain” how your interest rate works. This is a complex form and we’ve written about it extensively in this post. Your closing lawyer will fully explain the TIL form to you at closing.
  • Loan Underwriting Documents. With increased audit risk on loan files, lenders today are requiring that borrowers sign “fresh” copies of almost all the documents they signed when they originally applied for the loan. This includes the loan application, IRS forms W-9 and 4506′s.
  • Fraud Prevention Documents. Again, with the massive mortgage fraud of the last decade, lenders are requiring many more forms to prevent fraud, forgeries, and straw-buyers. The closing attorney will also make a copy of borrowers’ driver’s licenses and other photo i.d. and submit the borrower’s names through the Patriot Act database. They include Occupancy Affidavit (confirming that borrowers will not rent out the mortgaged property), and the Signature Affidavit (confirming buyers are who they say they are or previously used a maiden name or nickname).
  • Escrow Documents. Unless lenders waive the requirement, borrowers must fund an escrow account at closing representing several months of real estate taxes and homeowner’s insurance. This provides a cushion in case borrowers default and the taxes and insurance are not paid.
  • Title Documents. For purchase transactions, Massachusetts requires that the closing attorney certify that a 50 year title examination has been performed. Buyers will counter-sign this certification of title, as well as several title insurance affidavits and documents which the seller is required to sign, to ensure that all known title problems have been disclosed and discovered. Of course, we always recommend that buyers obtain their own owner’s title insurance which will provide coverage for unknown title defects such as forgeries, boundary line issues, missing mortgage discharges, etc.
  • Property Safety Disclosures. In Massachusetts, buyers and sellers will sign a smoke/carbon monoxide detector compliance agreement, lead paint disclosure, and UFFI (urea formaldehyde foam insulation) agreement. These ensure that the property has received proper certifications and will absolve the lender from liability for these safety issues.
  • Servicing, EOCA and Affiliated Business Disclosures. Chances are that your lender will assign the servicing rights to your mortgage to a larger servicer, like JP Morgan Chase or CitiMortgage. You will sign forms acknowledging this. You will be notified of the new mortgage holder usually within 30-60 days after closing. In the meantime, the closing attorney will give you a “first payment letter” instructing you where to send your first payment if you don’t hear from the new servicer. You will also sign forms under the federal and state discrimination in lenders laws and forms disclosing who the lender uses for closing services.

Well, those are most of the documents that buyers will sign at the closing. Sellers have a slew of their own documents to be signed at closing, and I’ll cover that in a future post. As I said, at your closing, massage your signature hand, grab a comfy pen, and sign your life away!

_________________________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney. He can be reached by email at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com or 508-620-5352.

{ 3 comments }

Real Estate Industry Braces For Another Overhaul Of HUD-1 Settlement Statement And Truth-In-Lending (TIL) Disclosures

by Rich Vetstein on February 22, 2012 · 1 comment

in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disclosures, Fannie Mae, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, RESPA

Final product will be a combination of both the final Truth in Lending (TIL) form and the HUD-1 Settlement Statement — a dramatic change from the existing forms.

For the second time in as many years, the federal government is substantially overhauling two of the most important disclosures given to mortgage borrowers, the Truth in Lending Disclosure and the HUD-1 Settlement Statement. The revisions are mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in charge of re-designing and testing the new forms.

Most real estate industry professionals are unaware that these new changes are on the horizon. The new forms are expected to be implemented in 2013 after rule-making and industry comments are completed.

If you want to track the CFPB’s activity on these forms, I highly recommend the CFPB Monitor. The CFPB’s “Know Before You Owe” website also has updates and is pretty good for a government site.

Here is the new prototype HUD-1 Settlement Statement:

20120220 Cfpb Basswood Settlement Disclosure

What do you think about the new forms? At first, glance it is easier to read, understand and explain to borrowers. We’ll keep track of this important issue.

{ 1 comment }

The SmarterBorrowing.com Weekly Massachusetts Mortgage Rate Advisory (Feb. 7, 2012)

by Rich Vetstein on February 7, 2012 · 0 comments

in Fannie Mae, HUD, Mortgages

by Brian Cavanaugh, Senior Mortgage Banker, RMS Mortgage and SmarterBorrowing.com

Overall, despite being a fairly light week in terms of economic releases and relate events, it is still relatively crucial for the mortgage market. We saw the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury Note spike higher Friday as a result of the stronger than expected employment data. Stocks rallied as a result of that data, extending the 2012 stock rally that has pushed the Dow up over 5% and the Nasdaq up 11% year-to-date. Both indexes are at their highest levels since May 2008 and December 2000 respectively. This has me believing we are due to see a pullback in stocks fairly soon. If/when this happens, we should see funds shift back into bonds for safety, leading to lower mortgage rates. Keep in mind that this is more or less just speculation, but I am expecting to move to a less conservative approach regarding short-term mortgage rates in the near future.

If I were considering financing/refinancing a home, I would….

LOCK if my closing was taking place within 7 days…

LOCK if my closing was taking place between 8 and 20 days…

FLOAT if my closing was taking place between 21 and 60 days…

FLOAT if my closing was taking place over 60 days from now…

This is only my opinion of what I would do if I were financing a home. It is only an opinion and cannot be guaranteed

There are only two pieces of monthly economic data scheduled for release this week. Neither of them is considered to be highly important, so we don’t have much to pin our hopes on or to be concerned with this week. There are two Treasury auctions on the calendar that may influence mortgage rates the middle part of the week and the second part of Fed Chairman Bernanke’s testimony to Congress, but no important economic data.

Nothing of concern is due tomorrow, so look for the stock markets and news from Europe- particularly Greece, to drive the markets tomorrow. Fed Chairman Bernanke will speak to the Senate Budget Committee at 10:00 AM Tuesday. I don’t expect him to say anything different than he said last week to the House Budget Committee, but the Q&A portion of his appearance could lead to something new. It is worth watching, but it will probably not lead to a noticeable change in the markets or mortgage rates.

Treasury Auctions Ahead

The two important Treasury auctions come Wednesday and Thursday when 10-year Notes and 30-year Bonds are sold. The 10-year sale is the more important one as it will give us a better indication of demand of mortgage-related securities. If the sales are met with a strong demand from investors, we should see the bond market move higher during afternoon trading the days of the auctions. But a lackluster interest from buyers, particularly international investors, would indicate a waning appetite for longer-term U.S. securities and lead to broader bond selling. The selling in bonds would likely result in upward afternoon revisions to mortgage rates.

Unemployment Numbers

With little monthly and no quarterly economic reports being posted, Thursday’s weekly release of unemployment figures may end up moving the markets and mortgage rates more than it traditionally does. The Labor Department is expected to announce that 370,000 new claims for unemployment benefits were filed last week, rising slightly from the previous week’s total. The higher the number of new claims for benefits, the better the news for the bond market and mortgage pricing as it would indicate weakness in the employment sector.

The first monthly report comes early Friday morning when December’s Goods and Services Trade Balance data will be posted. This report measures the U.S. trade deficit and can affect the value of the U.S. dollar versus other currencies, but it usually does not cause enough movement in bond prices to affect mortgage rates. It is expected to show a $48.2 billion trade deficit.

Consumer Sentiment

February’s preliminary reading to the University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment will be released late Friday morning. This index measures consumer willingness to spend and usually has a moderate impact on the financial markets. If it shows an increase in consumer confidence, the stock markets may move higher and bond prices could fall. It is currently expected to come in at 74.0, down from January’s final reading of 75.0. That would indicate consumers were less optimistic about their own financial situations than last month and are less likely to make large purchases in the near future. Since consumer spending makes up over two-thirds of the U.S. economy, this would be considered good news for bonds and mortgage pricing.

  • Are you a possible Massachusetts First Time Homebuyer?
  • Do you have a Real Estate client inquiring about current Mortgage Rates?
  • Do you have any Refinancing questions?
  • Should you be thinking about Refinancing out of your ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage)?
  • Have your Real Estate clients been Pre Approved?

bc@smarterborrowing.com  617.771.5021

{ 0 comments }

FHA Stays In Condominium Game With Issuance Of Revised Lending Guidelines

by Rich Vetstein on July 5, 2011 · 1 comment

in Condominium Law, FHA, HUD, Mortgages

Good News For First Time Condo Buyers

FHA loan programs offer low down payment mortgages which are often ideal for first time home buyers who lack cash for a 20% down payment but are otherwise strong borrowers. On June 30, 2011, FHA confirmed its commitment to financing condominiums with the issuance of revised lending guidelines (HUD Mortgagee Letter 11-22). The new FHA Condominium Project Approval and Processing Guide can be downloaded here.

“Today, we institute revised guidelines that preserve FHA’s role in the condo marketplace during these difficult times while making certain we manage risk in a responsible way,” said FHA’s Acting Commissioner Robert Ryan. “This guidance formalizes and expands the policies we put in place in 2009 and lays the groundwork for a more formal rulemaking process going forward.”

Highlights Of New Guidelines

1.  Reserve Study Requirements:
New guidelines require reserve studies on all conversion (i.e., new) developments. Reserve Studies are valid for a period of 2 years.

2.  Reserve Funding
In addition to a reserve study determination, a minimum of 10% of the operating budget must be set aside as a baseline in a reserve account. Funds to cover the total cost of any item in the Reserve Study or that will require replacement within 5 years must be deposited in HOA’s reserve account. The insurance deductible must also be included in the reserve fund.

3.  Delinquent Condo Fees

On existing projects, the condominium cannot have more than a 15% delinquency rate on unpaid condo fees. This could be a problem for struggling condominiums. A waiver may be granted, however, with supporting documentation.

4. Pending Litigation

Litigation impacting the financing soundness of the condominium must be disclosed and explained to FHA. Again, this could be problematic if the condominium is involved in, for example, a lawsuit with the original developer over construction defects.

5. HO-6 Policies

Individual HO-6 insurance policies are required if the master condo insurance policy does not provide interior unit coverage (which most don’t).

6. Fidelity Bonds For Large Projects

Fidelity insurance to protect against employee dishonesty is required for projects over 20 units.

7. New Construction Pre-Sale
New Construction pre-sale requirements remain at 30%, although only for one year after the first closing. After the first year, it increases to 50% for the development.

8.  Maximum Commercial Concentration
Remains at 25%, however, new guidance allows for possible waiver request up to 35% of the development.

9. 10% Investor Concentration
No longer includes sponsor unsold units or units required to be rented by State or Municipality, ie; rent stabilized/rent controlled.

 

{ 1 comment }

Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement: How About Confusion In Lending?

by Rich Vetstein on March 28, 2011 · 3 comments

in Closings, Disclosures, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, Truth in Lending

Annual Percentage Rate (APR), Amount Financed, Finance Charge, and Total Payments…the Truth In Lending Disclosure Statement is one of the most challenging disclosure forms to explain to borrowers at a Massachusetts real estate closing. I like to call it the “Confusion In Lending” Statement because the form is what happens when the government attempts to recalculate your interest rate and closing costs in a way most human beings would not even consider.

To explain the Truth In Lending Disclosure, we’ll use a dummy form for a $500,000 purchase transaction with a $400,000 loan (20% down payment), a 30 year fixed rate loan at 5.00% at a cost of 1 point.

Annual Percentage Rate

The confusion begins. The Annual Percentage Rate, or APR, as you can see is not 5.00%, which is the contract interest rate for the loan. Why? Because the APR does not use the loan amount for its calculations but rather the “Amount Financed.”

Amount Financed

And the confusion continues. The Amount Financed is not the $400,000 loan amount, but is about $6,600 less than the loan amount. That is because the Amount Financed equals the loan amount ($400,000) less prepaid loan and closing fees and payments. Fees included in the amount financed are: points, lender fees such as underwriting, process, tax service, mortgage insurance, escrow company fees, prepaid interest to end of closing month, and Homeowners Association fees. All of these fees are added up and subtracted from the loan amount to reach the Amount Financed figure. Note that depending on when the loan closes in the month, and fees from third parties such as escrow companies the Amount Financed will vary and therefore so will APR.

How The APR Is Calculated

Now that we have the Amount Financed, we can calculate the APR. For a 30 year fixed loan such as this, the true loan amount is amortized for the loan period using the interest rate. In our example $400,000 amortized for 30 years at 5.00% has a payment of $2,147.29 per month paying principal and interest.

To calculate the APR, we use the same payment –$2147.29 every month for 30 years– to pay off an Amount Financed of $393,372.22 (loan amount less costs) to reach an APR of 5.141%. So the APR is higher than the interest rate because the Amount Financed is lower than the loan amount for the same monthly payment and term.

ARMs–Adjustable Rate Mortgages

If you are taking out an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), you may as well just throw the Truth in Lending Disclosure out the window. The TIL is allowed to be based on the introductory interest rate through the entire life of the loan. Your adjustable rate mortgage, however, will reset its interest rate after 3, 5, 7, or 10 years depending on the type of product. There’s no way to predict where interest rates will be in the future, so the Truth in Lending Disclosure is inherently inaccurate for ARMs.

Explaining the Truth in Lending Disclosure is one of the many functions of a Massachusetts real estate closing attorney. In other states which aren’t required to use closing attorneys, they will not explain these complicated forms to you.

___________________________________

Richard D. Vetstein, Esq. is an experienced Massachusetts Real Estate Closing Attorney. For further information you can contact him at info@vetsteinlawgroup.com.

{ 3 comments }

Are The Lowest Mortgage Rates In History Now History?

by Rich Vetstein on February 12, 2011 · 5 comments

in Fannie Mae, FHA, HUD, Mortgages, USDA loans

A guest post by David Gaffin, Senior Mortgage Lender, from Greenpark Mortgage.

David Gaffin, Greenpark Mortgage

Since Nov. 3rd when the Federal Reserve Bank released details of QEII (Quantitative Easing II), we have seen a very rapid rise in mortgage rates. On a national basis, the Freddie Mac 30 year fixed rate has moved from 4.20% to 5.05% this week. The 10 year Treasury has risen above 3.70% and Inflation seems to be the word of this month.

Last year at this time the 10 year was at 3.73% and it hit 4.00% on April 5th. It then started a fairly rapid descent all spring and summer to its low of 2.38% on October 8th. There were several economic events that brought this about, but the question in every mortgage company’s and consumer’s mind is “Will history repeat itself this year”?

Wishful thinkers will say YES. Many think the stock market is overbought. The Mid-East and Egypt situation is still very unstable. Inflation remains low according to the FED. Unemployment is stubbornly high and the housing market is continues to be very sluggish.  Until these issues are resolved, rates cannot rise too far or consumer demand will fall and economic growth will not be sustained.

HOWEVER, there are a few wrinkles that have nothing to do with Macroeconomics that will be in play in the coming months and years.

Changes In Loan Officer Compensation

As part of the Dodd-Frank Bill, loan officers’ compensation is about to undergo a dramatic change. Loan officers will no longer be paid based on certain loan characteristics such as interest rate. The intention is to have consumers with like profiles receive the same interest rate when quoted from one loan officer to another within the same company. One the surface this makes sense. In practice, the policy is very unfriendly to the consumer, limits consumer choice, and is uncompetitive for the marketplace. Loan officers already have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients to put them in the best loan for them, while compensation to the loan officer is not a major factor. This is a higher standard than the financial planning or brokerage environment which must merely come up with a suitable product, not the best product for their clients.

The anticipated effect of this change, coupled with the reduced volume of loan transactions due to rising rates, will further increase the profit pressures on lending institutions, thereby requiring them to make their loans more profitable. This may be done through reduction of expenses and overhead (read layoffs) or higher rates to the consumer, and will eventually lead to fewer choices to the consumer as companies go out of business. The large lending institutions will then be free to control the market even more so.

Fannie/Freddie (GSE) Reform

A bigger factor is the Fannie/Freddie GSE reform now being detailed by the Treasury. This plan, which may take affect over several years, will reduce/eliminate the government’s backing of the mortgage market, except perhaps through FHA, VA and USDA loans. When the government moves to a private secondary market, those investors are going to want a greater return on their investments and rates will almost certainly rise and may do so dramatically. Less than 10 years ago 7.25% was considered a great rate!

Current programs such as a 30 year fixed rate may vanish in favor of the adjustable rate mortgages which move with the interest rate market and would be more profitable for investors. Additionally, for those programs that are somewhat or fully guaranteed by the government, I would expect the fees associated with these programs to rise substantially.

The GSE reform options include reducing the Agency Jumbo Limit to $625,000, down from $729,000 in the highest cost areas. In Massachusetts those high cost areas are Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Islands off Cape Cod. The highest max loan amount in other counties is $523,750. Will this reduction of loan size have a big impact? I don’t think so. Current rates may be .250% to .500% higher with portfolio lenders that offer loans over these limits, but these jumbos have come way down in rate compared to the depths of the financial crisis. Most of the risk is relieved through very strict underwriting guidelines.

I have Portfolio lenders offering under 4% on ARM rates on loans to $1MM at 5 year interest only for the right borrower! While ARMs may not be the right product for everyone, they are for certain individuals and these folks are saving tremendous sums compared to where rates were just a couple of years ago.

A big concern for for future homeowners with GSE reform will be the minimum down payment requirements. There is talk that borrower’s may be required to put down 10 or 20% to qualify. Some major lenders have suggested 30%. Yeah, that’ll work…not. If that becomes the requirement you can kiss home ownership goodbye for the next generation or so, and rents will rise very rapidly.

I certainly recognize the need for GSE reform. Taxpayers have been getting killed by the losses from the mortgage giants, and the bleeding will not stop anytime soon. The plan as outlined by the Obama administration will gradually make changes to the GSEs over 5-7 years. But hopefully the market will understand what will be happening well in advance of the changes occuring.

Interest Rate Predictions For 2011 and Beyond

So what do I think? I think (unfortunately) rates will:

  • increase to 5.875%-6.125% for a 30 year fixed rate by the end of 2011;
  • increase to 6.50% by end of 2012; and
  • level out at closer to 7% by 2013.

By that time hopefully there will be a more clear path to GSE reform.

I want low rates. It’s good for my business, helps pay for my mortgage, and keeps the house heated.

All of this rate speculation, however, could be meaningless if Congress decides to finally act on the deficit. If they do, then rates could stay low for a very long period. One thing is for sure, my 3 kids are going to see a very different economic and housing landscape when they are ready to buy a home.

To see the  the full report on Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market, click here .

I welcome comments and your point of view.  I also welcome subscribers to my blog, The Massachusetts Mortgage Blog. Also check out my new Facebook page, Mortgagemania. I can be reached via email by clicking here.

{ 5 comments }

Massachusetts Real Estate Law Year In Review & Outlook For 2011

by Rich Vetstein on December 27, 2010 · 0 comments

in Condominium Law, Fannie Mae, FHA, Foreclosure, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Purchase and Sale Agreements, RESPA, Short Sales

It’s that time again for our annual review of hot topics and top posts for the last year, 2010.

#5. The Great Flood of 2010. Ah, who can forget the flooding in the spring of 2010. I sure remember bailing out my flooded basement every 30 minutes through the night, into exhaustion. Good times… FEMA declared a “major disaster” and the IRS granted taxpayers in 7 counties an extension to file their taxes.

Read More: Federal Aid And Tax Extension To May 11 Available To Massachusetts Homeowners Affected By Flooding

#4. The Obama HAFA Short Sale Program. The Obama short sale program, announced at the end of 2009, was aimed to speed up short sales of homes and other loan modification alternatives to stem the rising tide of foreclosures. The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA) provides financial incentives and simplifies the procedures for completing short sales, a growing practice in which a lender agrees to accept the sale price of a home to pay off a mortgage even if the price falls short of the amount owed. By all accounts, however, the HAFA program has been a dismal failure.

#3. On Jan. 1, new RESPA rules went into effect, significantly changing the way lenders disclose settlement services, in particular closing attorneys’ fees, and title insurance. Read more: New RESPA Rules 2010: Disclosure of Settlement Services, Closing Attorneys’ Fees, And Title Insurance .

#2. Our popular primers on the Massachusetts Offer to Purchase and the standard form Purchase and Sale Agreement, checked in with over 16,000 reads. Great to see posts about buying a new home ranking so highly. An indicator of the recovery of the Massachusetts real estate market perhaps?

Read More:

#1–Fannie Mae & FHA Condominium Regulations:  Our series on the Fannie Mae and FHA strict new condominium lending rules were incredibly popular, combining for over 25,000 reads during 2010.  The new guidelines had condominium developers and associations, buyers and sellers in a tizzy, as Fannie and FHA imposed much tougher pre-sale requirements, condominium financial guidelines and the imposition of unit owner HO-6 insurance policies, among other requirements.

Read More:

Honorable Mention: With Old Man Winter upon us, our post on the changes in Massachusetts snow removal law is very popular:  Massachusetts Property Owners Now Have Legal Responsibility To Shovel Snow & Ice.

What To Expect In 2011

Final Ruling In the Ibanez Foreclosure Case

Early 2011 should bring the final word from the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court on the very controversial foreclosure case of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez which invalidated foreclosures across the state for sloppy paperwork. Thousands of property owners and their ownership rights to their homes hang in the balance. Click Here For Our Entire Series Of Post On the Ibanez Case.

Fate Of Real Estate Attorneys

Year 2011 should also bring the final word in the The Real Estate Bar Association of Massachusetts, Inc. (REBA) v. National Real Estate Information Services, Inc. (NREIS) case. This case pits Massachusetts real estate closing attorneys versus out of state non-attorney settlement service providers which are attempting to perform “witness or notary” closings here in Massachusetts. At stake is merely the billion dollar Massachusetts real estate closing industry.

What are your predictions for 2011?

{ 0 comments }

The Current State Of The Massachusetts and U.S. Residential Mortgage Lending Market

by Rich Vetstein on October 22, 2010 · 1 comment

in Fannie Mae, FHA, Foreclosure, HUD, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages, Realtors, Refinances

David Gaffin of Greenpark Mortgage,  www.massmortgageblog.com, is here with a superb summary of what’s now going on with Massachusetts (and national) residential mortgage market.

The National and Massachusetts Mortgage Lending Picture

Lot’s has been happening in the Mortgage World lately. Refinance business is very good. Purchase business is fair, heading into the all important year end buying season.

I will let this post be a little more free-form than my taking a particular topic and expounding on it (or beating it to death) depending on your perspective.

FHA has changed guidelines… Again.

USDA is still not guaranteeing loans.

Fannie and Freddie need another $200 billion of taxpayer money.

Foreclosures stopped and started again. What could that mean to you and me?

The Fed is meeting on Nov 3 to either lay the hammer down on Quantitative Easing II or will do nothing and really mess up interest rates.

Refinance Now!

1.  So you want to refinance? My suggestions:  A. Get started now! Loan pipelines continue to be backed up. Remember the bad old days when rates were an exorbitant 4.75% for a 30 year fixed rate and everyone re-fied? When was that again? Oh, right. JUNE. Well many of those same people are now re-fiing again in the low 4′s, possibly high 3′s. And people who were late to the party are adding on. So don’t expect your file to be closed in less than 60 days. Many lenders are at 120 days for refinances. If you have a current home equity line of credit that you plan to keep open, add another 30 days or so.

It is not all doom and gloom. I know of many files that were closed in less than 45 days. Purchases always get priority and about 30-35 days is the requirement. If you lender can’t get it done in that time, well my contact info is below.

Don’t be cranky with your loan officer or processor when they request enough paper work to rebuild a forest. The secondary market has really toughened its verification guidelines, cause no one wants to be left holding the bag on a loan that goes bad. Everyone wants to ensure that the underwriting, appraisal and income verification has been double and triple checked.

Good news for Realtors

End of year buying season has begun and the clients that want to be in their new homes by year end must make some decisions soon. We should see a boost in P & S activity over the next 30 days. If that doesn’t come to fruition, it could be a long dark winter for many of my realty friends.  But rates are great! If you bought the same priced home 2 years ago, you would have paid 5-20% more than current prices and your interest rates could have been more than 2.00% higher. Now is a GREAT time to buy. I know that is self-serving, but I am a numbers and value guy. I don’t like seeing the value drop in my house either, but if I were buying I would be psyched!

FHA has changed it guidelines again as of Oct 4

FHA needs money to keep guaranteeing its loans against default. Every borrower pays a fee to get into the program and to ensure its continuation. So the fees got changed.  FHA lowered the UPMIP (up-front mortgage insurance premium) from 2.25% to 1.00%.  Sounds good right? With one hand they giveth and the other taketh away. The monthly mortgage insurance will virtually all FHA borrowers pay has moved from .55% of the base loan amount to .84% monthly. On a $200,000 loan the old cost over  7 years was $12,200 and the monthly MI was $91.67.  Now the projected expense is $13,760 and the monthly MI is $140.00. Most investors have now raised the minimum credit score requirement from 620 to 640. FHA is still the best choice for borrower’s with credit scores under 660 and who may have little equity or down payment or who need higher tolerance levels for debt to income ratios.

USDA Loans

The USDA which offers a great program, or at least did, can’t seem to get its funding in order and therefore cannot issue any conditional guarantees for loans. USDA offers several advantages over conventional and FHA loans but they are proving very hard to get. If  you would like more information on the availability of these loans, send me an email.

Freddie and Fannie are in more trouble with losses.

Do we shut them off and let the private sector take over?  We can but rates would rise dramatically and put an even further damper on the housing market.  Given that TARP actually turned a profit, I think any additional funds to rescue the GSE’s should have an opportunity for the taxpayer to make a return on the re-sold properties even if it takes years to divest the shadow inventory that they own.

Foreclosure Mess

Speaking of shadow inventory… Foreclosures are on again/off again/on again.  For legal thoughts on this check out the Mass Real Estate Law Blog by Rich Vetstein and Marc Canner.

My thoughts are that although there will be a delay to ensure that the legal work has been properly done, people will unfortunately continue to lose their homes. Many will lose them due to the economic downturn or medical reasons. Others will have lost them to predatory lenders or poor decision making on their parts. I don’t really want to get started on “It was all the lender’s fault.” Needless to say, a reason the paperwork requirements exist today, is reliant upon the the lack of paperwork requirements and shoddy underwriting in the past.

I could write several scrolls on this whole mess, but I don’t wish to bore. It may already be too late.

Big Federal Reserve Meeting

Possibly the greatest short to mid-term driver for interest rates will be what the Fed decides or doesn’t decide to do at it’s next meeting. The market has baked in that the FED will ease monetary policy further. If they don’t come through in a big way the stock market most likely will drop and interest rates will rise.  But how much will rates rise? Probably enough that any one who re-fied this summer won’t be able to do so again, or at least until some other economic driver comes to bear. So get off the fence and talk to your loan officer NOW.

{ 1 comment }

Taking Another Stab at Massachusetts Loan Modifications: Refinancing Underwater Mortgages

by Rich Vetstein on September 21, 2010 · 1 comment

in Fannie Mae, FHA, Foreclosure, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgage Crisis, Mortgages

The recent historic drop of mortgage rates has created a refinancing boom for qualified homeowners. Unfortunately, the refinancing wave washing over the country has paradoxically left dry homeowners who would most benefit:  those who are “underwater.” Underwater mortgages, or “negative equity” (i.e., they owe more on the mortgage than the property is worth) cause foreclosures and serves to bottle up the housing market. Thus, assisting homeowners who are underwater on their mortgage is good public policy. According to a CoreLogic study, there are currently 11 million mortgages underwater and another 2 million nearly at negative equity in the US housing market – a figure that comprises 28% of all residential properties with a mortgage. In Massachusetts, there are 225,000 properties with negative equity and another 52,000 with near negative equity.

The government has made attempts to address this crisis. Last year the Obama Administration created a loan modification program, the Home Affordable Refinance Program, to help refinance borrowers whose loans were worth up to 125% of their homes value. The program did not take hold, and only a relatively minor number of modifications/refinances occurred.

Writing in yesterday’s New York Times, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors and current Dean of Columbia Business School Glenn Hubbard penned an intriguing column proposing easier refinancing of underwater mortgages.

Under the proposal, quasi-governmental entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA, and the VA would require loan servicers:

  • To send a short application to all eligible borrowers promising to allow them to refinance with minimal paperwork.
  • Servicers would receive a fixed fee for each mortgage they refinanced, which would be rolled into the mortgage to eliminate costs to the taxpayers.
  • The agencies would issue new mortgage-backed securities to cover the refinanced mortgages, using the proceeds to pay off the loans held in the existing securities.

The proposal also mandates that existing second lien holders provide a subordination agreement (which benefits the holder because it lowers the default risk).

The program would have immediate benefits: a distressed homeowner could save approximately 15% in their monthly mortgage payment, which would greatly help homeowner’s through the current crisis.

Is there a guarantee that this modification will become law? No, there is not, but it certainly makes sense for policymakers to move on it right away.

In the words of Glen Hubbard, “[i]f we can lower mortgage payments for struggling homeowners, it will reduce future foreclosures on federally backed loans, providing savings to the taxpayers.” And that’s a good thing for everyone.

{ 1 comment }

The Pregnant Woman, The Newest Lending Credit Risk: Discrimination or Fair Lending?

by Rich Vetstein on August 10, 2010 · 2 comments

in Housing Discrimination, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages

By Karen Rabinovici, UConn Law ’12

It seems more outdated than hair scrunchies, something we witnessed years ago: discrimination against pregnant women seeking mortgage loans. Apparently it’s still going on and worse than ever which is why the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is investigating numerous cases of alleged pregnancy discrimination in lending. The New York Times recently wrote about it: Seeking a Mortgage, Don’t Get Pregnant.

Spurred by the financial crisis, lenders have created more stringent guidelines for granting loans to borrowers looking to buy homes, and have zoned in on pregnant women, essentially deeming them to be liabilities. Lenders are equivocating maternity leave with unemployment, which results in automatic disqualification or reduced buying power for a loan. Although some women on maternity leave can be entitled to temporary disability insurance, this disability insurance may not be used as qualifying income because it is allocated for a period of time less than three years. Women who are on maternity for only a few weeks are also affected, so the range of women denied loans is vast.

In the past, maternity leave was considered a break from work and was not taken into account when considering whether or not to grant a loan. In this financial climate, however, maternity leave has come to be viewed differently – as complete unemployment. So, lenders will not approve a loan until the mother is officially back at work. This subjects women to more red tape:  providing documents from their employers specifying the length of their maternity leave and the date of their return to work, as well as letters from their doctors, and other information deemed relevant.

These new guidelines have resulted in too many claims of discrimination from pregnant women to ignore, and thus has resulted in the HUD investigation. If HUD concludes that discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers is indeed taking place, this could be a violation of the Fair Housing Act, one purpose of which is to protect families.

Some results of all this are that families are forced to wait until the mother returns to work (possibly rushing maternity leave), families are altogether giving up on buying homes, or families are purchasing homes that they can afford on one salary.

Families are feeling punished for having babies, and the irony that most families are buying new homes in the first place because they are expecting children does not fail to come through.

While tougher standards for approving loans have become an obvious step to take by lenders, these types of resulting consequences walk a dangerous line between what needs to be done, and unfair treatment towards one group of people. In either case, the allegations of discrimination against pregnant women reek of the sexism that was rampant in the professional world decades ago.

What do you think? Are pregnant women being treated unfairly, or are they indeed a liability to lenders because of the income gap resulting from their maternity leave?

Related Articles:

Pregnant Women Losing Out On Home Loans, Change.org

Pregnant Women Denied Loans? Realtor.com

{ 2 comments }

The New Good Faith Estimate (GFE): Some Glaring Omissions

by Rich Vetstein on February 2, 2010 · 9 comments

in Closings, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, RESPA

Lenders have been using the new Good Faith Estimate for a little over one month now. Gauging from the vociferous complaining in the lender blogosphere, it is an understatement to say that many lenders believe HUD really blew it with this new form. One would think that the new 3 page GFE would provide everything a borrower needs to know about what she’ll pay at closing, yet the new GFE inexplicably fails to provide at least 5 critical pieces of information for home buyers:

  • the total monthly mortgage payment (including escrows, taxes and insurance)
  • total cash needed to close
  • escrow amounts for real estate taxes, hazard insurance, and PMI
  • seller paid closing costs
  • Loan-to-value ratio/down payment

The GFE’s failure to provide this essential data about the loan is why one mortgage lender called the new GFE “the single worst government form dumped on the real estate industry.”

Surely, every borrower wants to know their total monthly mortgage payment month and how much cash they’ll need to bring at closing. Borrowers also want to know ahead of time how much the tax and insurance escrows will be since they have to pay several months in advance at the closing. Since the new GFE doesn’t provide this important information, lenders are filling in the gaps with their own custom made loan worksheets.

Some have complained that these worksheets are a work-around the new rules, but lenders have an obligation to provide borrowers with the full financial picture of the loan. The criticism is unfair, in my opinion, if the intent is to fill in the informational gap of what the GFE fails to provide.

The new GFE may be an overall improvement to the hodge-podge of good faith estimates previously used by lenders, but it’s certainly not the Messiah that HUD billed it out to be.

{ 9 comments }

FHA Tightens Mortgage Requirements: Lending Costs To Rise

by Rich Vetstein on January 26, 2010 · 1 comment

in Closings, FHA, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages

I’m happy to welcome guest blogger, Patrick Maddigan, Esq.,the Director of Operations and Business Development at our new entity, TitleHub Closing Services. Pat is writing today on the new FHA lending changes.

On January 20th, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced it would tighten certain lending requirements and guidelines with the purpose of reducing risk and improving its weakening financial health. The changes include:

  • Borrowers must pay an increased upfront mortgage insurance premium (MIP) of  2.25% of the loan amount (increased by 50 basis points from 1.75%). FHA has also requested legislative authority to increase the maximum annual MIP so it can reduce upfront costs for prospective home buyers.
  • For borrowers with poor credit (credit score of below 580), they must make a minimum down payment of 10% (up from 3.5%).
  • Seller credits for closing costs are cut by 50% and cannot exceed 3% of the purchase price.
  • FHA will continue to increase enforcement on FHA-approved lenders, and will publicly report lender performance rankings to improve transparency and accountability.

The formal Mortgagee Letter released by FHA can be found here. FHA has not announced a firm date on which the proposed changes will be effective, though they are expected to go into effect in either spring or summer.

The Rising Tide Of FHA Loans

With the current recessionary economic state, constricting mortgage availability, and general credit crunch, FHA loans have become extremely popular. FHA loans, which feature low down payments, competitive interest rates, and more forgiving credit requirements, have proven the loan of choice for many first time home buyers and those with marginal credit scores. In 2009, approximately $290 billion in FHA loans were issued, up nearly 500% from 2007. Despite the housing downturn and credit crunch, FHA mortgages have continued to grow, thanks in part to incentives like the First Time Home-Buyers Credit. In anticipation of the continued increase in interest and demand for FHA mortgages, HUD is requesting $400 Billion for the expected flood of FHA loan applications in 2010. The dramatic rise in FHA backed loans, however, has caused the steady depletion of FHA reserves, putting the agency at greater risk of financial distress and even collapse. Regulators proposed the changes outlined here as  to ensure its long-term financial integrity while positively impacting the ailing housing market.

Two of the recently announced changes in FHA loans will have a clear effect upon buyers in the more immediate future- the rise in upfront mortgage insurance premiums (UFMIPs) and the FICO/minimum down payment adjustments.

Up-Front Mortgage Insurance Premiums Increased To 2.25%

The first change that will immediately impact borrowers is the FHA’s increase of the required up-front mortgage insurance premium by 50 basis points to 2.25% of the base loan amount. This change is effective beginning April 5, 2010.

FHA requires two types of mortgage insurance premiums (known in the industry as a MIP): an up-front and an annual. The MIP is similar to private mortgage insurance, or PMI, for borrowers investing less than a 20% down payment. The MIP amount is based on a percentage of the remaining debt on the FHA loan, so as the mortgage is paid down, the MIP will decrease. Unlike private mortgage insurance, FHA borrowers are able to finance the MIP into the loan, thereby spreading the cost over many years. The “annual” MIP is termed annual but paid monthly as part of the loan payment.

For a $300,000 loan, the increase in the MIP fee would add approximately $1,447 to the loan amount, not a huge amount, but nothing to sneeze about when financed over a 30 year loan term. 

Minimum FICO Credit Score/10% Down Payment for New Borrowers

New borrowers will now be required to have a minimum FICO credit score of 580 to qualify for FHA’s 3.5% down payment program. Borrowers with a credit score below 580, while still able to qualify for a FHA loan, must now put down at least 10% of the purchase price–an amount that may be prohibitive for many borrowers with poor credit.

Until now, there has been no minimum FICO score requirement imposed by FHA, however some lenders who fund FHA loans have previously imposed their own requirements (often lenders would not work with credit scores under a 620), so the net effect of this change may not be that significant. While this will preclude some of the underserved community the FHA is seeking to help, it will better balance the FHA’s risk levels and still continue to allow borrowers who have historically performed well to access the benefits of an FHA loan.

Patrick Maddigan, Esq.

Impact Of The Changes

The FHA is making an effort to lower its overall risk and improve the financial soundness of its insured loans, which in turn allows for the continued support of home buying in the United States. In doing so the FHA must find a way to keep their insurance fund’s capital ratio returns above the Congressionally mandated 2%, while continuing on their overall mission of aiding borrowers in underserved communities and facilitating the recovery of the housing market

These changes, along with the other FHA reforms (including a reduction in allowable seller concessions and significant changes and oversight for lenders) will have varying effects on borrowers interested in a FHA loan. For borrowers with low credit scores, some of these changes, such as the higher down payment percentage, will significantly affect their ability to buy a home. In the short term, the changes may motivate borrowers to lock into the old FHA guidelines before the new changes become effective.

If you are interested in an FHA loan, click here to Find An FHA Approved Lender In Your Area.

Thanks for the great information Pat! We’ll be seeing more of you around here hopefully.

If you wish to speak with a very knowledgeable mortgage lender about an FHA loan, we recommend that you contact David Gaffin at Greenpark Mortgage.

{ 1 comment }

Lenders React To Loan Worksheet Controversy, Express Frustrations With New GFE And RESPA Rules

by Rich Vetstein on January 24, 2010 · 2 comments

in Closings, HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, RESPA

My post on lenders using loan cost worksheets and estimates was the featured post on ActiveRain yesterday, spawning over 140 comments by last count. It turned into quite a lively discussion by mortgage lenders about how frustrated they are with the new Good Faith Estimate and RESPA rules. After digesting all the comments, I have to say that I completely understand mortgage lenders’ frustration, and that worksheets are a necessary evil, if you will, due to HUD’s failure to get the new GFE right.

As my mortgage lender friends point out, the new GFE inexplicably fails to provide some of the most important information for homebuyers: (1) the total monthly mortgage payment (including escrows, taxes and insurance), (2) total cash needed to close, and (3) seller paid closing costs. Every borrower wants to know how much they are paying a month and how much they’ll need to bring at closing. Since the new GFE doesn’t provide this important information, lenders are filling in the gaps with loan worksheets. This why one mortgage lender called the new GFE “the single worst government form dumped on the real estate industry.”

Here are a few of the comments from mortgage lenders:

Ted Canto of Academy Mortgage writes:

Hi Richard,

Timely and important post. Thank you!

We are a company that does provide a worksheet/ summary of the costs but that is before the triggers take effect (Quoting stage).  Our worksheet is actually based off all the costs that we input into the file and we are in compliance to the new rules. Once the triggers are set we immediately send them the new GFE.

The problem with the new GFE is that it doesn’t provide any uniformity to the quoting stage of the conversation between lender and client.  This causes almost all lenders to create their own idea of what constitutes a quote or a GFE.  I have seen a bunch of them and I can say that many of them are deceitful as they do not come close to disclosing the actual costs that the client, ultimately, will have to pay.

Chris Richter, Chicago Mortgage Loan writes:

Richard, Nice post.  I can’t figure out if I 100% agree or disagree with you.

I 100% agree with your position against the homemade comparison charts.  I saw a mock excel worksheet yesterday from one of the two big bailout recipient banks yesterday.  It had costs that did not pass through on the =sum() function and the rates were .5% higher than market.  It was deceptive at best.

I am not going to contend that the new rules are not without fault.  I agree that, if it was issued, the new GFE would be a fantastic apples-to-apples comparison. As a lawyer, if XYZ Bank was your client, would you advise them to issue a GFE when they don’t have to and can’t reasonably measure their exposure?

Personally, I think they missed an opportunity to create a standardized preliminary document.  I think the best part of the GFE is that it won’t vary in form or function between lenders.  Yet the preliminary estimate sheets will vary infinitely and that defeats the entire spirit of the changes.

As for the complaints about cash-to-close and monthly payment, that is simply not the purpose of the document.  I’d argue that information should not be on the GFE.  It is a GFE “of settlement costs” not “of everything you’d want estimated all rolled up onto one page.”

An overpriced lender can no longer redirect the consumer’s attention by talking about the monthly payment or cash-to-close. I don’t see how that is bad.

Gerard Ladalardo, Bank of America

I agree with most of the comments about the new GFE. While the intentions were good and warranted, it does fall short of simplifying all the fees to the borrowers. It seems like it’s even more confusing for borrowers, lenders and realtors. I had lunch with a very experienced, extremely intelligent broker friend of mine last week and he said that some lenders aren’t even allowing them to send out GFE’s because they are completely confused on the correct way to have them completed correctly and they are also afraid of the potential liability.

At Bank of America our Closing Cost Worksheet (CCW) DOES DISCLOSE the total closing costs broken down individually, the seller credit (if any), the cash to close and the total PITI mortgage payment. This is what we send to the borrowers when they are qualified to buy a home prior to the disclosures being mailed out by our processing staff. You can be completely confident that working with a B of A loan officer that your client will get a great loan! We have low rates, we never, ever charge origination fees, low lender fees and we can’t get overage/rebate at all. (you can’t selll the borrower a higher rate and get paid on this overage/rebate- if there’s any at all, it goes back to the borrower to pay closing costs).

And to sum up, as Mark Aalto of First Pacific Mortgage so succinctly does:

It does no one any good to just gripe about the new form.  It’s here in it’s present form and the best policy is to do what we can to live with it and to understand what it is and what it isn’t all about.

Lenders, what are your thoughts about the new GFE? How has it changed the manner in which you assist borrowers with pre-approvals, if at all? What should HUD fix next go-around with the new forms?

{ 2 comments }

RESPA Fallout: Lenders Combat Deficiencies With New Good Faith Estimate Through “Loan Worksheets”

by Rich Vetstein on January 20, 2010 · 5 comments

in HUD, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Mortgages, RESPA

The Los Angeles Times and other media outlets are claiming that lenders’ use of loan cost worksheets and estimates are a “sidestep” of the new RESPA mandated Good Faith Estimate which went into effect on January 1. HUD officials say they plan to conduct a review of the growing use of “worksheets” and “fee estimate” forms by mortgage lenders providing quotes to home buyers and refinancers. Lenders vehemently deny that they are doing anything wrong; in fact, they argue, cost worksheets are necessary because of several glaring deficiencies with the new Good Faith Estimate. This is all part of the shake-out during the first 30 days of the new RESPA reform which went into effect on January 1.

The new closing cost rules under the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) significantly changed the manner in which lenders are required to estimate loan and closing costs. Many charges cannot deviate at all, or at most by a 10%, from the Good Faith Estimate to the closing. That’s in stark contrast to earlier rules, which essentially allowed some lenders to quote low estimates of total costs, with no responsibility for the final dollar charges at closing, HUD contended.

Lenders — many of whom are feel the new GFE is the single worst government form ever to hit the real estate industry — respond that since the new GFE has a number of major deficiencies, such as not providing a total monthly cost payment, seller paid items and most importantly cash-to-close, it justifies the worksheets/estimates. (And if you can believe this, there’s no place on the GFE for the borrower to sign!).

Lenders, what are your complaints with the new GFE? (Try to keep them under 10!). Do you think providing these worksheets will ultimately help consumers? Are the criticisms about the worksheets unfair? Did HUD get it wrong with the new GFE? (I think I know the answer to that!). What can HUD do to improve it?

There is nothing explicit in the new RESPA rules prohibiting the use of these cost worksheets/estimate. Since this practice is on HUD’s radar, my recommendation to lenders is to explain clearly to the customer, preferably with a written disclosure right on the estimate, that this is not binding and not a substitute for the new GFE. That way, if HUD comes knocking on the door, you’ve covered yourself.

My goal with this post is to get the conversation going on the new GFE, not to rail against the mortgage industry. I’m on your side! As Jerry Maguire said, “Help me, help you…help me, help you!”

On a related note, as buyer’s counsel I now insert a rider provision into the P&S providing that the seller agrees to an extension (up to 7 days) of the closing date due to any RESPA/GFE related delays.

{ 5 comments }

← Previous Entries

Real Time Analytics