WSJ - Obama tries to force mortgage deal
The Obama administration is trying to push through a settlement over mortgage-servicing breakdowns that could force America's largest banks to pay for reductions in loan principal worth billions of dollars. Terms of the administration's proposal include a commitment from mortgage servicers to reduce the loan balances of troubled borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth, people familiar with the matter said. The cost of those writedowns won't be borne by investors who purchased mortgage-backed securities, these people said. If a unified settlement can be reached, some state attorneys general and federal agencies are pushing for banks to pay more than $20 billion in civil fines or to fund a comparable amount of loan modifications for distressed borrowers, these people said. But forging a comprehensive settlement may be difficult. A deal would have to win approval from federal regulators and state attorneys general, as well as some of the nation's largest mortgage ser
vicers, including Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co, and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Those banks declined to comment.
So far, most loan modifications have focused on shrinking monthly payments by lowering interest rates and extending loan terms. Banks, as well as mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have been shy to embrace principal reductions, in part due to concerns that many borrowers who can afford their loans will stop paying in the hope of being rewarded with a smaller loan. Several federal agencies have been scrutinizing the nation's largest banks over breakdowns in foreclosure procedures that erupted last fall. Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said only a small number of borrowers had been improperly foreclosed upon. But the regulator raised concerns over inadequate staffing and weak controls over certain foreclosure processes.
A settlement must satisfy an unwieldy mix of authorities, including state attorneys general and regulators such as the newly formed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, who support heftier fines. They must also appease banking regulators, such as the OCC, that are concerned penalties could be too stiff. "Nothing has been finalized among the states, and it's our understanding that the federal agencies we are in discussions with have not finalized their positions," said a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is spearheading a 50-state investigation of mortgage-servicing practices.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Create A Note -- And Sell It!
Credit of the Property Buyer(s)
The better it is, the more valuable the carryback note is going to be to a prospective note buyer. Don't know what the property buyer's credit is? Then don't bet the barn on a great note
sale, because the note buyer will want to know the buyer's credit. And if the property buyers are husband and wife, or more than one buyer, demand credit and financial statements from everyone. These days it's common for the wife to earn more than the husband, and you want to know all about both. If the noteholder is not equipped to obtain a credit report, ask your bank or local credit agency. They'll help you get it.
Sales Price of the Property
This should be at or LESS than the provable/establishable value of the property. Is it more than the actual value of the property? Then expect your note to sell for LESS than you want,
because the experienced note buyer wants the property buyer to have some equity in the property so the property buyer isn't likely to default.
Provable Value of the Property
Don't know? And the property buyer hasn't demanded an appraisal of any kind? Great, if the property is selling for all cash -- but if you're taking back a note and you want to sell that
note simultaneously, be aware that the note buyer is going to want to know the property value. And many problems are created if your note sale is AFTER the property sale, and the property is now inaccessible to an appraiser.
Down Payment
Zero down deals are done all the time but are not popular with note buyers. They want to know that the buyer has immediate equity in the property, something to protect, so the less the down payment you're taking, the less the cash you're going to be selling your note for.
Terms Of The Carry-Back Note
A. Interest Rate: The higher the better, but not so high as to gamble with usury law violations. Many states have usury laws that govern personal, consumer loans (e.g. Washington State has a 12% "do not exceed" rate); however, not all states have usury laws. So check before you structure your deal. Don't know what a good interest rate is for your deal? Ask a mortgage person or residential agent. They live with this on a daily basis and they'll give you some good advice. The lower the rate, the poorer the deal for the note buyer, and he'll just make it up by charging you more of a discount when he buys it.
B. Length of Note: Again, ask what is normal currently. Probably the typical length is 5 years, or maybe 10 to 25 years but with 3 to 5 year balloon. This is important to the note buyer, because he doesn't want to wait forever to get repaid. But not too short...I've seen notes with 6-12 months go begging for a buyer because the note buyers feared the property buyer couldn't pay it off in that time period.
C. Balloon: Again, the note buyer wants to have this on his books for no more than 3-5 years, so even if the new note has a 20-25 year amortization period, to keep the monthly payments
within reason, the note should have a 5 or so year balloon for full payoff in that time.
D. Loan-To-Value Ratio (LTV): Total loan-to-value, of both the first and new second, must be considered, and typically not to exceed 75% of provable value, for the buyer of the new
second to be seriously interested. Also, many second buyers want the ratio of the first to the second to be no more than 4:1. Translation: they don't want a little second that's behind a huge first, which might have a much bigger RATIO than 4:1. (e.g. $100,000 first and $10,000 second would be 10:1; but $30,000 first and $10,000 second would be 3:1). Do some shopping and learn what note buyers would accept before you structure your property sale. Of all the elements listed here, this is probably the one most ignored by note buyers. If they like everything else, they might not care at all about the LTV.
E. Will the Lender on the First Permit the Second You're Willing to Carry? Frequently, the lender on a new institutional loan inserts a clause to the effect that it is permitting NO carryback loan by the seller, and you'd better hammer this out up-front if you plan to carry a second and are expecting to sell it.
F. Security For Your Second: Normally it should be a recordable deed of trust, or mortgage in non-deed of trust states, drafted to comply with laws of property situs (where it's at!) to secure payment of the second. And to be recordable in deed records it should normally be signed and acknowledged by a notary. Further, it should normally have provisions to the effect that any default on buyer's part in payment of his first note is also a default in the carryback second. And, although frequently omitted, it should contain explicit, written permission for its holder to verify the current status of the first.
G. Buyer's Identity: If the payors are husband and wife, make sure they ARE husband and wife and have both executed the note and deed of trust individually. Don't permit one to sign for both. This is not permissible or binding on the spouse in every state, and you don't even know for sure they're still married. If you're selling to a corporation or LLC, make sure you're also getting the buyers on the note and deed of trust INDIVIDUALLY. I see too many notes where ONLY the corp/LLC is on there, and the people signing, sign ONLY as corporate officers -- this doesn't bind them individually and your note isn't going to sell.
One element that has not been addressed in this article is "seasoning," or aging. While there is no doubt that a note that has a few years successful seasoning is a more valuable note, of course this element is completely absent in a "simultaneous" sale, where the note is purchased as the property sale is closed.
The better it is, the more valuable the carryback note is going to be to a prospective note buyer. Don't know what the property buyer's credit is? Then don't bet the barn on a great note
sale, because the note buyer will want to know the buyer's credit. And if the property buyers are husband and wife, or more than one buyer, demand credit and financial statements from everyone. These days it's common for the wife to earn more than the husband, and you want to know all about both. If the noteholder is not equipped to obtain a credit report, ask your bank or local credit agency. They'll help you get it.
Sales Price of the Property
This should be at or LESS than the provable/establishable value of the property. Is it more than the actual value of the property? Then expect your note to sell for LESS than you want,
because the experienced note buyer wants the property buyer to have some equity in the property so the property buyer isn't likely to default.
Provable Value of the Property
Don't know? And the property buyer hasn't demanded an appraisal of any kind? Great, if the property is selling for all cash -- but if you're taking back a note and you want to sell that
note simultaneously, be aware that the note buyer is going to want to know the property value. And many problems are created if your note sale is AFTER the property sale, and the property is now inaccessible to an appraiser.
Down Payment
Zero down deals are done all the time but are not popular with note buyers. They want to know that the buyer has immediate equity in the property, something to protect, so the less the down payment you're taking, the less the cash you're going to be selling your note for.
Terms Of The Carry-Back Note
A. Interest Rate: The higher the better, but not so high as to gamble with usury law violations. Many states have usury laws that govern personal, consumer loans (e.g. Washington State has a 12% "do not exceed" rate); however, not all states have usury laws. So check before you structure your deal. Don't know what a good interest rate is for your deal? Ask a mortgage person or residential agent. They live with this on a daily basis and they'll give you some good advice. The lower the rate, the poorer the deal for the note buyer, and he'll just make it up by charging you more of a discount when he buys it.
B. Length of Note: Again, ask what is normal currently. Probably the typical length is 5 years, or maybe 10 to 25 years but with 3 to 5 year balloon. This is important to the note buyer, because he doesn't want to wait forever to get repaid. But not too short...I've seen notes with 6-12 months go begging for a buyer because the note buyers feared the property buyer couldn't pay it off in that time period.
C. Balloon: Again, the note buyer wants to have this on his books for no more than 3-5 years, so even if the new note has a 20-25 year amortization period, to keep the monthly payments
within reason, the note should have a 5 or so year balloon for full payoff in that time.
D. Loan-To-Value Ratio (LTV): Total loan-to-value, of both the first and new second, must be considered, and typically not to exceed 75% of provable value, for the buyer of the new
second to be seriously interested. Also, many second buyers want the ratio of the first to the second to be no more than 4:1. Translation: they don't want a little second that's behind a huge first, which might have a much bigger RATIO than 4:1. (e.g. $100,000 first and $10,000 second would be 10:1; but $30,000 first and $10,000 second would be 3:1). Do some shopping and learn what note buyers would accept before you structure your property sale. Of all the elements listed here, this is probably the one most ignored by note buyers. If they like everything else, they might not care at all about the LTV.
E. Will the Lender on the First Permit the Second You're Willing to Carry? Frequently, the lender on a new institutional loan inserts a clause to the effect that it is permitting NO carryback loan by the seller, and you'd better hammer this out up-front if you plan to carry a second and are expecting to sell it.
F. Security For Your Second: Normally it should be a recordable deed of trust, or mortgage in non-deed of trust states, drafted to comply with laws of property situs (where it's at!) to secure payment of the second. And to be recordable in deed records it should normally be signed and acknowledged by a notary. Further, it should normally have provisions to the effect that any default on buyer's part in payment of his first note is also a default in the carryback second. And, although frequently omitted, it should contain explicit, written permission for its holder to verify the current status of the first.
G. Buyer's Identity: If the payors are husband and wife, make sure they ARE husband and wife and have both executed the note and deed of trust individually. Don't permit one to sign for both. This is not permissible or binding on the spouse in every state, and you don't even know for sure they're still married. If you're selling to a corporation or LLC, make sure you're also getting the buyers on the note and deed of trust INDIVIDUALLY. I see too many notes where ONLY the corp/LLC is on there, and the people signing, sign ONLY as corporate officers -- this doesn't bind them individually and your note isn't going to sell.
One element that has not been addressed in this article is "seasoning," or aging. While there is no doubt that a note that has a few years successful seasoning is a more valuable note, of course this element is completely absent in a "simultaneous" sale, where the note is purchased as the property sale is closed.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
FHFA presents new compensation model
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has issued a 28-page document that presents several alternatives it plans to consider for how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac compensate mortgage servicers. The report is part of joint initiative announced by FHFA and HUD in January to revise the compensation model for mortgage servicing. The new payment models are also being considered for companies that service Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans on behalf of Ginnie Mae. Currently, the typical compensation structure pays the loan servicer from a strip of the interest on each mortgage, an “IO” strip, regardless of loan status, FHFA explained.
The agency says the IO strip is a difficult asset to manage and results in a servicer receiving more than enough income to cover the expenses of servicing performing loans, but not enough when a portfolio includes a significant number of nonperforming loans. FHFA says this arrangement decreases the flexibility needed to ensure optimal servicing of nonperforming loans during times of high defaults like the industry is currently experiencing. The document outlines various alternatives to the current pay model, including a fee-for-service compensation structure for nonperforming loans and reducing or eliminating the minimum mortgage servicing fee for performing loans. FHFA provides extensive analysis of the alternative scenarios that encompasses illustrations of cash flows and accounting, capital calculations and requirements, and mortgage rate setting. FHFA says the ideas, models, and alternatives included in the presentation should be used as starting points “to generate
thinking and to explain concerns with the current compensation system.”
The agency said it is coordinating the efforts of the initiative to gather feedback from the industry, consumer groups, investors, and other regulators and government agencies. FHFA has established a dedicated Web link to post information related to the servicing compensation initiative, including background materials and issues that should be considered as development moves forward. When the administration released its plan for winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier this month, officials stressed that one of the near-term reforms on the agenda is reforming servicing compensation. FHFA said in January that implementation of a new servicing compensation structure is not expected to occur before the summer of 2012.
The agency says the IO strip is a difficult asset to manage and results in a servicer receiving more than enough income to cover the expenses of servicing performing loans, but not enough when a portfolio includes a significant number of nonperforming loans. FHFA says this arrangement decreases the flexibility needed to ensure optimal servicing of nonperforming loans during times of high defaults like the industry is currently experiencing. The document outlines various alternatives to the current pay model, including a fee-for-service compensation structure for nonperforming loans and reducing or eliminating the minimum mortgage servicing fee for performing loans. FHFA provides extensive analysis of the alternative scenarios that encompasses illustrations of cash flows and accounting, capital calculations and requirements, and mortgage rate setting. FHFA says the ideas, models, and alternatives included in the presentation should be used as starting points “to generate
thinking and to explain concerns with the current compensation system.”
The agency said it is coordinating the efforts of the initiative to gather feedback from the industry, consumer groups, investors, and other regulators and government agencies. FHFA has established a dedicated Web link to post information related to the servicing compensation initiative, including background materials and issues that should be considered as development moves forward. When the administration released its plan for winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac earlier this month, officials stressed that one of the near-term reforms on the agenda is reforming servicing compensation. FHFA said in January that implementation of a new servicing compensation structure is not expected to occur before the summer of 2012.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Mortgage servicing crackdown expected
U.S. banking regulators are close to finalizing new national guidelines that will impact mortgage servicing shops after an interagency investigation revealed "significant weaknesses in mortgage servicing related to foreclosure oversight and operations," said John Walsh, the Acting Comptroller of the Currency, in prepared statements to be delivered before a Senate Banking panel today. "In general, the examinations found critical deficiencies and shortcomings in foreclosure governance processes, foreclosure document preparation processes, and oversight and monitoring of third-party law firms and vendors," Walsh said.
"These deficiencies have resulted in violations of state and local foreclosure laws, regulations, or rules and have had an adverse affect on the functioning of the mortgage markets and the U.S. economy as a whole." Walsh said even though the process of outlining new guidelines for servicers is at its early stage, regulators intend to address some of the pressing issues they discovered while investigating the servicing process — namely a lack of national standards for the foreclosure process and borrower confusion over whom to contact in foreclosure cases due to uncertain protocols.
Walsh's report on the investigation of loan servicing firms comes on the heels of a major announcement from the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS. MERS, which is an electronic registry of mortgage records, informed members late Wednesday that they are now prohibited from foreclosing on residential loans using the MERS name. MERS has long been the target of foreclosure defense attorneys and consumer advocates for creating a foreclosure process that fails to create transparent oversight and protocols.
Walsh said as part of their comprehensive examination of servicing shops, regulators examined Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS), MERSCORP, the parent company of MERS, and MERS itself. After reviewing the servicing shops and examining bank self assessments, as well as 2,800 foreclosure cases, Walsh said investigators concluded that there were "significant weaknesses in mortgage servicing related to foreclosure oversight and operations." He said regulators have yet to finalize their proposed guidelines, but that will be the next step in the process.
"These deficiencies have resulted in violations of state and local foreclosure laws, regulations, or rules and have had an adverse affect on the functioning of the mortgage markets and the U.S. economy as a whole." Walsh said even though the process of outlining new guidelines for servicers is at its early stage, regulators intend to address some of the pressing issues they discovered while investigating the servicing process — namely a lack of national standards for the foreclosure process and borrower confusion over whom to contact in foreclosure cases due to uncertain protocols.
Walsh's report on the investigation of loan servicing firms comes on the heels of a major announcement from the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS. MERS, which is an electronic registry of mortgage records, informed members late Wednesday that they are now prohibited from foreclosing on residential loans using the MERS name. MERS has long been the target of foreclosure defense attorneys and consumer advocates for creating a foreclosure process that fails to create transparent oversight and protocols.
Walsh said as part of their comprehensive examination of servicing shops, regulators examined Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS), MERSCORP, the parent company of MERS, and MERS itself. After reviewing the servicing shops and examining bank self assessments, as well as 2,800 foreclosure cases, Walsh said investigators concluded that there were "significant weaknesses in mortgage servicing related to foreclosure oversight and operations." He said regulators have yet to finalize their proposed guidelines, but that will be the next step in the process.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
President tries to curb mortgage interest rate deduction
President tries to curb mortgage interest rate deduction
The president proposed in his budget to curtail high-income earners' tax deduction for mortgage interest payments and charitable contributions. Under his proposal, taxpayers in the 33% and 35% tax brackets would only be able to deduct their contributions and mortgage interest payments at the 28% rate. It would affect those with taxable income of $250,000 and up and bring in $321 billion over 10 years, according to the White House. The Obama administration, as well as several tax and deficit commissions, have called for limiting or eliminating the deductions in the past. But the proposals have gone nowhere and the same outcome is expected this year. Still, the real estate industry and non-profit sector are not taking any chances. They are making it clear to both Congress and the White House that they strongly oppose any limits to the deductions.
The industry is concerned that capping the deduction will hurt the housing market, which continues to stumble. The tax break makes homeownership more affordable, they argue. This is the second time in recent months that the Obama administration has recommended curtailing the deduction, which costs the Treasury Department an estimated $131 billion a year. In December, a presidential debt panel recommended turning the itemized deduction in to a 12% non-refundable tax credit available to everyone. It would also cut the size of eligible mortgages in half to up to $500,000. "NAR will remain vigilant in opposing any plan that modifies or excludes the deductibility of mortgage interest," National Association of Realtors President Ron Phipps said at the time.
The president proposed in his budget to curtail high-income earners' tax deduction for mortgage interest payments and charitable contributions. Under his proposal, taxpayers in the 33% and 35% tax brackets would only be able to deduct their contributions and mortgage interest payments at the 28% rate. It would affect those with taxable income of $250,000 and up and bring in $321 billion over 10 years, according to the White House. The Obama administration, as well as several tax and deficit commissions, have called for limiting or eliminating the deductions in the past. But the proposals have gone nowhere and the same outcome is expected this year. Still, the real estate industry and non-profit sector are not taking any chances. They are making it clear to both Congress and the White House that they strongly oppose any limits to the deductions.
The industry is concerned that capping the deduction will hurt the housing market, which continues to stumble. The tax break makes homeownership more affordable, they argue. This is the second time in recent months that the Obama administration has recommended curtailing the deduction, which costs the Treasury Department an estimated $131 billion a year. In December, a presidential debt panel recommended turning the itemized deduction in to a 12% non-refundable tax credit available to everyone. It would also cut the size of eligible mortgages in half to up to $500,000. "NAR will remain vigilant in opposing any plan that modifies or excludes the deductibility of mortgage interest," National Association of Realtors President Ron Phipps said at the time.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Foreclosures falling - not
The number of homes receiving foreclosure filings, default notices, auctions, and repossessions, fell 17% in January compared to a year earlier, RealtyTrac reported today. But that's still 261,333 properties and a 1% increase compared to December. Even with the slowdown, more than 78,000 borrowers lost their homes in January, easing off the record 102,000 that was reached last September. Besides, it's less a sign of a robust housing recovery and more a sign that lenders have become bogged down in reviewing procedures, resubmitting paperwork and formulating legal arguments related to accusations of improper foreclosure processing.
"We expect a spike in the first quarter," said Rick Sharga, a RealtyTrac spokesman. "If we don't get that, it could mean that the foreclosures are being pushed back even more and that the time needed for recovery will be prolonged." There was a bit of a shakeup among the individual states at the top of RealtyTrac's hardest-hit states. Florida, which had been outpacing all others for years, fell to ninth place in January, with a rate of one in ever 409 homes receiving a filing. Year-over-year, filings are off by 54% in the Sunshine State. Now, the seven states with the highest rate of foreclosure filings in January were all in non-judicial states, where foreclosure auctions can be scheduled and homes repossessed without any court hearing. Nevada led the states for the 49th consecutive month; Arizona was second and California third. Idaho and Utah filled out the top five worst-hit states. Among metro areas of more than 200,000 residents, Las Vegas had, as usual, the highest
foreclosure rate.
"We expect a spike in the first quarter," said Rick Sharga, a RealtyTrac spokesman. "If we don't get that, it could mean that the foreclosures are being pushed back even more and that the time needed for recovery will be prolonged." There was a bit of a shakeup among the individual states at the top of RealtyTrac's hardest-hit states. Florida, which had been outpacing all others for years, fell to ninth place in January, with a rate of one in ever 409 homes receiving a filing. Year-over-year, filings are off by 54% in the Sunshine State. Now, the seven states with the highest rate of foreclosure filings in January were all in non-judicial states, where foreclosure auctions can be scheduled and homes repossessed without any court hearing. Nevada led the states for the 49th consecutive month; Arizona was second and California third. Idaho and Utah filled out the top five worst-hit states. Among metro areas of more than 200,000 residents, Las Vegas had, as usual, the highest
foreclosure rate.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Home affordability at pre-boom prices
WSJ - home affordability at pre-boom prices
Data provided by Moody's Analytics track the ratio of median home prices to annual household incomes in 74 markets. By that measure, housing affordability at the end of September had returned to or surpassed the average reached between 1989-2003 in 47 of those markets. Most economists believe the housing boom took off in 2003. Nationally, the ratio of home prices to annual household income reached a peak of 2.3 in late 2005. But by last September, it had fallen to 1.6, matching the lowest level in the 35 years the data have been collected and well below the historical average of 1.9 between 1989 and 2003. "Based on incomes, this is as affordable as it gets," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "If you can get a loan, these are pretty good times to buy."
Measuring home prices relative to income is not the only way economists calculate housing affordability. They also examine the relationship between house prices and rents. Measured by the price-to-rent ratio—the price of a typical home divided by the annual cost of renting that home—prices are fairly valued, or undervalued, in around 20 markets. Nationally, the price-to-rent ratio stood at 14.85 at the end of September, above the 1989-2003 average of 12. The data suggest pockets of the country have further to fall. Home prices still remain overvalued by both measures in several markets, including Seattle, Charlotte, New York and Portland, Ore. Based on rents, "it's still not a slam dunk to buy" in those markets, said Mr. Zandi. He said markets appeared most overvalued in the Pacific Northwest, which was among the last regions to enter the housing downturn.
Historical measures also showed prices were still high along the Northeast corridor from Baltimore to Boston. Of the 74 housing markets, Baltimore appeared to be the most overvalued. By contrast, prices in Cleveland, the most undervalued market, have returned to 1991 levels based on the price-to-rent ratio. Historical measures comparing rents and incomes with home prices provide a useful gauge of affordability, but can be imperfect at measuring how close different markets are to recovering from a bubble.
Data provided by Moody's Analytics track the ratio of median home prices to annual household incomes in 74 markets. By that measure, housing affordability at the end of September had returned to or surpassed the average reached between 1989-2003 in 47 of those markets. Most economists believe the housing boom took off in 2003. Nationally, the ratio of home prices to annual household income reached a peak of 2.3 in late 2005. But by last September, it had fallen to 1.6, matching the lowest level in the 35 years the data have been collected and well below the historical average of 1.9 between 1989 and 2003. "Based on incomes, this is as affordable as it gets," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "If you can get a loan, these are pretty good times to buy."
Measuring home prices relative to income is not the only way economists calculate housing affordability. They also examine the relationship between house prices and rents. Measured by the price-to-rent ratio—the price of a typical home divided by the annual cost of renting that home—prices are fairly valued, or undervalued, in around 20 markets. Nationally, the price-to-rent ratio stood at 14.85 at the end of September, above the 1989-2003 average of 12. The data suggest pockets of the country have further to fall. Home prices still remain overvalued by both measures in several markets, including Seattle, Charlotte, New York and Portland, Ore. Based on rents, "it's still not a slam dunk to buy" in those markets, said Mr. Zandi. He said markets appeared most overvalued in the Pacific Northwest, which was among the last regions to enter the housing downturn.
Historical measures also showed prices were still high along the Northeast corridor from Baltimore to Boston. Of the 74 housing markets, Baltimore appeared to be the most overvalued. By contrast, prices in Cleveland, the most undervalued market, have returned to 1991 levels based on the price-to-rent ratio. Historical measures comparing rents and incomes with home prices provide a useful gauge of affordability, but can be imperfect at measuring how close different markets are to recovering from a bubble.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
GOP calls for end to HAMP
House Republicans introduced a bill this week that would repeal the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The bill was introduced by Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who cited yet another report from government watchdogs about the program’s underwhelming performance. The Treasury Department introduced HAMP in March 2009 allocating nearly $50 billion in incentive payments to servicers, borrowers and investors for modifying mortgages on the verge of foreclosure. Through December, servicers have modified more than 579,000 loans, well short of the 3 million to 4 million the Obama administration targeted. In December, the Congressional Oversight Panel estimated the program ultimately will reach between 700,000 and 800,000 borrowers.
If the bill passes, the Treasury will be unable to provide assistance under HAMP, which was authorized under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The bill also would terminate all contracts between the servicers and the Treasury. “HAMP is a colossal failure,” Jordan, co-sponsor of the bill and chair of the oversight subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending said. “In many cases, it has hurt the very people it promised to help. It’s one more example of why government interference in the private sector doesn’t work and that’s why it should be repealed.”
If the bill passes, the Treasury will be unable to provide assistance under HAMP, which was authorized under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The bill also would terminate all contracts between the servicers and the Treasury. “HAMP is a colossal failure,” Jordan, co-sponsor of the bill and chair of the oversight subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending said. “In many cases, it has hurt the very people it promised to help. It’s one more example of why government interference in the private sector doesn’t work and that’s why it should be repealed.”
Monday, February 7, 2011
Bank of America splits mortgage department
Bank of America splits mortgage department
Bank of America (BOA) created a separate mortgage servicing unit that will handle loans in default, while performing ones will stay in the bank's home loan division, the company said Friday. Regulators, lawmakers consumer advocates and even some players within the industry have been calling for mortgage servicing companies to divide their departments into performing and nonperforming sections as they work toward a new national servicing standard due out in 2012, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. BOA's announcement could be the first step in that process. Proponents of a new system have also called on servicers to provide a single point of contact at the bank and develop new servicing fees where companies are paid more for the extra work required in working out delinquent loans.
The bank appointed Terry Laughlin as the head of the "Legacy Asset Servicing" unit. In this role, Laughlin will oversee the company's mortgage modification and foreclosure programs. Barbara Desoer will continue to manage the company's home loan division, which will service performing loans and hold the bank's origination department, which wrote $306 billion in new loans during 2010. Laughlin will also be in charge of sorting out the bank's mortgage representation and warranties repurchase claims. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and private investors have put major lenders under pressure to buy back defaulted loans they say were not originated to standard. BOA settled with the GSEs late in December to pay $3 billion for their claims. "This alignment allows two strong executives and their teams to continue to lead the strongest home loans business in the industry, while providing greater focus on resolving legacy mortgage issues," BofA CEO Brian Moynihan said. "We believe this will
best serve customers — both those seeking homeownership and those who face mortgage challenges — as well as our shareholders and the communities we serve."
In 2010, BOA completed 285,000 modifications through both its private programs and the government's Home Affordable Modification program. It has boosted its default servicing staff to 30,000, and it said it will hold 400 events this year to put borrowers in touch with those employees.
MBA - 2010 ranking of servicers
The Mortgage Bankers Association's (MBA) year-end ranking of commercial and multifamily mortgage servicers as of the end of December 31, 2010 was released yesterday. On top of the list of firms is Wells Fargo with $451.1 billion in US master and primary servicing, followed by PNC Real Estate/Midland Loan Services with $337.4 billion, Berkadia Commercial Mortgage with $194.9 billion, Bank of America Merrill Lynch with $126.6 billion, and KeyBank Real Estate Capital with $118.9 billion. Specific breakouts in the report include:
- Total US Master and Primary Servicing Volume
- US Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities (CMBS), Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and Other Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) Master and Primary Servicing Volume
- US Commercial Banks and Savings Institution Volume
- US Credit Company, Pension Funds, REITs, and Investment Funds Volume
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Servicing Volume
- Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Servicing Volume
- US Life Company Servicing Volume
- US Warehouse Volume
- US Other Investor Volume
- US CMBS Named Special Servicing Volume
- Total Non-US Master and Primary Servicing Volume
A primary servicer is generally responsible for collecting loan payments from borrowers, performing property inspections and other property-related activities. A master servicer is typically responsible for collecting cash and data from primary servicers and then providing that cash and data, through trustees, to investors. Unless otherwise noted, MBA tabulations that combine different roles do not double-count loans for which a single servicer performs multiple roles.
Wells Fargo, PNC/Midland, Berkadia, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and KeyBank are the largest master and primary servicers of commercial/multifamily loans in US CMBS, CDO and other ABS; PNC/Midland, GEMSA Loan Services, Prudential Asset Resources, Northwestern Mutual, and Northmarq Capital are the largest servicers for life companies; PNC/Midland, Wells Fargo, Berkadia, Deutsche Bank Commercial Real Estate and Prudential Asset Resources are the largest Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac servicers. PNC/Midland ranks as the top master and primary servicer of commercial bank and savings institution loans; GEMSA the top credit company, pension funds, REITs, and investment funds servicer; PNC/Midland the top FHA and Ginnie Mae servicer; Wells Fargo the top for mortgages in warehouse facilities; and Berkadia the top for other investor type loans.
Bank of America (BOA) created a separate mortgage servicing unit that will handle loans in default, while performing ones will stay in the bank's home loan division, the company said Friday. Regulators, lawmakers consumer advocates and even some players within the industry have been calling for mortgage servicing companies to divide their departments into performing and nonperforming sections as they work toward a new national servicing standard due out in 2012, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. BOA's announcement could be the first step in that process. Proponents of a new system have also called on servicers to provide a single point of contact at the bank and develop new servicing fees where companies are paid more for the extra work required in working out delinquent loans.
The bank appointed Terry Laughlin as the head of the "Legacy Asset Servicing" unit. In this role, Laughlin will oversee the company's mortgage modification and foreclosure programs. Barbara Desoer will continue to manage the company's home loan division, which will service performing loans and hold the bank's origination department, which wrote $306 billion in new loans during 2010. Laughlin will also be in charge of sorting out the bank's mortgage representation and warranties repurchase claims. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and private investors have put major lenders under pressure to buy back defaulted loans they say were not originated to standard. BOA settled with the GSEs late in December to pay $3 billion for their claims. "This alignment allows two strong executives and their teams to continue to lead the strongest home loans business in the industry, while providing greater focus on resolving legacy mortgage issues," BofA CEO Brian Moynihan said. "We believe this will
best serve customers — both those seeking homeownership and those who face mortgage challenges — as well as our shareholders and the communities we serve."
In 2010, BOA completed 285,000 modifications through both its private programs and the government's Home Affordable Modification program. It has boosted its default servicing staff to 30,000, and it said it will hold 400 events this year to put borrowers in touch with those employees.
MBA - 2010 ranking of servicers
The Mortgage Bankers Association's (MBA) year-end ranking of commercial and multifamily mortgage servicers as of the end of December 31, 2010 was released yesterday. On top of the list of firms is Wells Fargo with $451.1 billion in US master and primary servicing, followed by PNC Real Estate/Midland Loan Services with $337.4 billion, Berkadia Commercial Mortgage with $194.9 billion, Bank of America Merrill Lynch with $126.6 billion, and KeyBank Real Estate Capital with $118.9 billion. Specific breakouts in the report include:
- Total US Master and Primary Servicing Volume
- US Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities (CMBS), Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and Other Asset-Backed Securities (ABS) Master and Primary Servicing Volume
- US Commercial Banks and Savings Institution Volume
- US Credit Company, Pension Funds, REITs, and Investment Funds Volume
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Servicing Volume
- Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Servicing Volume
- US Life Company Servicing Volume
- US Warehouse Volume
- US Other Investor Volume
- US CMBS Named Special Servicing Volume
- Total Non-US Master and Primary Servicing Volume
A primary servicer is generally responsible for collecting loan payments from borrowers, performing property inspections and other property-related activities. A master servicer is typically responsible for collecting cash and data from primary servicers and then providing that cash and data, through trustees, to investors. Unless otherwise noted, MBA tabulations that combine different roles do not double-count loans for which a single servicer performs multiple roles.
Wells Fargo, PNC/Midland, Berkadia, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and KeyBank are the largest master and primary servicers of commercial/multifamily loans in US CMBS, CDO and other ABS; PNC/Midland, GEMSA Loan Services, Prudential Asset Resources, Northwestern Mutual, and Northmarq Capital are the largest servicers for life companies; PNC/Midland, Wells Fargo, Berkadia, Deutsche Bank Commercial Real Estate and Prudential Asset Resources are the largest Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac servicers. PNC/Midland ranks as the top master and primary servicer of commercial bank and savings institution loans; GEMSA the top credit company, pension funds, REITs, and investment funds servicer; PNC/Midland the top FHA and Ginnie Mae servicer; Wells Fargo the top for mortgages in warehouse facilities; and Berkadia the top for other investor type loans.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Year-end housing sales end in the black; month-to-month median price increases 6 percent
(January 13, 2011 – Orlando, FL) Members of the Orlando Regional REALTOR® Association closed just 1.74 percent fewer homes in December of this year (2,368) than last (2,410), keeping year-to-date Orlando area sales in the black at 19.57 percent above 2009.
“In the first half of the year, the extended $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit and expanded $6,500 tax credit for repeat buyers helped encourage sales,” reviews ORRA Chairman of the Board Mike McGraw, McGraw Real Estate Services, PL. “Orlando’s homebuyers in 2010 also benefited from historic affordability levels, record low mortgage rates, and an inventory chock full of moderately priced homes.”
The 8,363 sales under contract and awaiting closing at the end of December are 2.45 percent above December 2009, which recorded 8,163 pending sales. There were 8,998 pending sales in November 2010.
Newly filed contracts —like pending sales an indicator of future sales activity — reached 3,196 in December 2010, a 7.1 percent increase over the 2,984 newly filed contracts in December 2009.
The median sales price of all homes sold in the Orlando area increased to $106,000 in December from the $105,000 median price that had held steady since September. According to ORRA the current median price is 6.11 percent above than the $99,900 median price recorded in August 2010 (the year’s lowest) and is 11.67 percent below the median price of $120,000 recorded in December 2009.
The median price for “normal” existing homes – i.e., those that are neither a short sale nor a foreclosure – sold in December is $160,000. The median price for bank-owned sales is $75,000 and the median price for short sales is $100,000. The lower median prices of bank-owned and short sales, which accounted for 68.71 percent of all sales in December, exerts a downward influence on the overall median price ($106,000).
The Orlando affordability index decreased to 246.73 percent in December. (An affordability index of 99 percent means that buyers earning the state-reported median income are 1 percent short of the income necessary to purchase a median-priced home. Conversely, an affordability index that is over 100 means that median-income earners make more than is necessary to qualify for a median-priced home.) Buyers who earn the reported median income of $53,447 can qualify to purchase one of 11,729 homes in Orange and Seminole counties currently listed in the local multiple listing service for $261,532 or less.
First-time homebuyer affordability in December decreased to 175.45 percent. First-time buyers who earn the reported median income of $36,344 can qualify to purchase one of 8,450 homes in Orange and Seminole counties currently listed in the local multiple listing service for $158,083 or less.
Homes of all types spent an average of 96 days on the market before coming under contract in December 2010, and the average home sold for 94.40 percent of its listing price. In December 2009 those numbers were 89 and 93.95 percent, respectively. The area’s average interest rate increased in December to 4.92 percent.
Inventory
There are currently 14,993 homes available for purchase through the MLS. Inventory decreased by 199 homes (1.31 percent) from November 2010, which means that 199 more homes exited the market than entered the market. The December 2010 inventory level is 3.58 percent lower than it was in December 2009 (15,549). The current pace of sales translates into 6.33 months of supply; December 2009 recorded 6.45 months of supply.
There are 11,919 single-family homes currently listed in the MLS, a number that is 4.13 percent more than the 11,466 single-family homes listed in December of last year. Condos currently make up 1,814 offerings in the MLS, while duplexes/town homes/villas make up the remaining 1,260.
Condos and Town Homes/Duplexes/Villas
Sales of condos in the Orlando area increased by 7.74 percent in December 2010 when compared to December of 2009 and increased by 24.55 percent compared to November of 2010.
As we’ve seen all year long, the most (254) condos in a single price category that changed hands in December 2010 were yet again in the $1 - $50,000 price range. This year-long trend accounted for 54.32 percent of all condo sales in 2010.
Orlando homebuyers purchased 224 duplexes, town homes, and villas in December 2010, which is a 6.16 percent increase from December 2009 when 211 of these alternative housing types were purchased.
MSA Numbers
Sales of existing homes within the entire Orlando MSA (Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties) in December were down by 2.05 percent when compared to December of last year. Throughout the MSA, 2,910 homes were sold in December 2010 compared with 2,971 in December 2009.
Each county’s December-to-December sales comparisons are as follows:
Lake: 5.51 percent below 2009 (360 homes sold in 2010 compared to 381 in 2009);
Orange: 5.21 percent below 2009 (1,527 homes sold in 2010 compared to 1,611 in 2009);
Osceola: 3.40 below 2009 (511 homes sold in 2010 compared to 511 in 2009); and
Seminole: 13.78 percent above 2009 (512 sold in 2010 compared to 450 in 2009).
2010 Year-end Recap
Sales in 2010 were up by 19.57 percent over 2009. A total of 28,602 homes were sold in 2010 compared to 23,921 the previous year.
From a year-long perspective, the 2010 cumulative median price fell 16.23 percent to $108,900 compared 2009’s $130,000.
Throughout 2010, the majority (10.25 percent) of single-family homes that changed hands each month were sold for less than $50,000. About 8 percent of all single-family home sales in 2009 were in the $50,000 or less price range.
Condo sales increased 49.34 percent in 2010, with 6,532 condos sold in all of 2010 compared to 4,374 sold in 2009 and 1,454 sold in 2008. An enormous majority (3,548 or 54.32 percent) of sold condos fell into the $50,000 or below category. For the entire year, duplex, townhome, and villa sales were up 28.52 percent.
By year’s end in 2010, 35,021 homes were sold in the Orlando MSA while 30,377 homes had been sold by year’s end in 2009 (a 15.29 percent increase).
Each county’s 2010 year-end sales comparisons are as follows:
Lake: 2.19 percent above 2009 (4,199 homes sold in 2010 compared to 4,109 in 2009);
Orange: 16.29 percent above 2009 (18,823 homes sold in 2010 compared to 16,186 in 2009);
Osceola: 11.13 percent above 2009 (6,311 homes sold in 2010 compared to 5,679 in 2009); and
Seminole: 29.18 percent above 2009 (5,688 sold in 2010 compared to 4,403 in 2009).
For detailed statistical reports, please visit www.orlrealtor.com and click on “Housing Statistics” on the top menu bar. This representation is based in whole or in part on data supplied by the Orlando Regional REALTOR® Association or its Multiple Listing Service (MLS).
“In the first half of the year, the extended $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit and expanded $6,500 tax credit for repeat buyers helped encourage sales,” reviews ORRA Chairman of the Board Mike McGraw, McGraw Real Estate Services, PL. “Orlando’s homebuyers in 2010 also benefited from historic affordability levels, record low mortgage rates, and an inventory chock full of moderately priced homes.”
The 8,363 sales under contract and awaiting closing at the end of December are 2.45 percent above December 2009, which recorded 8,163 pending sales. There were 8,998 pending sales in November 2010.
Newly filed contracts —like pending sales an indicator of future sales activity — reached 3,196 in December 2010, a 7.1 percent increase over the 2,984 newly filed contracts in December 2009.
The median sales price of all homes sold in the Orlando area increased to $106,000 in December from the $105,000 median price that had held steady since September. According to ORRA the current median price is 6.11 percent above than the $99,900 median price recorded in August 2010 (the year’s lowest) and is 11.67 percent below the median price of $120,000 recorded in December 2009.
The median price for “normal” existing homes – i.e., those that are neither a short sale nor a foreclosure – sold in December is $160,000. The median price for bank-owned sales is $75,000 and the median price for short sales is $100,000. The lower median prices of bank-owned and short sales, which accounted for 68.71 percent of all sales in December, exerts a downward influence on the overall median price ($106,000).
The Orlando affordability index decreased to 246.73 percent in December. (An affordability index of 99 percent means that buyers earning the state-reported median income are 1 percent short of the income necessary to purchase a median-priced home. Conversely, an affordability index that is over 100 means that median-income earners make more than is necessary to qualify for a median-priced home.) Buyers who earn the reported median income of $53,447 can qualify to purchase one of 11,729 homes in Orange and Seminole counties currently listed in the local multiple listing service for $261,532 or less.
First-time homebuyer affordability in December decreased to 175.45 percent. First-time buyers who earn the reported median income of $36,344 can qualify to purchase one of 8,450 homes in Orange and Seminole counties currently listed in the local multiple listing service for $158,083 or less.
Homes of all types spent an average of 96 days on the market before coming under contract in December 2010, and the average home sold for 94.40 percent of its listing price. In December 2009 those numbers were 89 and 93.95 percent, respectively. The area’s average interest rate increased in December to 4.92 percent.
Inventory
There are currently 14,993 homes available for purchase through the MLS. Inventory decreased by 199 homes (1.31 percent) from November 2010, which means that 199 more homes exited the market than entered the market. The December 2010 inventory level is 3.58 percent lower than it was in December 2009 (15,549). The current pace of sales translates into 6.33 months of supply; December 2009 recorded 6.45 months of supply.
There are 11,919 single-family homes currently listed in the MLS, a number that is 4.13 percent more than the 11,466 single-family homes listed in December of last year. Condos currently make up 1,814 offerings in the MLS, while duplexes/town homes/villas make up the remaining 1,260.
Condos and Town Homes/Duplexes/Villas
Sales of condos in the Orlando area increased by 7.74 percent in December 2010 when compared to December of 2009 and increased by 24.55 percent compared to November of 2010.
As we’ve seen all year long, the most (254) condos in a single price category that changed hands in December 2010 were yet again in the $1 - $50,000 price range. This year-long trend accounted for 54.32 percent of all condo sales in 2010.
Orlando homebuyers purchased 224 duplexes, town homes, and villas in December 2010, which is a 6.16 percent increase from December 2009 when 211 of these alternative housing types were purchased.
MSA Numbers
Sales of existing homes within the entire Orlando MSA (Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties) in December were down by 2.05 percent when compared to December of last year. Throughout the MSA, 2,910 homes were sold in December 2010 compared with 2,971 in December 2009.
Each county’s December-to-December sales comparisons are as follows:
Lake: 5.51 percent below 2009 (360 homes sold in 2010 compared to 381 in 2009);
Orange: 5.21 percent below 2009 (1,527 homes sold in 2010 compared to 1,611 in 2009);
Osceola: 3.40 below 2009 (511 homes sold in 2010 compared to 511 in 2009); and
Seminole: 13.78 percent above 2009 (512 sold in 2010 compared to 450 in 2009).
2010 Year-end Recap
Sales in 2010 were up by 19.57 percent over 2009. A total of 28,602 homes were sold in 2010 compared to 23,921 the previous year.
From a year-long perspective, the 2010 cumulative median price fell 16.23 percent to $108,900 compared 2009’s $130,000.
Throughout 2010, the majority (10.25 percent) of single-family homes that changed hands each month were sold for less than $50,000. About 8 percent of all single-family home sales in 2009 were in the $50,000 or less price range.
Condo sales increased 49.34 percent in 2010, with 6,532 condos sold in all of 2010 compared to 4,374 sold in 2009 and 1,454 sold in 2008. An enormous majority (3,548 or 54.32 percent) of sold condos fell into the $50,000 or below category. For the entire year, duplex, townhome, and villa sales were up 28.52 percent.
By year’s end in 2010, 35,021 homes were sold in the Orlando MSA while 30,377 homes had been sold by year’s end in 2009 (a 15.29 percent increase).
Each county’s 2010 year-end sales comparisons are as follows:
Lake: 2.19 percent above 2009 (4,199 homes sold in 2010 compared to 4,109 in 2009);
Orange: 16.29 percent above 2009 (18,823 homes sold in 2010 compared to 16,186 in 2009);
Osceola: 11.13 percent above 2009 (6,311 homes sold in 2010 compared to 5,679 in 2009); and
Seminole: 29.18 percent above 2009 (5,688 sold in 2010 compared to 4,403 in 2009).
For detailed statistical reports, please visit www.orlrealtor.com and click on “Housing Statistics” on the top menu bar. This representation is based in whole or in part on data supplied by the Orlando Regional REALTOR® Association or its Multiple Listing Service (MLS).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
