About Government Refinance and Home Purchase Programs

What a pithy quote. “Socializing risk and privatizing reward” is what Senator Chris Dodd called recent government actions of letting private bankers and Wall Street wonks get rich on the housing market during boom times and then rushing in to bail them out when times get tough. Something surely will change out of this latest mess. With any luck regular Americans won’t get stiffed even more than they already have been. Anyway, here is the recent Time article that provided that Dodd quote.

The problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are further complicating issues with the pending housing bill. Here is an excerpt from a recent AP article on the subject:

The push to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is adding momentum to the housing package, which creates a new regulator and tighter controls over the companies and creates a new affordable housing fund financed by their profits.

The bill creates a $300 billion program at the Federal Housing Administration to let strapped homeowners who can’t afford their monthly payments — many of them trapped in subprime loans and owing more than their homes are worth — refinance into cheaper, fixed rate mortgages instead of losing their homes.

In something of an ironic twist, Senate Republicans who initially complained the FHA program would be a taxpayer-financed bailout backed it after Democrats agreed to cover any losses by diverting the affordable housing fund. Now lawmakers are contemplating bailing out the rescuers.

The plots twists are adding up on this saga…

With quasi-government mega-lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reeling congress in now seriously considering amending the housing bill to help prop them up in addition to the FHA and other provision already in the bill. We get this from a recent WSJ article on the subject:

Supporters of the overall housing package, which includes a program to refinance mortgages headed for foreclosure and tax relief for homeowners, said they hoped it, too, would pick up momentum if it is combined with the administration’s rescue plan for Fannie and Freddie. It may reduce the chances President George w. Bush would veto the bill over some of the provisions administration officials dislike. And it may help to smooth negotiations over the differences between House and Senate-passed versions.

“It would seem to me you could marry the two and move them quicker,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.), of combining the housing bill with the new proposal to aid Fannie and Freddie. “It puts something the White House wants done with a bill that the White House has expressed a few second thoughts about.”

The number thrown around is 400,000. That is the number of homeowners legislators hope the new housing bill will help avoid foreclosure on their homes. That is a pretty big number. But if more than 4 million homes are facing foreclosure as some forecasters predict in the next 18 months that 400,000 doesn’t sound so impressive anymore. We have written an editorial speculating on what it will take to be considered for the new “short refi” option that will become available via the FHA program. There was another editorial piece in the Wall Street Journal recently expressing further skepticism about the effectiveness of the new legislation. Here is an excerpt:

Lawmakers can say they’ve “done something” about the crisis. The only problem is the bill won’t work. Contractual and incentive problems in securitized mortgages will defeat the legislation’s attempt to provide a significant amount of relief.

First, the bill requires lenders to write down the principal on loans by as much as 15%, and waive prepayment fees before their loans are eligible for FHA-guaranteed refinancing. …

For securitized loans, there is no “lender” who can write down the principal. Instead, management of the loan is contracted out to a servicer. Frequently, servicers are contractually forbidden from modifying loans or else significantly restricted in their ability to do so. This alone will prevent many mortgages from being eligible for FHA refinancing.

Even when servicers can modify loans, they have no incentive to do so for the FHA program. Servicers incur significant costs (up to $1,600) in modifying a loan. Moreover, servicers’ income is mainly based on the amount of principal outstanding in a securitization trust. When a loan leaves the pool because of a refinancing, the servicer ceases to receive revenue from it. Any equity appreciation in the property would be shared by the mortgage holder and the FHA, but not the servicer. In short, servicers have nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging in the write-downs necessary for the FHA bill to work.

Another obstacle: Many homeowners have second mortgages, and many of these second mortgages are completely “underwater” — or out of money. The second mortgages are frequently held by different entities than the first mortgages. In order for the refinanced mortgage to be insured by FHA, the second mortgage holder would have to be bought out.

Let’s hope that this author is overly pessimistic or misinformed. I know that short sales are being done in large numbers by banks right now all across the country. I see no reason why a short refi couldn’t be an alternative to a short sale. However, we will have to wait and see in a few months to what degree the new rules are a hit or a miss.

With an overwhelming vote of 63-8 the Senate version of the housing bill passed on Friday. Here is a blurb from MarketWatch:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The Senate approved a massive housing relief bill on Friday on a 63-5 vote. The bill would overhaul the supervision of Fannie Mae, bolster the Federal Housing Administration with $300 billion in additional loan assurances, and attempt to prevent foreclosures. The legislation will now make its way back to the House, where significant changes are possible before final passage. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill because one provision would give money to local governments to buy foreclosed homes.

What’s next? Well as far a we can tell this:

1. The House and Senate need to hammer out a compromise on their two similar bills
2. They need to convince President Bush not to veto it
3. Once the President signs the bill we have to wait for banks figure out what they are going to do about it (which will likely take a few months)

Lots ahead of us still to be sure.

GovernmentRefinanceAssistance.com is back online again after a major server crash. Thankfully most of our data was recovered. With any luck we won’t have that problem again soon.

There was an interesting synopsis of the general plans being put forth by presidential nominees Obama and McCain in the AP recently. Here is a snippet of that:

McCain:

_ To be eligible for the FHA-insured mortgages, certain borrowers who live in their homes must prove creditworthiness at the time of the original loan and that they can meet the terms of a new 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

Obama:

_To be eligible for FHA help, people do not have to have good credit to qualify as long as they can show they are able to afford the new payments.

_Separately, Obama would create a 10 percent mortgage credit for people who do not itemize their taxes.

_Supports changing bankruptcy laws so that homeowners going through that process can renegotiate terms of their mortgages — just as people or investors who own multiple homes or vacation homes can do.

There was a good article over at the Washington Post recently digging in to some of the details on the pending housing bill. Here is an interesting quote from the article:

The portion of the legislation that deals with financially distressed homeowners would help an estimated 400,000 borrowers. It is restricted, however, to owners who cannot afford their current loans and have a mortgage-debt-to-income ratio above 31 percent. The owner of the mortgage — either a lender or bond investor — must agree to reduce the balance of the principal amount to 85 percent of the current market value — i.e., write off a significant chunk of what’s owed.

If these and other conditions are met — including homeowners agreeing to split any future appreciation with the government — borrowers may qualify for a new fixed-rate, 30-year FHA loan they can more easily afford.

It is still not clear whether that is 31% of the old mortgage or 31% of the new mortgage. We hope and assume it is of the old mortgage. Stay tuned for more details on that.

A new article in the AP quotes President Bush as saying he thinks a compromise will be reached on the pending housing legislation that he can live with. Not many people believed there was much bite to his veto threats but this is still good news for struggling home owners. Here is an excerpt from the article:

NORTH LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – President Bush expressed confidence Tuesday he will reach a deal with Congress on a housing-rescue plan, but only if lawmakers show “less politics.”

The president’s comments came as many homeowners are saddled with mortgage payments they can’t afford and face foreclosure. The Senate is considering a $300 billion plan to back cheaper loans for people who risk losing their home, but that measure has stalled for now.

“I think we can get us a bill,” Bush said. “But it’s going to require less politics and more focus on keeping our minds on who we need to help, and that’s the homeowner.”