Category Archives: Housing Crisis

It’s time for a ban on all third party short sale negotiators.

Posted on by
67

Not a day goes by that I do not hear a story from a Realtor, loan originator or consumer about a questionable if downright bad experience with a third party short sale negotiator. We’ve reached a point in time where we ought to consider eliminating all third party short sale negotiators. At the end of this article I will provide suggestions for home sellers, home buyers, real estate brokers/Realtors, attorneys, and regulators in order to maximize good consequences and minimize bad consequences for all parties.

Yesterday I received a frantic call from a homebuyer we’ll call Maggie, who found me online via this blog post. Maggie fell in love with a short sale house but after her offer was accepted and moving toward the close of escrow, the third party short sale negotiator announced that since the lender would not pay his full fee (short sale negotiator was already being paid $3000), as the buyer, she would have to come up with an additional $7,000 at the close of escrow.  Maggie was in love with the house but didn’t have the extra 7K so the third party short sale negotiator suggested she get a loan and pay him after the close of escrow.

There are so many things wrong with the above scenario I don’t even know where to begin.  So let’s begin at the beginning. The growth of fee-based, third party short sale negotiators was fueled by a perfect storm:

1) Collapse of the real estate bubble and resulting growth of over-mortgaged homeowners.
2) Rapid growth in the need for real estate listing brokers who know how to negotiate a short sale.
3) Decimation of the subprime industry and resulting out-of-work loan originators and Realtors.
4) “Get rich quick

Tight Credit? Financed “closing costs”?

Posted on by
5

If you ask me, lenders are still not tight enough!

I’m OK with closing costs being financed aka paid for by the seller. But ONLY IF you define TRUE closing COSTS vs “prepaids” PLUS closing costs.

As an aside...if lenders would only let the buyer finance their own RE commission and not the total of the buyer and seller commissions…well…commissions would change overnight. Simple as THAT!

This comes back to haunt the buyer when they are selling…as so many costs were built into the price that they have to cover both the selling and buying costs…when they sell. That’s usually 13% on a combined basis! If you finance 3% to 4% on the way in and have seller costs of 9% to 10% on the way out…you are underwater by a LOT, even if you can sell your house for what you truly paid for it…the NET vs GROSS purchase price. The price without all the financed buyer costs.

Let’s look at a few examples that lenders should NOT allow to be financed…but do.

1) The first full year payment of the buyer’s annual Fire-Hazard insurance policy. (prepaid recurring annual expense)

2) The buyer’s prorated portion of the current year Real Estate Taxes .(prepaid recurring annual expense)

3) The buyer’s prorated portion of the HOA Dues. (prepaid recurring annual expense)

4) The current month’s interest (per diem) on the mortgage. (prepaid recurring annual expense)

It’s OK to finance the one time only fees like

Title Insurance (once and done)

The BUYER’S Real estate Commission expense…not the SELLER’S Real Estate Commission expense. It is NOT even the buyer’s cost of service. Why is it allowed to be IN the Buyer’s Mortgage?

The buyer’s 50% cost of Escrow Services (Seller pays the other 50%)

Recording Fees

I’m a little ambivalent about MIP and PMI up front fees. Since that protects the lender in the event of a shortage from amount owed to new sold price…the insurance has to get in there. So I’d likely call that a true closing cost vs prepaid. Prorate of the monthly…not worth getting into a discussion about…so I’m OK with MIP and PMI up front and prorated monthly being financed.

There’s a whole mixed bag of lender fees that should be examined carefully. Needless to say there was a time when lenders would allow CLOSING COSTS to be financed, but NOT “PREPAIDS”.

If we are truly serious in this Country about preventing future homeowners from being underwater when home prices stay FLAT…we need to stop allowing for SO many things being “financed” on the way in and out of a property purchase and sale.


Loan Originators Who Argue That Predatory Lending was Bad Should Welcome the New FRB Rule on LO Compensation Prohibitions

Posted on by
80

funny pictures-Bad Idea: Agreeing to play a game of Monopoly with Basement Cat for your eternal soul.Under the final Federal Reserve Board’s loan originator (LO) compensation rule, effective April 1, 2011, an LO may not receive compensation based on the interest rate or loan terms. This will prevent LOs from increasing their own compensation by raising the consumers’ rate. LOs can continue to receive compensation based on a percentage of the loan amount and consumers can continue to select a loan where loan costs are paid for via a higher rate. The final rule prohibits an LO who receives compensation directly from the consumer from also receiving compensation from the lender or another party.

The final rule also prohibits LOs from steering a consumer to accept a mortgage loan that is not in the consumer’s interest in order to increase the LO’s compensation.

Though a lawsuit has been filed to stop the changes from going into effect, there has been legal research conducted by the FRB over the course of many years.

The FRB’s research found that consumers do not understand the various ways LOs can be compensated such as yield spread premiums (YSPs), overages, and so forth, so they cannot effectively negotiate their fees. Yes, some LOs spend many hours educating their borrowers but this is not true for all LOs.

YSPs and overages create a conflict of interest between the loan originator and consumer. For consumers to be able to make an educated choice, they would have to know the lowest rate the creditor would have accepted, and determine that the offered rate is higher than the lowest rate available. The consumer also would need to understand the dollar amount of the YSP to figure out what portion will be applied as a credit against their loan fees and what portion is being kept by the LO as additional compensation. Currently, mortgage broker LOs must do this, but LOs who work for non-depository lenders or depository banks are not required to disclose their overage.

LOs argue that consumers ought to read their loan docs and take personal responsibility for negotiating a good deal on their mortgage yet facts related to LO compensation are hidden from consumers when working with depository banks and non-depository lenders.

The FRB’s experience with consumer testing showed that mortgage disclosures are inadequate for the average random consumer to be able to understand the complex mechanisms of YSPs when working with mortgage broker LOs. Consumers in these tests did not understand YSPs and how they create an incentive for loan originators to increase their compensation.

For example, an LO may charge the consumer an LO fee but this may lead the consumer to believe that the LO will act in the best interest of the consumer. The FRB says: 

“This may lead reasonable consumers erroneously to believe that loan originators are working on their behalf, and are under a legal or ethical obligation to help them obtain the most favorable loan terms and conditions.”

Consumers may regard loan originators as ‘‘trusted advisors’’ or ‘‘hired experts,’’ and consequently rely on originator’s advice. Consumers who regard loan originators in this manner are far less likely to shop or negotiate to assure themselves that they are being offered competitive mortgage terms. Even for consumers who shop, the lack of transparency in originator compensation arrangements makes it unlikely that consumers will avoid yield spread premiums that unnecessarily increase the cost of their loan.

Consumers generally lack expertise in complex mortgage transactions because they engage in such mortgage transactions infrequently. Their reliance on loan originators is reasonable in light of originators’ greater experience and professional training in the area, the belief that originators are working on their behalf, and the apparent ineffectiveness of disclosures to dispel that belief.

The FRB believes that where loan originators have the capacity to control their own compensation based on the terms or conditions offered to consumers, the incentive to provide consumers with a higher interest rate or other less favorable terms exists. When this unfair practice occurs, it results in direct economic harm to consumers whether the loan originator is a mortgage broker or employed as a loan officer for a bank, credit union, or community bank.

Well, at least our market isn’t on the verge of collapsing…

Posted on by
48

On this gray, dreary January Monday — where the weather isn’t even cold enough for snow in the mountains, at least not those elevations reachable by chair lift — I thought I’d pass along this “glass is half full” insight. First the bad news — which is no surprise at all: home values here in King County are now at 2005 levels, plus sales volume remains significantly depressed (by historical standards, putting aside the risk of a “new normal”). Not good. Sorta like the weather.

On the plus side, though, it could be worse. Much worse. Apparently, the hardest hit markets in the nation (Michigan, Nevada, perhaps others) appear to be heading towards total collapse. Yep, that’s right, values continue to depreciate until they reach… zero (or something in that neighborhood). OUCH! That’s neither a buyer’s nor a seller’s market. Rather, its a market from which everyone should extricate themselves as soon as possible. Run for the exits!

Obviously, this is just an opinion, and undoubtedly there are some rosier viewpoints. But I think this article makes a pretty compelling argument that some parts of the national housing market really will never, ever recover — at least not in the lifetime of a potential buyer or seller.

New Predatory Scam: Mortgage Litigation Services

Posted on by
31

The subprime lending industry barfed out hundreds if not thousands of loan originators in 2008 who had a taste of the six figure lifestyle and didn’t want it to end. The predators quickly swarmed into the loan modification industry and when state regulators started clamping down, they morphed into predatory short sale negotiators like parasites steadily evolving to bypass an organism’s defenses.

halo 3 plasma pistolSo where might they go now that the Federal Trade Commission is using the Halo plasma pistol on upfront fees Jan 31, 2011? Do you think they might crawl under a rock and die? Of course not.  The newest scam is called “mortgage litigation services” and the scammers are already swarming my inbox with email spam telling me that I can make six figures a year with no experience. All I have to do is refer people to their company. So what is the new scam?  From their email marketing:

“This is not a loan modification. Mortgages can become free and clear! XYZ Legal Services has put together a turnkey system that allows you to start offering mortgage litigation to your clients in days. This turnkey system is designed to run side-by-side with your existing company. XYZ provides all the required backend services to support your sales operation and business objectives. Our focus is on providing the very best customer service and attorney services for your customers. I am very confident that we will be able to help you and I think you will quickly see why our customers find our attorneys to be the experts when it comes to helping them get their financial issues resolved. Here are just a few key components that separate XYZ from the competition:·
Provide a REAL service to homeowners
You collect NO paperwork
All you do is fill out a one-page form online
Highest Marketing Fees to Affiliates
Make a Huge Income by Helping Others

Someone with a law license please explain to raincityguide readers how this could be legal.  It looks like they want people to sign up to become an affiliate and send referrals to their company, and for that the company is going to send out a referral fee. Predators love scams where they do no work and collect a fee.  So if these ads are targeting loan originators and other people in the real estate and mortgage lending industry, it looks like the company wants referrals of consumers who are in a position to challenge their lender.

We already have a 2009 law in Washington State where the lender is required to prove they hold the note before foreclosing. I don’t see how this service can help struggling homeowners. I do see how people who will believe anything will once again be scammed out of an upfront fee before any work is performed.

You should NOT be buying a house if you don’t “get” this.

Posted on by
14

Why did so many people buy houses they couldn’t afford? I’m not talking about people who bought 5 houses to “FLIP”, or the cash out refinance issues. I’m talking about the basic Buy A House to Live In IT bunch who never did a cash out refinance.

Well…on 2nd thought…let’s leave those cash out refinance people in, as this “study” may explain WHY so many NEEDED to do a cash out refinance, and use their home as an ATM machine.

Let’s start with the basic MODEL and examine where everything started to go sideways.

Qualifying for Mortgage Chart

Qualifying Ratios ONLY WORK well when THE MIDDLE COLUMN is in sync.

Now that the dust has settled and we are not looking for some ONE to BLAME, let’s look at the REALITY of what, exactly, is broken…so YOU can fix it. This is about you, as a buyer of a home, as you are the only one who can proceed on the RIGHT basis. No agent or lender can sort out that middle column for you. You must make the extra effort to QUALIFY YOURSELF!

Here’s what happened, in a nutshell. EVERYONE’S BACK END WAS OUT!!!

Used to be, looking at my Chart inserted in this post, that IF YOUR DEBT PAYMENTS caused your TOTAL of housing payment + Debt to exceed the “back end allowance”, your housing allowance was REDUCED accordingly.

EXAMPLE: Housing payment $2,800 (column one) Debt + Housing $4,000 (vs the allowable $3,600 in the Chart’s middle column) equalled a REDUCTION in allowable housing payment from $2,800 to $2,400. 28% of Gross Income was ONLY the allowable amount IF your housing payment plus monthly recurring debt payments did not exceed 36% on a combined basis.

If you do not understand this up to this point, PLEASE, PLEASE ask questions as you should NOT be buying a house if you do not understand this. If you are not capable of understanding the basic accounting framework of home buying and home ownership, then do not buy a house. It really is THAT simple.

The Middle Column went out of whack when people started using their Credit Cards for Column Three items. Before ATM cards, people did not do that. Credit was for buying a home and LARGE purchases and MONEY was for buying everything else. Front End + Back End assumed that no one would buy a carton of milk or a loaf of bread on a credit card. Front End and Back End assumed that no one would use a credit card to go to a movie theater.

That said, what YOU need to do is look at your Total Credit Card debt and separate the balance into “used for LARGE purchases” vs “used for column three expenses”.

The Lenders and the Real Estate Agents really can not do that for you. So what they DID (which proved to be disastrous) was EXPAND the back end ratio to include the usage of credit cards for column three expenses. This started when people LEASED cars vs buying them. Given you did not OWN the car at the end…this shifted the car payment from a column two expense to a column three expense.

Column Two is for large PURCHASES! Leasing a car is NOT a “purchase”. Seriously…that was the EVENT that created a huge disconnect for Qualifying Ratios, combined with people not making a distinction between when they were using a Credit Card vs an ATM card for minor purchases. Going to the movies is not a LARGE PURCHASE worthy of using a Credit Card vs a Debit Card.

There’s an old saying: “One Step Forward; Two Steps Back”. What I am suggesting here is that we have taken Two Steps Forward, and need to take One Step Back. Reconstruct your Credit Card debt to LARGE purchases only. Do not buy a house until your small purchases and living expenses of Column Three are NEVER “financed”.

If you NEED to buy your food with a credit card…you should not be buying a house. It’s THAT simple.

********

Column Three went out of whack for a number of reasons, mostly related to Column Two events as noted above. The MAIN Column Three disrupt, not associated with Column Two, is about EARMARKED savings.

Used to be people had a “Christmas Club” savings account and a “Vacation Club” savings account and an Emergency Fund Savings account that was never touched except for dire emergency (and then repaid BACK into the Emergency Fund), and a Short Term savings account for “luxury items” and a Long Term Savings Account for retirement.

Buying a boat was a “luxury item” vs a “Large Purchase”. “Large Purchase was a refrigerator, a washer and dryer, a bedroom set, etc. Things you needed long term, not things you WANTED long term. You saved for a Luxury Purchase – a large item that you WANTED and you charged a NEEDED large item to spread out the payments.

Two things largely contributed to the demise of Americans saving money and saving it in an earmarked way. One was the change from the standard 5% interest bearing passbook savings account. The other was the expansion of bank charges per account, that caused people to lump their savings into one account vs earmarking it by spreading it out among several designated purpose accounts. There was never a charge for a “christmas club” or a “vacation club”, and with 5% interest, people saved for those things vs charging those things.

A third thing that changed was the ability for a homeowner to convert their non-deductible charge card interest to deductible “mortgage” interest via a “cash out” refinance to “consolidate” debt. Seemed like a financially “smart” thing to do…until your house was “upside down” and you needed to do a short sale. Ask yourself how many short sales are done to “forgive” the car loan and the student loans that were combined into their Mortgage Amount? That is a frightening thought, and not about a HOUSING Crisis at all!

Is there any hope for a true FIX? The answer is likely HIGH INTEREST RATES are needed. When interest rates are high, people save more. When interest rates are high, people put the right amount of forethought into buying a home.

For that reason I have to say that keeping interest rates low and fixing the economy all at the same time is an oxymoron. I don’t want to see interest rates go to double digits, but until interest rates are back in the 7% to 8% range, I don’t see much hope for an overall “fix”. BUT, hopefully, if you “get” what I am saying here, you can at least fix it for YOU.

Also, an up front Tax Credit to REPLACE the Mortgage Interest Deduction would go a long way to preventing homeowners from creating an Umbrella Loan for their Car and Education and other non housing related debt, in order to qualify the interest paid as a “mortgage interest” deduction.

If you understand the chart above, and keep your “back end from falling out”, you will clearly be a Giant Step ahead of most of your Peers. It’s a NEW Decade. 2011 is the year of One Step Back to Sound Principals and reliable fundamentals. Good Luck with that. If you don’t understand any part of this, please ASK!

Happy New Year!

The 2009 Version of the “same” principals

Can you modify the ratios from those in the Chart?

Half the battle is “won” when you know WHEN you are STRETCHING, and by how much.

New WA State Short Sale Seller Advisory and Licensee Guidance Bulletins

Posted on by
3

The Real Estate Division of the Washington State Department of Licensing and the Department of Financial Institutions have issued two bulletins about short sales. The DOL  Short Sale Advisory is for home sellers but really should be for both sellers AND their Realtors/real estate brokers.  DFI’s companion advisory is titled “Short Sale Guidance for Licensees” and contains many Q&As for both loan modification and short sale negotiation services. 

The DOL Seller Advisory contains basic education about short sales, the deficiency, “walking away” by letting the home go into foreclosure, options for homeowners in financial distress, warnings about predatory loan mod firms and other scams, and where to go for free help. The DOL Advisory also offers a signature page for the seller. There’s not a place for the real estate listing broker to sign the DOL Advisory.  I’d also like to see the Advisory offered in different languages. From the Advisory:

“FIRST, Understand that a Short Sale May not Discharge the Debt. You should know whether you will still owe your lender money (a deficiency) after the short sale. You should know this BEFORE you close the sale of your home. Even if a lender agrees to a short sale, the lender and any junior lien holders, may not agree to forgive the debt entirely and may require you to pay the difference as a personal obligation. This outstanding personal obligation could result in a subsequent collection action against you. For example, a lender may accept the short sale purchase price to “release the lien

FTC Considers Total Ban on Upfront Loan Modification Fees

Posted on by
143

It’s about time.  I’ve been saying this is going to turn into a national crisis for a year now.  From the AP

The head of the Federal Trade Commission said Thursday the agency is considering banning upfront payments to companies that advertise help for borrowers who are in trouble on their home loans.

Government officials say scammers seeking to take advantage of borrowers in danger of default often charge upfront fees of $1,000 to $3,000 for help with loan modifications that rarely, if ever, pay off.

“If you are concerned about keeping your home, avoid any company that asks you for a large fee in advance. That is a real red flag,” said Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC. Such upfront fees are already prohibited in 20 states.

Let’s ban all up front fees unless the service provider is a member of a State Bar Association. Attorney-backed loan mod firms charging upfront fees are not a good option either. That set up is typically a subprime salesperson boiler room. The California investigation found that with attorney-backed loan mod firms, never once did an actual attorney touch the file.  Read more about the loan mod mess in California here.

Third party loan mod salesmen should only be allowed to collect a fee once the loan modification is not only performed but also after the homeowner has made a specific number of on time payments.  This will rid the system of the Devil’s Rejects subprime LOs who act like they just walked off the set of a Rob Zombie movie and can only smell money. Let’s leave the real work to the people who can help homeowners figure out if they can actually afford to stay in the home or if they are better off selling. 

It seems there will always be a certain percentage of people who will believe anything and an equal percentage of people willing to prey on them.  But with a person’s home, the stakes are higher than an acai berry total body cleanse.

I predict that we will have the usual suspects crying that the FTCs actions will only raise the cost of hiring a third party loan mod company.  I call BS on that argument because homeowners have always been able to receive a loan mod for free by working directly with their lender, or receiving free help from a non-profit housing counseling agency or by seeking out free legal aid from their state’s Bar Association.

Distressed property rental income: Who’s money is it when a home goes into default?

Posted on by
Reply

This is both a legal question and an ethical issue.

I’ve bumped into this, not in the workplace, but out looking at property :   A home that is in process of either a short sale or heading to foreclosure has tenants.  It is not that a homeowner does not have a right to rent a home or even part of their home, but when a homeowner is involved in a short sale, is in arrears (default), most lenders require substantial paperwork from the owner justifying their hardship. My guess is that the rental income could be kept under the radar.   Many homes in default are the result of job loss or other hardship due to medical reasons or other life issues.   In some cases though, defaults are a result of excessive equity withdrawal from serial refinancing.

Homeowners in a short sale are typically not allowed any proceeds from the sale as a condition of approval.  But, if the homeowner is receiving rental income from the property, should that money be forfeited to the lender to help cure the debt?

I have not been able to find the languange in a standard Washington State Deed of Trust form, but I thought I read somewhere that rents are collectible by the lender to help cure the debt when a default has occurred.   I could be very mistaken.

Loan Mod Firms: Attorney “Backed” or Attorney Representation

Posted on by
7

A story today in the NY Times contains interviews with salespeople who worked for an attorney-backed loan modification firm in California that is now under state investigation for defrauding desperate homeowners. 

“Despite making promises of relief to homeowners desperate to keep their homes, FedMod and other profit making loan modification firms often fail to deliver, according to a New York Times investigation based on interviews with scores of former employees and customers, more than 650 complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau, and documents filed by the Federal Trade Commission in a lawsuit against the company. The suit, filed in California federal court, asserts that FedMod frequently exaggerated its rates of success, advised clients to stop making their mortgage payments, did little or nothing to modify loans and failed to promptly refund fees…For fees reaching $3,495, with most of the money collected upfront, they promised to negotiate with lenders to lower payments on the now-delinquent mortgages they and their counterparts had sprinkled liberally across Southern California.  “We just changed the script and changed the product we were selling,