About Those New Qualified Mortgage (QM) Rules...

About 20 years ago, it was fairly common for home builders to have close relationships with outside mortgage lenders.  This was done for two reasons:  to streamline the financing process for their buyers, and to bolster their competitive position by offering various incentives for using these affiliated lenders.  Throughout the 1990s, most large builders figured out that bringing these operations under the corporate umbrella – including in-house title and escrow services -- could make the process even more efficient, while also adding more revenue streams to the bottom line.

Click here to read more

Where do they stand? Obama vs. Romney on housing policy

After several years of false starts, there finally appear to be more green shoots appearing in the nation’s housing market which indicate a slow yet actual rebound.  Sales of both new and existing homes are on the mend, affordability is at generational highs, and the dreaded tsunami of foreclosures expected to lower prices even further have largely been bought up by investors to re-purpose as rental properties.  Even better, according to Moody’s housing analyst Celia Chen, homeowners will begin to favor newly built homes versus distressed homes which are damaged.

Nonetheless, because the economy remains the top concern of most voters in the 2012 Presidential election, how President Barack Obama and the GOP’s presumptive nominee Mitt Romney influence housing policy is of critical importance to homebuilders and homeowners alike.  As a political Independent for well over a decade, I may have no abiding loyalty towards either major party, but I do certainly want what’s best for the industry and, by extension, the country.

According to the NAHB, the housing sector normally accounts for 15% of the nation’s GDP, and is one of the few sectors which cannot be out-sourced to other countries across the globe.  Based on population growth and demographics, the nation will have to build 17 million new residences just to keep up with demand over the next decade, and yet for now the industry remains largely hamstrung by deferred household formations, limited construction financing, and a flawed appraisal system in which new homes erroneously get compared against deeply discounted distressed and foreclosed units.

So can market forces alone help guide this all-important sector of the U.S. economy to health, or will it continue to need more help?  The answer to that question depends on whom you ask.

For Mitt Romney, while there is nothing on his campaign Web site which specifically addresses housing, he seems to rely more on the private market to sort things out.  According to Glenn Hubbard, an economic adviser to Romney, the domination of housing finance by government entities such as the FHA, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is simply not sustainable and must be phased out in favor of private lenders.

At a recent campaign event in Florida, Romney also reportedly mused about getting rid of agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of his plans to simplify the federal government.  As for foreclosures, he prefers to let the free market let prices hit ‘rock bottom’ as opposed to government policies which would seek to make such declines more orderly.

President Obama, on the other hand, seems to believe that continued intervention by the federal government – at least in the short to medium run -- is essential to providing adequate mortgage capital and even to help underwater borrowers refinance, with restrictions, to today’s historically low rates.  He probably doesn’t have much choice:  given that his previous attempts to bolster the housing market haven’t worked at even close to the scale that is necessary – with less than 20% of homeowners eligible for loan modifications -- if government intervention is to work at all, the policies must be more aggressive.

More recently, Obama seems to have absorbed this criticism, unveiling more than a half dozen plans to encourage refinancing, to reduce the overhang of debts owed by underwater homeowners, and to expand existing aid programs even to borrowers who were speculators or simply took on too much debt.  These latest moves seem as much practical as they are political, since the previous obsession with refusing to help those who made financial mistakes has really acted as a structural brake on the economic rebound.  Schadenfreude may feel good to the individual, but it does nothing to fix the housing market.

Since the Obama Administration has put the housing market back on its front burner, I’d expect the Romney campaign to do the same.  But given that the federal government continues to guarantee or insure more than 90% of all home mortgage activity through FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, candidate Romney will have to offer specifics on just what, when and how the private sector will successfully step up to the plate.

FHA incurring larger loan losses, may require bailout

As previously warned about on this blog back in May ("The Next Housing Bust, Courtesy of the FHA"), with FHA loans now accounting for 23% of all loans -- up from 2.7% in 2006 -- the bill is coming due through increasing levels of defaults. But since FHA is such an important leg propping up the housing market, a future bailout or rising insurance premiums paid by borrowers may be in the offing. From a Wall Street Journal story:

The Federal Housing Administration, hit by increasing mortgage-related losses, is in danger of seeing its reserves fall below the level demanded by Congress, according to government officials, in a development that could raise concerns about whether the agency needs a taxpayer bailout.

The rising losses at the FHA, part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, come as the agency has rapidly increased its role in guaranteeing loans in an attempt to stabilize the housing market.

It isn't clear how the rising losses may affect home buyers. Options for the agency could include politically unpalatable choices, such as asking for taxpayer funds to boost reserves or increasing the premiums borrowers pay for the insurance offered by the agency...

In the past two years, the number of loans insured by the FHA has soared and its market share reached 23% in the second quarter, up from 2.7% in 2006, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. FHA-backed loans outstanding totaled $429 billion in fiscal 2008, a number projected to hit $627 billion this year.

Rising defaults have eaten through the FHA's cushion. Some 7.8% of FHA loans at the end of the second quarter were 90 days late or more, or in foreclosure, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, a figure roughly equal to the national average for all loans. That is up from 5.4% a year ago...

Some economists say the FHA's lending has been crucial to preventing a deeper bust in property. Thomas Lawler, an independent housing economist, said "the alternative could have been a complete meltdown of housing finance" that would have ultimately led to much larger losses. Critics have said the FHA, which has never had a chief risk officer, isn't able to manage such a large portfolio in an unstable market.

Policymakers have used the FHA to stabilize the housing market by pushing it to offer credit with far easier terms than that offered by most private lenders. For example, it will back loans with down payments as low as 3.5%...

Last year, the agency ended a program that allowed sellers to fund down payments. While that program accounts for around 11% of the FHA's loan book, it has generated 22% all loans that are seriously delinquent or in foreclosure.

In 2005, the FHA loosened its maximum loan-to-value limit on cash-out refinancing to 95%, from 85%. The agency moved that limit back to 85% earlier this year.

While most private lenders have raised lending standards and now require minimum 20% down payments, the share of borrowers who are able to make down payments of less than 10% hasn't changed in the last two years...

The next housing bust, courtesy of the FHA

I've continued to read warning signs of an impending disaster at the FHA, which now underwrites about one-third of all mortgages (up from about 2% during the boom years). Could taxpayers soon be on the hook for another bail-out -- this time of FHA? From an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal:

Last year banks issued $180 billion of new mortgages insured by the FHA, which means they carry a 100% taxpayer guarantee. Many of these have the same characteristics as subprime loans: low downpayment requirements, high-risk borrowers, and in many cases shady mortgage originators. FHA now insures nearly one of every three new mortgages, up from 2% in 2006.

The financial results so far are not as dire as those created by the subprime frenzy of 2004-2007, but taxpayer losses are mounting on its $562 billion portfolio. According to Mortgage Bankers Association data, more than one in eight FHA loans is now delinquent -- nearly triple the rate on conventional, nonsubprime loan portfolios. Another 7.5% of recent FHA loans are in "serious delinquency," which means at least three months overdue.

The FHA is almost certainly going to need a taxpayer bailout in the months ahead. The only debate is how much it will cost. By law FHA must carry a 2% reserve (or a 50 to 1 leverage rate), and it is now 3% and falling. Some experts see bailout costs from $50 billion to $100 billion or more, depending on how long the recession lasts...

The bill that passed last summer more than doubled the maximum loan amount that FHA can insure -- to $719,000 from $362,500 in high-priced markets. Congress evidently believes that a moderate-income buyer can afford a $700,000 house. This increase in the loan amount was supposed to boost the housing market as subprime crashed and demand for homes plummeted. But FHA's expansion has hardly arrested the housing market decline. The higher FHA loan ceiling was also supposed to be temporary, but this year Congress made it permanent.

Even more foolish has been the campaign to lower FHA downpayment requirements. When FHA opened in the 1930s, the downpayment minimum was 20%; it fell to 10% in the 1960s, and then 3% in 1978. Last year the Senate wisely insisted on raising the downpayment to 3.5%, but that is still far too low to reduce delinquencies in a falling market...

In a rational world, Congress and the White House would tighten FHA underwriting standards, in particular by eliminating the 100% guarantee. That guarantee means banks and mortgage lenders have no skin in the game; lenders collect the 2% to 3% origination fees on as many FHA loans as they can push out the door regardless of whether the borrower has a likelihood of repaying the mortgage. The Washington Post reported in March a near-tripling in the past year in the number of loans in which a borrower failed to make more than a single payment. One Florida bank, Great Country Mortgage of Coral Gables, had a 64% default rate on its FHA properties.

The Veterans Affairs housing program has a default rate about half that of FHA loans, mainly because the VA provides only a 50% maximum guarantee. If banks won't take half the risk of nonpayment, this is a market test that the loan shouldn't be made...

A major lesson of Fan and Fred and the subprime fiasco is that no one benefits when we push families into homes they can't afford. Yet that's what Congress is doing once again as it relentlessly expands FHA lending with minimal oversight or taxpayer safeguards.

FHA-backed loans: the new sub-prime disaster?

Never underestimate the power of greed. That seems to be the lesson of a story published in Business Week magazine on former sub-prime mortgage players now simply transitioning their business models to loans backed by the FHA -- and by extension, the U.S. taxpayer. From the story (hat tip: Brian McDonald):

Thousands of subprime mortgage lenders and brokers—many of them the very sorts of firms that helped create the current financial crisis—are going strong. Their new strategy: taking advantage of a long-standing federal program designed to encourage homeownership by insuring mortgages for buyers of modest means.

You read that correctly. Some of the same people who propelled us toward the housing market calamity are now seeking to profit by exploiting billions in federally insured mortgages. Washington, meanwhile, has vastly expanded the availability of such taxpayer-backed loans as part of the emergency campaign to rescue the country's swooning economy...

As a result, the nation could soon suffer a fresh wave of defaults and foreclosures, with Washington obliged to respond with yet another gargantuan bailout.

Click here for full story -- but sit down first!

Is the FHA up to the task of rewriting mortgages?

Over the last 10-15 years, FHA loans became scarce because private lenders were offering much more flexible terms than what FHA requires (i.e., 3% down, stricter debt limits, fixed-rate mortgages, etc.). Now that the FHA is being floated as the most promising candidate to re-write those loans at risk of foreclosure, however, some people are sending up warning flags that the federal government has completely thought this through. From a CNNMoney.com story:

At the center of all of Washington's efforts to rescue the battered housing markets is the formerly obscure Federal Housing Administration.

But it's not clear whether the agency is up to the task or whether it will need a taxpayer-funded rescue of its own.

The agency currently backs $385 billion in mortgage loans, but that figure could double in the coming year if some of leading proposals in the White House and Congress go through...

Even FHA officials concede they don't know if the agency can handle the increased role. The FHA has been a small lifeboat helping a select group of home buyers, but it could be overwhelmed by the rush of new borrowers trying to climb aboard...

The FHA is a New Deal-era agency that helped create the modern mortgage market. The FHA program is intended for mortgage borrowers with weak credit or little or no cash, who may not be able to otherwise get an affordable mortgage.

Borrowers get FHA loans from private lenders, just as they would any other mortgage. FHA offers insurance to cover lenders if those borrowers, who pay a small insurance premium to the FHA every month, default on the loan. The FHA uses those premiums to cover the lender in the event of foreclosure.

During the housing boom in recent years, FHA's share of mortgages fell to only 7% of mortgage loans outstanding in 2007. Now that the mortgage market has collapsed, the FHA is suddenly the only choice for many borrowers and lenders....

About 150,000 borrowers have refinanced under a new program called FHASecure in the past six months. Launched in September, this program is aimed at subprime borrowers facing steep mortgage rate resets that they couldn't afford. That volume compares to the total of 425,000 loans the FHA backed in its previous fiscal year.

What's more, the loan limit on FHA loans was increased in March, which will further expand FHA's portfolio...

But Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair acknowledged the risks inherent to the Frank plan in her testimony before Congress on Wednesday, saying no one knows if FHA premiums will be able to cover the increased risk of FHA's expanded mission.

"Losses that exceed the funds available in the reserve would have to be covered by taxpayers," she warned.

Those concerns were echoed by FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery during the same hearing.

"The FHA should not be forced legislatively to compromise its fundamental criteria at the future expense of the taxpayer," he said. "The FHA currently is self-sustaining. As you know, few government programs can claim the same. We do not want to cross that line, particularly at a time when we are most needed."

The agency began backing increasingly risky loans even before this crisis hit. The cost of potentially bad loans insured by the FHA was estimated at $7.5 billion as of Sept. 30, up from $3 billion a year earlier and just $1.9 billion a year before that....

Some experts back the idea of making the FHA more aggressive, even if it will eventually require a taxpayer bailout.

"We sometimes refer to these proposals as stealth bailouts," said Seiberg, "because they don't necessarily require money today, but they may require funds down the road."

Seiberg and other economists agree that there's a risk of a taxpayer housing bailout no matter what FHA does.

"Congress may decide that it wants FHA to take more risk because it doesn't require [the government] to appropriate money up front, and it may not require money on the backside if we're able to turn this crisis around," said Seiberg.

"But if you can't turn this crisis around, if home price declines continue for two or three years, all lenders will be in trouble, and so will the FHA."

Good credit may not be enough in "distressed" counties

Given the mortgage insurers' recent lending restrictions throughout California, good credit may not be enough for borrowers without a sufficient down payment or those looking to buy investment property or second homes. While that could push many buyers into the arms of the FHA, that program also has its own restrictions, and condo projects generally must be pre-approved by the agency.

First, from a story in the Daily Breeze:

Just when consumers and the U.S. economy need banks to lend more freely, the mortgage industry is making it harder to borrow - even for those with good credit.

In recent weeks, mortgage insurers, whose backing is required for borrowers who can't afford the traditional 20 percent down payment on a home, have already flagged nearly a quarter of the nation's ZIP codes where they refuse to insure some home loans.

That's more than 9,600 ZIP codes in at least 34 states where they won't insure certain types of home loans - those for investment properties or second homes, those with riskier adjustable-rate or interest-only mortgages, or for buyers making small down payments such as 3 percent.

Many mortgage insurers include the South Bay and much of California in a category known as "distressed market," where home values are expected to drop...

The reluctance to extend credit comes despite a flurry of government initiatives, including steady interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, intended to make it easier for would-be borrowers and those facing interest-rate resets on their mortgages.

The growing reluctance of lenders threatens to dampen sellers' already soggy prospects for the spring home-buying season - and that means more pain for the already battered housing sector and the broader economy.

The new restrictions will "severely limit the potential pool of buyers," whether the buyer plans to live in the home or rent it out, said Patrick Duffy, principal at MetroIntelligence Real Estate Advisors, a Los Angeles consulting firm.

"It could delay the rebound in the market," Duffy said. "It's going to force people to take longer to save up for the down payment."

While the South Bay will be affected by the reduced availability of mortgages, the area remains "a very popular area with a very high median income." That reality could insulate the South Bay from the worst effects of the tightening lending standards, Duffy said.

With banks and mortgage insurers pulling back, state and federal programs for first-time homebuyers and people with poor credit are attempting to fill the void.

"This is a great way to throw loans in the arms of the federal government," Duffy said. "FHA offers loans with only 3 percent down, and they just increased limits."...

Home buyers are adjusting to the new reality, Realtor Adolph James said.

"One of the things I've noticed is most of the people interested in purchasing property in the South Bay are bringing more money than they had in the past," said James, of Shorewood Realtors in Manhattan Beach.

"You're seeing fewer people coming with only 5 percent or 10 percent (as a down payment). The psyche is you can't come in with a shoestring because that's how people got in trouble."

Inland areas such as Harbor Gateway, which generally attract first-time homebuyers, are likely to feel the pain from the credit crunch more so than the beach cities, James said.

"That's where this stuff started and that's probably where it's going to end," James said. "You're going to see a few defaults in the beach areas, but nothing like what you're going to see in the entry-level areas."

Next, for an excellent overview of the pros and cons of FHA loans (as well as other timely posts), here's a summary from the SFVRealEstate blog, which is authored by Broker Associate Judy Graff and covers local and national topics for L.A.'s San Fernando Valley:

New FHA Loans: What You Need to Know

• New FHA restrictions just came out. Here’s the upside.
• The loan limits for SFR in L.A. are $729,750 (same as “jumbo conforming”).
• Loan limits for 2 units are $934,200.
• The interest rate is 6% as of this writing; however, there is mortgage insurance (see below).
• Minimum down payment is 3% (not including closing costs).
• Fixed rate and Adjustable rate programs are available.
• NO MINIMUM FICO REQUIREMENT (this is huge).
• Must be full documentation loan. No stated income loans.
• No buyer reserve requirement (this is also huge).
• No income limits.
• The seller can contribute up to 6%, including closing costs, although the seller does not have to pay the closing costs.
• There can be non-occupant co-signers on the loan.
• You do not have to be a first-time buyer.
• Gifts are permitted for the entire 3% borrower investment and don’t need to be “seasoned.”
• Gifts are also permitted for all closing costs & pre-paid items.
• Down payment assistance programs are permitted, such as city first-time buyer housing programs.

Now, here’s the downside:

• There is mortgage insurance. It equals either 0.5% point per month, or 1.5% points up front. The up-front payment is deductible from your taxes during the year that you buy.
• There are stricter appraisal requirements:
• Any operable or useful element in the subject property must have at least 2 or more years of useful life or it must be replaced.
• The appraiser must be FHA-approved.
• The appraiser can require a separate inspection upon any “visible” defect or if he/she has knowledge of any existing problem.
• The property must be structurally sound.
• It must have a useable garage.
• The property cannot have code violations.
• Each living unit much contain domestic hot water, sanitary facilities and a safe method of sewage disposal. Connection to public systems is required if available.
• Heating systems must be adequate for healthful and comfortable living conditions.
• Condo projects must be pre-approved; they can be spot-approved but this is much more difficult.
• Condo projects must have sufficient reserve funds.

FHA to the rescue

Created during the Great Depression to create a market for mortgages insured by the federal government, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) became mostly forgotten during the last housing boom (I actually used an FHA loan to buy my first condo in 1990). Although the program only requires a 3% down payment, its underwriting guidelines are a bit stricter than those for conventional loans -- especially those of the subprime variety -- and so both lenders and mortgage brokers weren't pushing them. But now the FHA may be the government's best hope of addressing the credit crunch without creating a new bureaucracy:

Home loans insured by the FHA have become the cheapest and, in many cases, the only alternative for borrowers who can make only a small down payment. The agency is rapidly gaining market share as government-sponsored mortgage investors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, stung by combined losses of about $9 billion in last year's second half, back away from credit risks by adding fees and demanding higher down payments.

The FHA doesn't make loans but provides insurance, which covers the risks of default for lenders or investors who own loans. That insurance is akin to the guarantees provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Policy makers see the FHA as one of the handiest tools available to keep money flowing into mortgages at a time of growing anxiety about the effects of soaring defaults and falling home prices...

"The FHA's role is going to be huge," says Brian Chappelle, a mortgage consultant who was a senior FHA official in the early 1980s. Some lenders expect the FHA to account for as much as a third of new mortgages by the end of this year, Mr. Chappelle says. That would be up from a low of 1.8% of single-family mortgage originations in 2005 and 2006, according to trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance.

The agency has long been seen as a means to help lower-income borrowers but now attracts some well-heeled people, too. At Toll Brothers Inc., a builder of homes with an average price of around $650,000, executives say more of their buyers may soon be using FHA-insured loans.

The FHA is in some ways returning to its roots as a broad-based tonic for the housing market. When Congress created the FHA in 1934, many banks were failing and housing production had collapsed. Initially, the FHA could insure loans of as much as $16,000, or about triple the median home price at that time, allowing it to serve most of the market. Congress in later decades directed the FHA to concentrate more on the entry-level housing market.

Over the past four months, Fannie and Freddie have imposed fees that lenders have to pay upfront so that loans can be guaranteed by the two companies. Those fees are passed on to borrowers and typically result in slightly higher interest rates. Fannie and Freddie also have increased down-payment requirements in areas where house prices are falling. The FHA hasn't changed its terms and allows down payments as small as about 3% nationwide.

FHA loans now are slightly cheaper than conventional loans backed by Fannie and Freddie, a reverse of the normal situation. Last week, the average rate on FHA loans was 6.29%, while conventional loans were at 6.36%, according to HSH Associates, a publisher of financial data.

The FHA's broader role exposes it to more risks, stirring fears that taxpayers ultimately may have to bail out the agency. The FHA is "underpricing for the risk that they are taking on," says Thomas Lawler, a housing economist in Leesburg, Va., who formerly worked for Fannie Mae.

FHA officials counter that the FHA requires borrowers to document their ability to repay loans and has never needed a bailout for its single-family mortgage program. "The FHA is playing exactly the role it's supposed to play," maintaining the flow of mortgage credit, says Meg Burns, a senior official at the agency. "We need to be there as a backstop."...

The economic-stimulus bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush last month raises the ceiling on the size of loans the FHA can insure to $729,750 in the highest-cost areas from a previous cap of $362,790. The new limits are due to expire at the end of this year. By then, however, Congress is likely to have enacted legislation that would permanently raise the loan limits, though perhaps by a lesser amount.

Yesterday, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which runs the FHA, announced the new temporary loan ceilings in California. Details for the rest of the country are due to be announced this week, perhaps today. The California loan caps range from $271,050 in lower-cost areas such as Lassen and Trinity counties to $729,750 in high-cost counties in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas.

Those upper limits also will apply to loans purchased or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, HUD officials said. Even in low-cost areas, Fannie and Freddie can handle loans of as much as $417,000...

The FHA could raise its insurance prices. For now, all borrowers with FHA-insured loans must pay an up-front fee for that insurance equaling 1.5% of the loan amount. Then they need to pay additional fees of 0.5% per year based on the outstanding loan balance. (If borrowers make payments for five years and the loan balance falls to 78% of the original value of the property, the annual fee is no longer due.)

The FHA also allows sellers to provide more sweeteners to buyers, such as by paying loan-closing costs, which can be crucial in a weak market. Such concessions on FHA-backed loans can be as much as 6% of the home's sale price; for low-down-payment loans backed by Fannie or Freddie, the maximum allowed for seller concessions is 3%

FHA Mortgage Limits in California by County

County Name	Median Home Price	FHA Limit
Alameda County	$995,000	$729,750
Alpine County	438,000	547,500
Amador County	355,000	443,750
Butte County	320,000	400,000
Calaveras County	370,000	462,500
Colusa County	318,000	397,500
Contra Costa County	995,000	729,750
Del Norte County	249,000	311,250
El Dorado County	464,000	580,000
Fresno County	305,000	381,250
Glenn County	230,000	287,500
Humboldt County	315,000	393,750
Imperial County	260,000	325,000
Inyo County	350,000	437,500
Kern County	295,000	368,750
Kings County	260,000	325,000
Lake County	321,000	401,250
Lassen County	200,000	271,050
Los Angeles County	710,000	729,750
Madera County	340,000	425,000
Marin County	995,000	729,750
Mariposa County	330,000	412,500
Mendocino County	410,000	512,500
Merced County	378,000	472,500
Modoc County	125,000	271,050
Mono County	370,000	462,500
Monterey County	599,000	729,750
Napa County	615,000	729,750
Nevada County	450,000	562,500
Orange County	710,000	729,750
Placer County	464,000	580,000
Plumas County	328,000	410,000
Riverside County	400,000	500,000
Sacramento County	464,000	580,000
San Benito County	790,000	729,750
San Bernardino County	400,000	500,000
San Diego County	558,000	697,500
San Francisco County	995,000	729,750
San Joaquin County	391,000	488,750
San Luis Obispo County	550,000	687,500
San Mateo County	995,000	729,750
Santa Barbara County	615,000	729,750
Santa Clara County	790,000	72,9750
Santa Cruz County	719,000	729,750
Shasta County	339,000	423,750
Sierra County	228,000	285,000
Siskiyou County	235,000	293,750
Solano County	446,000	557,500
Sonoma County	530,000	662,500
Stanislaus County	339,000	423,750
Sutter County	340,000	425,000
Tehama County	250,000	312,500
Trinity County	200,000	271,050
Tulare County	260,000	325,000
Tuolumne County	350,000	437,500
Ventura County	599,000	729,750
Yolo County	464,000	580,000
Yuba County	340,000	425,000