Thursday, March 24, 2011
Fed’s Fisher Opposes Extension of QE2
U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said he opposes any extension of the Fed’s asset purchase program after June, saying inflationary pressures are building “world-wide.” “No further accommodation is needed after June. We can no longer press on the monetary pedal,” Fisher said in a speech at Goethe University in Frankfurt. Fisher has been skeptical of the program, dubbed QE2, saying two weeks ago, that it should prove “demonstrably counterproductive,” and it would be better to discontinue it. Last week, the Fed voted to maintain its key lending target near zero and maintain its planned $600 billion in Treasury purchases through June. As the Fed’s rate-setting board voted to continue the program, he warned of speculative excesses that may be contributing to the rise in oil prices. “We are seeing the signs of all the intoxication” that arises from cheap and available capital, Fisher said.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Mini-budget cuts signed
President Obama signed a budget cutting stop-gap spending bill yesterday after it was passed by the Senate by 91 votes. The bill terminates eight government programs, for savings of $1.24 billion, while an additional $2.7 billion in earmarks are eliminated. On the chopping block were eight programs involving broadband access in rural communities, education, highway construction and the Smithsonian Institution. All eight had been identified by both parties as wasteful and unnecessary. The programs that were cut fall into two umbrella categories: ineffective or duplicative. The bill eliminated $75 million in election assistance grants, which are funds allocated to help states upgrade voting machines and voter rolls.
Since 2002, Washington has pumped $3 billion into the program, but states have only found ways to spend $2 billion. And that rural broadband program? The Agriculture Department's inspector general uncovered "abuses and inconsistencies" as well as "a lack of focus on the rural communities it was intended to serve." The four education programs total $468 million, and are being eliminated for being outdated, ineffective or duplicative. The highway funds, $650 million in total, were originally budgeted as a one-time payment for 2010 but never cut. The remaining $2.7 billion in cuts cover almost 50 different earmark programs that will no longer be funded because House Republicans have instituted a new rule banning that type of spending.
Since 2002, Washington has pumped $3 billion into the program, but states have only found ways to spend $2 billion. And that rural broadband program? The Agriculture Department's inspector general uncovered "abuses and inconsistencies" as well as "a lack of focus on the rural communities it was intended to serve." The four education programs total $468 million, and are being eliminated for being outdated, ineffective or duplicative. The highway funds, $650 million in total, were originally budgeted as a one-time payment for 2010 but never cut. The remaining $2.7 billion in cuts cover almost 50 different earmark programs that will no longer be funded because House Republicans have instituted a new rule banning that type of spending.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Obama tries to force mortgage deal
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
