Mortgages: October 2008 Archives

With a lot of people running around like Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling, a lot of folks who would like to buy property due to the much-lowered prices are wondering if there is any way they can qualify for the loan. There are lots of people out there over-exaggerating the difficulty of getting a loan. Well, we do have some events in the market that make it harder, but despite the Chicken Littles, the answer to the question is "probably yes." There are some exceptions, and some caveats for those who do, but most people actually can qualify for loans to buy property.

The big caveat is that it may not be a huge beautiful home straight out of the showplace magazine in the best area of town. With the imminent death of stated income and no ratio loans, you have to limit yourself to what you can document the ability to make the payments for. The ultimate sin of stated income was that it allowed unscrupulous real estate agents and lenders to sell people properties which there was no way they were going to be able to afford in the long term. There will be legitimate borrowers hurt, and hurt badly, by its demise, but the aggregate damage done by recurring abuse of stated income was far greater the damage that will be done by its demise. I would like to be able to do stated income, but I can't think of any way to prevent its abuse, and so far, neither has anyone else. Yeah, I may think I'm a good guy, but everyone thinks they're the Good Guys, including those who most emphatically are not. Stated income has been so abused in the last few years that I cannot bring myself to excessively mourn its passing despite the damage said passing will do.

The worst fall out of stated income abuse is all of the foreclosures, but right behind that is the death of the idea in the minds of most of the public that maybe someone who makes minimum wage thirty hours a week might have to settle for a property that might not be as big, as beautiful, and as desirable as the person who makes ten times the national median. If you want to make these folks able to afford the same property, there are only two ways to do it: make all properties equally unattractive, or give the government the power to decide who gets the good stuff, which merely substitutes one privileged group (those with special influence over the government - i.e. the point of a gun) for the current privileged group, who at least earned their money via transactions freely entered into where the other person must have seen some benefit. The guy making minimum wage realistically has two choices: Figure out a way to start earning the same money as the guy making ten times national median, or learn to accept that he can't afford quite as expensive a property, and instead of making with the Green Eyed Monster, be happy with what he can afford. There are ways to improve your property, and improve what you can afford, and I love helping those who will put forth the effort, but it's considerably more involved than waving some metaphorical magic wand. For those who think the prices are going to come down further, they are already headed back up in some ZIP codes. You can sit in denial while they do so, or you can take advantage before it gets worse. I've written before about the best and quickest way to get into something you can't afford right now

Okay, enough with the economics lesson. You're here because you want to know if you'll qualify for a loan now, and probably how much you can qualify for. There are basically three loan programs in the first tier for consideration for most borrowers: conventional A paper, FHA, and VA. I'm going to cover each major criterion: loan to value ratio, credit score, debt to income ratio, in order for each in successive paragraphs, followed by an affordability table.

Conventional

Conventional A paper is the most tightened of the programs, and even here more people can qualify than not, even with the tightened qualification standards. Here's the skinny in the current market: Most conventional loan programs want no more than a 90% loan to value ratio. Turning that around, that means you need a 10% down payment for conventional conforming loans (loan amounts up to $417,000 on single family housing). Temporary conforming ($417,001 to your area's limit) and nonconforming (above your area's limit) have larger down payment requirements. There are ways to get down payments in most circumstances if you want to, but the era of being able to in any wise pretend that real estate is somehow immune from real world consequences - like agents and loan officers who told people "Nothing down! Just sign on the dotted line and walk away if it doesn't work out!" are over - and this is one casualty of the current meltdown that nobody with any sanity will mourn. Real estate is a wonderful investment, properly done, but those jokers weren't doing it right. In order to be doing it correctly, you have to plan ahead for what happens next, and have a plan to deal with it.

Now where A paper lenders were accepting credit scores as low as 620, now they are pretty much wanting to see credit scores of 700 or at least 680, at least for loan to value ratios above 80%. It's not difficult to improve credit score into that range if you will try, but it can take a few months. Your choice: You can make the effort and get it done, or you can miss the best buying opportunity we are likely to see in at least the next ten to fifteen years. Or, you can somehow come up with a higher down payment. Your choice. Lenders have the money; they are entitled to set terms for lending it out. You don't want to meet those terms, you can wait until you have enough to pay cash - and paying all cash for real estate isn't nearly such a good investment.

Conventional loans still want to see the exact same 45% debt to income ratio they always have. There is room for some slop at high credit scores or with certain kinds of income, but if you plan for 45% in the first place, you're still within the loan guidelines they will accept. The way to figure this is easy: take 45 percent of your gross pay. Not what actually hits your account - but what your employer actually pays out. From this number, Subtract your ongoing debt service. That's the maximum you can qualify for. If you want to keep it to less, that's actually a good thing in my opinion, but the general issue is that most folks want to buy a more expensive property than they can really afford. Hence, the stated income debacle. The number of people who can stay strong and within a budget when they're being shown much more beautiful properties "for not very much more on the payment" is relatively small. One reason I keep telling people to shop by purchase price, not payment. If it's outside of your budget, it might as well be on the moon for all of the good it will do you.

This 45% of gross income minus ongoing debt service has to cover all of the ongoing expenses of owning a property. Principal and Interest on the loan, monthly pro-rated property taxes, and homeowner's insurance. If they are present, it also has to pay homeowner's association, temporary assessments such as Mello-Roos, and any other regular recurring expense of owning that property. For instance, assuming a 10% down payment, 6% principal and interest fully amortized loan, California default property taxes, and $100 per month for homeowner's insurance, plus 1% PMI for 90% financing (If they promise there won't be PMI for single loan at 90%, they are lying unless it's VA), here's a table of how much you need to make to afford it (assuming $200/month of other debt):

FHA

FHA loans are a federally insured loan program that anyone can theoretically get. FHA loans allow an initial loan to value ratio of 96.5%, so you only need 3.5% for a down payment. On the minus side, they charge a 1.75% funding fee, and PMI-equivalent of either half a percent annualized for loan to value ratios below 95%, or 0.55% annualized for loan to value ratios of 95% or greater. The upshot is that they are not free, but you can borrow up to 98.25% of the purchase price of the property (providing the appraisal supports that value). This is the lowest down payment of any generally available loan currently available.

The enabling regulations for FHA loans still do not require any minimum credit scores, which is all well and good, but the lenders have instituted a requirement for credit scores that vary from 580 to 640 in order for them to be willing to participate. They who have the gold make the rules, and they've had what are euphemistically called "adverse results" with lower scores. You may have read about that. The good news is that it's even easier to improve your credit score to this level than it is to improve to the scores conventional loans require.

Maximum allowable debt to income ratio for FHA loans starts lower, at 43%, but the FHA is willing to issue a waiver up to about 49% pretty easily if you will still have some significant money you can access after the down payment (6 months PITI reserves), or in other words, if the down payment does not represent every penny you have in the world. Nonetheless, if you start and plan for 43% and limit yourself to that, you are better off than if you try to go over. According to what people are most often trying to do with FHA, here is a table of what you can afford with 3.5% down payment, assuming 1.25% (California) property taxes, and the same $100 per month insurance as the previous example, and a base loan rate of 6.25%, as FHA rates are usually but not always slightly higher than conventional. Note that the slightly higher monthly costs are a result of the higher amount borrowed - the cost of money is actually slightly lower under the assumptions given. Once again, I'm assuming $200 per month of other debt; FHA is a lot less forgiving about front end ratio than conventional.

VA

The VA loan is a benefit earned by those those who have served in the armed forces. I don't know what the minimum service requirement is, but I do know that they allow a maximum loan to value ratio of 103%. A veteran literally does not have to come up with a down payment. Not only that, but they can include up to 3% of the purchase price into the loan on top of the purchase price. Not one other (non-scam) program I am aware of has ever loaned over 100% of value of the property, and this one is still doing it. Unlike the FHA, the VA only charges a funding fee of half of one percent, and no financing insurance. Furthermore, the funding fee is waived for those with 10% or more service disability. I certainly wouldn't serve in the armed forces just to be eligible for a VA loan, but it is a nice thing that veterans earn for all that they have gone through.

Credit score is as the FHA: none required in the regulations, but the lenders want to see the same basic minimums (580 to 640), and for the same reasons. Once again, credit scores are not fixed and immutable and they can be improved as well as hurt by events. Just because you suffer a blow to your credit does not mean you cannot counter-act it with by making an effort to improve it.

Debt to income ratio is the same as the FHA at 43%, with the same waivers possible for higher. Given the way most folks use VA loans, I am going to use an example of loans for 103% of purchase price, at 6.25% (for the same reasons as FHA), with, once again $200 per month of other debt service assumed. Once again, the reason it is as close as it is to the others here is due to higher loan balances under these assumptions. If you compute the same situation for all three loans, the person with VA eligibility will pay less than either of the others until the loan to value ratio is below 80%, when the conventional loan will be best. Keep in mind that in this case, the VA loan balance is about 14% higher than the conventional, yet the cost of housing is very comparable, and the VA has by far the lowest down payment requirement ($0).

Now there are other programs that make it easier to afford real estate, or to come up with the down payment. The Mortgage Credit Certificate and your locally based first time buyer program are a way to increase affordability and possibly come up with a down payment without saving it yourself. The drawbacks to these programs is that their budgets tend to be very limited, and what there is evaporates quickly when they do get an allocation of funds. The three basic loan types are there 365 days per year, and I've never heard of them being unwilling or unable to lend to a buyer who met their qualifications. Providing you meet them, you can get a loan, and therefore, you can buy real estate if this market strikes you, as it does me, as significantly underpriced, given the scarcity and ability of people to pay. Or as Warren Buffet says, "The time to buy is when there is blood in the streets." This principle is no different for real estate than it is for stocks or whole companies. If you can afford to buy with a good sustainable loan, you will be very happy that you did in a very few years.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

This article is a reprint.

I enjoyed finding your blog today. It was enlightening, particularly in the area of real estate appraisals. Mortgage fraud is something I've been reading about lately. Since the FBI says 80% of it involves collusion and usually with the appraiser, it made me wonder why underwriters don't just ask for second appraisals when a loan looks like it could be part of a flipping scheme (e.g., the owner hasn't had it for long and the new appraisal has it coming in much higher than the last one). Have you looked at this area at all? I'd be interested in your point of view.

Appraisal Fraud is more of a problem than it was. A couple of years ago, the appraisal was treated and regarded differently than it is now. On the one hand, appraisers were regarded as gods sitting in judgment of a property, which never was true. They're human, subject to human foibles and tendencies. On the other hand, it has perhaps swung a too far in the opposite direction, with many appraisers doing whatever the loan provider wants in order to continue to attract business.

A good balance is somewhere in between. Appraisers don't want to work any harder than necessary, of course, but they've got to remember that they are, first and foremost, businessfolk selling a service. I agree with the law that says minimum appraisals are prohibited, as it protects everyone. On the other hand, when I ask an appraiser to reconfirm if comparables don't support a value of $X, what I'm trying to do is protect my client. This gives me a chance to re-work the loan, or re-open negotiations with the seller, before my client has wasted hundreds of dollars for an appraisal that doesn't help. Eighty to ninety percent of the time, the appraiser who tells me the value isn't there gets paid anyway, because I can re-work the loan or renegotiate the deal to the point where everybody's happy and the transaction proceeds. If the appraiser just goes out, takes the check, and drops an appraisal that's $20,000 low on my client, I have a screaming mad client on my hands who is poison to my business because in their eyes I was the one who "tricked" this money out of them, and perhaps a seller and seller's agent who are angry as well because I hired an "incompetent" appraiser, with repercussions next time I write an offer for one of my clients, and nobody is happy, least of all me.

On the other hand, an appraiser who is willing to manipulate the data to come up with value no matter what is one I want to stay away from, and it's because of fraud. If there's no default and the loan gets paid back in full, appraiser fraud doesn't matter. But that's not the usual thing that happens with appraiser fraud.

I keep writing that a certain percentage of all attempted real estate transactions are fraudulent, and a good agent and especially a good loan officer keeps their eyes peeled for evidence. Real Estate transactions are very large dollar amounts. A one bedroom condo around here goes for over $200,000. This is more than most families make in a couple of years. An average single family residence might be $500,000 or more. This makes the temptation level considerable, and there are always folks around who have an eye for the quick easy dollar and never mind the effects on others or the prospects of prison if caught. Sometimes the lender is the intended mark, sometimes the other party to the transaction. I could tell you about all varieties of scams, but appraisal fraud is one of the most common.

Before we go any further, let's examine what an appraisal is. Accountants value goods using a method called "Lesser of Cost or Market," or LCM for short. This means a given property is valued for accounting purposes at either the purchase price (cost) or appraised value (market), whichever is lower. But this has been modified from its original form for real estate lending purposes, because in the real world real estate appreciates in value. At purchase, the cost or value argument still applies. No matter what, the lender will not lend based upon a value greater than the purchase price. Later on, however, they will, because land does not depreciate, it does not in general vanish or get used up, and it does increase in value (Pretty much universally over time frames of a decade or more).

This gives scam artists all the leeway they need. Some of them are relatively harmless, in that all they're looking for is a better rate on a loan that they do intend to repay. This doesn't mean it's smart to cooperate with them, as many agents and loan officers who did are likely to discover quite soon, as the loans default and the lender investigates why. The balance sheet reads a little differently when you discover that cooperating with the guy who just wanted to cut a few corners is going to cost you your license.

Appraisal fraud, however, is usually aimed at a large quick score. I'm going to keep my examples basic, lest I inadvertently release a couple more ideas into the wild. Let's say you own a property that's worth (pinky finger extended) one million dollars. You owe $900,000. If you sell, you're going to net about $30,000. But if you can persuade a buyer that property values are increasing much faster than they are, many will bite off on an increased sales price. You tell the appraiser "Appraise it for $1,250,000 and it's worth $25,000 to you!" He does so. You pay him his $25,000 and your net is still around $235,000 to $240,000. It's fraud, but fraud that many folks have gotten away with because the buyer doesn't realize he's been had and keeps paying the bank. Or you can't keep up the payments but want to walk away with as much cash as possible. Instead of a distress sale, where you'd be very lucky to break even with a sharp buyer's agent, you pay the appraiser $25,000 to appraise it at $1.25 million, refinance for cash out to maybe 90 percent of that value, pay the appraiser and walk away with a cool $200k, never making a single payment on the new loan.

Appraisal fraud can also be intentionally low. A buyer wants to buy the property, pays the appraiser to appraise it low, and renegotiates the price. I had this tried on me about two years ago. It didn't work.

Now once upon a time, there were real constraints to keep an appraiser from pulling this, on residential properties at least. To a certain extent, there still are but those guidelines have been relaxed due to the hypercompetitive market we've had the last few years. For instance, it used to be that the lenders would accept a value for a property on a refinance no higher than an annualized increase of 10 percent for the first couple years. That's gone by the wayside, as lenders get used to the fact that values are increasing faster than that. With many lenders, it's whatever the appraiser says the day after the sale. This is an invitation to fraud. Invitations to fraud do not excuse fraud, but they certainly make it easier. It used to be that no matter what, you couldn't pull cash for six months after a sale. That's now changed.

Underwriting in many lenders no longer has to pass a "smell test," where the lender pulls up the local market and sees what similar properties have really sold for recently. They're competing for loans! First time they tell the folks "no" that loan officer may not give them any more chances to do loans, choosing instead other lenders with more accommodating employees and policies. They have to do loans to stay in business, and avoid layoffs, but those lenders with more accommodating employees and policies are going to be in a world of hurt if the local market cools much further.

Now appraisers that do this are subject to discipline and legal penalties, starting with the fact that the lender has the option of never accepting one of their appraisals again and going up through loss of license and jail time. I'm not up on the penalty structure, but fraud that costs in excess of $100,000 is a serious felony. They've got the appraiser's name, license number, and other identifying information. In my opinion, aiding and abetting fraud is stupid and if you can't get them to fly straight, walking away as quickly as possible is your best option, but real estate compensations (and the amounts at stake) are large enough that many will do it. If you're not a pro yourself, your best protection is a good agent that's working for you, not splitting loyalty between both sides of the transaction, and making sure somebody working for you is there at the property to meet the appraiser.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Having had two separate very qualified buyers ask me if they could get a loan in the last two days was kind of an eye opener to all of the hype out there about how difficult it is to get a loan currently.

Things have swung just as far the opposite direction to how they were at the top of the market. Instead of far too easy, lenders are making it significantly harder to qualify for a loan than they really should. This won't be permanent, but right now with mortgage investors in "panic meltdown" mode, the lenders have to show them that every loan they give out really is a good loan. Therefore, the underwriting standards have been tightened - I believe over-tightened. But there are still loans available.

The first thing we need to go over is that stated income is essentially dead - if it were in a hospital, there would be no nervous activity, and the body would be relying upon artificial life support to keep the heart and lungs going. Freddie Mac is still theoretically willing to buy them for self-employed borrowers, but it's very hard finding a lender willing to fund it in the first place, and both them and NINA (aka "no ratio" loans) are going to be regulated completely out of business very soon. For those who are not self-employed, they are already gone. If you want to talk about there being lots of folks who will be unable to get real estate loans, despite having good credit, a good income, and a substantial down payment, I would have to agree with you that the situation is bad. Unfortunately, we have seen proof that there is just too much abuse.

Now my clients have always been 95% full documentation. But if you're someone who relied upon "liar's loans" to make the whole real estate process seem painless and easy in order to enable people to stretch for properties that they cannot really afford, or any of a number of other problems, this is the apocalypse. I think that it's a good thing these folks are complaining so much - it's a red flag about the way they do business, telling you to stay away. If you want to know why it's a red flag, ask them for a list of their clients during the period the market was hot, and see how many of them have had a Notice of Default (or worse) recorded against the property. As of right now, my total is zero.

There is one thing you can say about full documentation loans: They prevent people from stretching to buy properties that they cannot really afford. Before I move on, I should say that there are non-residential alternatives - but the down payment and interest rates will be much higher.

To counter-balance the demise of stated income, the allowable debt to income ratio has not moved at all. A paper is still looking at 45% back end debt to income ratio, FHA will accept 43%, with waivers for higher if there are decent reserves pretty easy up to 49%. So you can still afford a loan that is just as many dollars as ever, but you'll have to have a bit more in other departments.

Credit Score has tightened up considerably, particularly in conjunction with Loan to Value Ratio. When three years ago, a 620 credit score was good enough to get you 100% financing on a stated income loan (subprime), these days the lenders want to see decently high credit scores. A paper lenders are wanting to see 680 or 700 credit scores from anything over 80% financing. The few subprime lenders left are trying to reinvent themselves for the A paper and government market. Those folks with lower credit scores are being asked for higher down payments. Two years ago A paper full documentation loans at 100% of value (albeit with PMI) was very doable. Not so today. The PMI insurers don't want to touch anything over 90% loan to value no matter what the credit score, and neither do the second mortgage holders. I think I may have the ability to get 95% financing for non-government loans, but I won't be certain until someone asks for it and it actually funds.

Lenders are very skittish about low down payments. The only ways that I'm certain I can get a less than ten percent down payment through is with a government guarantee on it - either VA or FHA. On the plus side, the government has finally acted to increase the FHA loan limits, and lenders are deciding to accept the VA guarantee for larger loans as well, the limits that made these programs useless in higher cost areas have now been amended to the point that they are useful. Now, once upon a time, VA and FHA loans did not require a credit score, but lenders have now instituted minimum credit scores, even with the government guarantees these loans carry. They want to see anywhere between a 580 and 640 minimum credit score, depending upon the lender, in order to fund these loans. Note that even a 640 credit score is still eighty points below the national median credit score of 720. They're not trying to cut folks off from home loans. They are trying to cut off the worst credit risks, as just because there's a government guarantee does not absolve them of their responsibility to deny credit for applicants that have a history of bad credit and are therefore a good bet to repeat the performance. In financial circles, this is called "due diligence."

A 640 to 680 credit score is very attainable quickly (and usually cheaply) if only you will work at it - pay your bills on time, use credit responsibly, and maybe clean up some past problems. I have seen a guy less than three weeks out of Chapter 7 bankruptcy with a 686 credit score. I keep telling people this, but it doesn't seem to be getting through: Your credit score is worth obsessing over, and any instances where you may think you got away without paying for something are likely to cost you far more than you think you got away with. These days, it may be the difference between getting a home loan during what is almost certainly the best buying opportunity there will ever be again (at least here in San Diego, and probably in most other high cost areas), and not being able to get a home loan at all.

So what is available? I'm holding these rates overnight so that they're no longer current quotes, but without any points, I had a 30 year fixed rate loan at 5.90 percent while I was writing this. Keeping in mind that there is always a tradeoff between rate and costs of a mortgage loan, the best thirty year fixed rate loan that I could do for one point or less was at 5.75 percent (0.8 points), and if you were crazy enough to want to pay four points, you could have gotten a rate as low as 5.25%. I'm going to publish these without looking at the rates in the morning beforehand - they won't be identical, but should be within the same ballpark. This was for an 80% loan to value ratio, loan amount between $110,000 and $417,000, credit score of 720: right on the national median credit score, in the range of loan amounts that are what most folks want, and right on the traditional loan to value ratio. There are adjustments and such if you want a higher loan to value ratio, as well as PMI, but loans are very obtainable so long as you limit yourself to buying property you can prove you can afford, as is required by full documentation. FHA loans have a different structure and go to 96.5% loan to value ratio, and VA loans go to 103% loan to value ratio (a well earned benefit for those who serve honorably in our military).

My point is this: There's a lot of Chicken Littles out there right now, running around squawking about the sky falling, and the economy does have problems (the magnitude of which was largely caused by those Chicken Littles running around telling people how awful things were - I'm looking at you, Charles Schumer, among others). But on the level of one buyer of real estate who needs a loan, loans are very obtainable. Indeed, if lenders weren't willing to write new loans, they might as well close their doors and dissolve their loan programs. They wouldn't have to keep paying their loan folks in that case. However, lenders want very much to make good loans that have a good chance of being repaid.

Caveat Emptor

In talking about loan modification, I have said it is not a panacea. Let's look at why not, and situations where it just flat out is not going to work.

Loan modification is a strategy for the lender to mitigate their loss, not a "be kind to borrowers" holiday. The lender has to make out better by agreeing to the loan modification than anything else they could do. This means if they can get all of their money by foreclosing, but won't get all of their money via a loan modification, then they will foreclose. The first rule of getting a loan to pay for a property is that the lender always gets every penny of their money first. If they hadn't loaned it to you, you wouldn't have the property in the first place!

The obvious situation where a loan modification is not appropriate is where you have the ability to refinance. If you have the ability to refinance into something more sustainable, I'd suggest doing so without delay. The fact that you don't want to or may be hoping for something better is unimportant. What you're trying to do is keep your property, and not kill your credit-worthiness. If you are able to refinance, get it done.

The second situation is if you have 20% or more equity. In such cases, the lender is going to tell you to sell or refinance the property if you can't make the payments. Never mind that the market is down and it's a rotten time to sell, if the sale of the property will clearly net the lender their money, they are probably not going to agree to a loan modification. Plus, if you do sell, you come away with some cash. If you decide not to sell despite the lender's advice, they will foreclose. They're still going to get their money - which is what you agreed to when you took out the loan - before you get a penny, and you're still not going to have the house. I've written before about what happens to equity under foreclosureThe fact that you don't want to is basically irrelevant. Here's the situation: You owe them their money. You agreed to pay it back in order to get custody of their money and buy the house. They want it: They have shareholders to whom they have a fiduciary duty to get the best return on their money.

The third situation is if you have no income, or a clearly insufficient income to ever pay the loan back. If you're unemployed, there's not an income there to make the payments with. If you were a million dollar per year stockbroker, but now you're a minimum wage employee, you're not going to keep your million dollar property. You are asking them to modify the loan to help both you and the lender. But if the debt to income ratio is not going to work at any reasonable rate of interest, why should they modify your loan if there is no ability to make the modified payments? If all you can afford is 0% interest for the forseeable future, it's only going to get worse from here on out. They might as well bite the bullet and foreclose, because modifying the loan isn't going to do them any good. You''re still going to need to be foreclosed upon.

The fourth situation is new debts - particularly voluntary ones. Some folks see themselves headed off the edge and charge up a storm on all their credit cards, and take out loans for cars, furniture, etcetera. They figure that bankrupt for an additional $100,000 isn't any worse. They're wrong, by the way. If you only have one debt you can't pay, but four credit cards all with zero balances and you go to bankruptcy, you only included 20 percent of your lines of credit in the bankruptcy, and that hurts your credit a lot less than including those four cards and five more tradelines. The person who goes bankrupt with only one bad line of credit while keeping several good ones will probably still have open lines of credit, to boot, and therefore the means of re-establishing payment history. The zero balance credit cards will likely move you to a higher interest rate and more unfavorable terms if you declare bankruptcy, but they will quite likely want you to remain their customer. After all, they got every penny they were due from you!

But if you just took out another $20,000 in debt, that is, in the lender's eyes, evidence of irresponsibility. You already can't make your debt payments, and you go out and get some more? In cases like this, they're not very forgiving of the behavior. Why should they modify their loan when to their eyes you are simply likely to go out and get yourself further into debt?

Loan modification is a possible way out when you cannot refinance, there is no equity, and you have an income and have been behaving responsibly. You just got caught by circumstances beyond your control. If any of these do not apply, you shouldn't expect your lender to agree to bail you out by modifying the loan, when there is clearly no incentive from their point of view in doing so, and they're just going to lose more money if they do.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

It is a great feeling to suddenly have a tool that I can use to keep people in their homes, rather than going through foreclosure or short sales, and killing your credit and ability to qualify for a home loan for a minimum of two years. That is the Loan Modification Program. It's very little comfort when turning someone away because there is nothing I can do to tell myself, "I didn't do it to them. I was trying to talk people out of it before it became a problem." Loan Modification gives me a tool with a pretty decent success rate (sixty to ninety percent, depending upon the lender). It's not a panacea, it doesn't work miracles, and it doesn't work for everyone. It also costs money. With that said, it's a much lower cost than a short sale or foreclosure, and it will work for more people than probably any other measure to prevent those results in people on a course for them.

A Loan Modification program is a modification to an existing loan. Because the lender is already on the hook for major losses, it's a lot easier to get pushed through than a new loan. If you are upside-down on your mortgage, it is a way to get your loan changed into something you can make the payments on without the lenders agreeing to write down the value of the principal, which just isn't happening for the most part. Loan to Value Ratio just isn't an issue. The idea is to reach a Debt to Income Ratio that enables you to make and stay current on your payments in the future. Most lenders are modifying loans for a debt to income ("front end") ratio in the low thirties - while some are modifying for a "back end" ratio in the high thirties. The idea is that this enables you to be current on the loan and stay in the property, while it turns the loan into a performing asset for the lender, preventing them from losing more money than they have to.

Lots of folks want the principal of the loan written down. The problems with this are two-fold. First, it becomes an immediate loss for that lender - a hard loss. They were owed $400,000, and now they are only owed $300,000. That's $100,000 in company equity gone. Second, it provides an opportunity for current owners to make a profit on money that was previously owed to that lender. If the person is able to sell for $350,000 (whether immediately or years later), they still make $50,000 less the expense of selling the property, while the lender is just out in the cold for that extra money. You get them to give you money so you make a profit? Lenders don't like that math. The chances of them agreeing to do a principal reduction are very slim. The figure quoted was 1.6% of mortgage modifications that actually happen include some sort of principal reduction - one in sixty - and those typically include issues like death or disability of the main breadwinner. Do you want to spend the $3000 to $7000 modification costs for a one in sixty chance, or do you want to do it correctly with an approach that is about 60% or higher (depending upon your lender) likely to work?

What lenders are often willing to do is modify the loan in such a way as to reduce the interest rate, or payments owed, in some fashion. This doesn't magically give you money, but it does make the dire consequences of owing too much money bearable. It is far better in most cases for your long term financial health than walking away or going through foreclosure. If you owe $400,000 at 8%, reducing that interest rate to 6% will make as much difference to affordability as reducing your principal by $75,000 and starting the loan over combined. Not to mention that every successful loan modification is a relief from delinquency. You start over on the newly modified loan completely up to date on your payments.

Here is the lender's situation: They are on the hook for the value of the loan. If you go through a short sale, they lose money - about a fifth of the value of the loan on average. This is an immediate charge against the company's book value. For properties that go through foreclosure, the percentage loss is about doubled, in aggregate. Nationally, foreclosures cost lenders $47,000 to $61,000 per property, in addition to the lowered value from being a foreclosure. If they agree to modify your loan, it's a hit against future income, but it is not a direct hit on the book value of the company, and it turns a non-performing asset into a performing asset as soon as you've made a payment or two - much quicker than foreclosure. Finally, it gives them at least a glimmer of hope down the road of recovering all of their money - a very good hope, in my opinion, as the market will recover in time - and keeps them from losing more money than they have to now. It also, not coincidentally, locks you into keeping the loan with them for the forseeable future, because nobody else is going to refinance an upside-down loan.

This is nothing short of a financial lifesaver: Let us compare the situation now with the situation in the early nineties. I bought my first property for $90,000 in 1990. It peaked in value at about $110,000, then slid straight down to $63,000 in 1994. I was upside down for a little while. But I didn't sell, and I didn't walk away. Had I done so, I would have lost $27,000 plus the costs of selling - turned a theoretical loss on paper into a concrete loss with major real world consequences. Instead, having a sustainable loan with payments I could make, I kept making those payments. By 1996, I was in the black again. Had I short sold, I would have locked in that loss, and my name would have been mud with lenders and I would not have gotten another loan after the short sale. Basically, by just keeping on making the payments, I kept from locking in a 30% or more loss, and turned it into over a 100% gain when the market recovered. Which situation would you rather be in: Ruin your financial future when you don't have to, or keep making the payments even though you may temporarily be upside down so you can eventually make a big profit? The property I had was the one I was tied to. I could have walked away, locked in that 30% plus loss, and been unable to get another loan for a minimum of two years, and have my credit cause me to be stuck with horrible loans for ten years (which would have cost me more than $27,000, if I could have gotten loans), or I could stick with the obligations I agreed to when I signed on the dotted line for that loan, have patience, and be rewarded when the market turned back up to the tune of better than 100% profit.

Now add being unable to make the payments to the situation I was in fifteen years ago. That is the situation that lots of folks are in today. They not only cannot refinance, they can't make their current payments, either. Without something like loan modification, their situation is like Comet Schumaker-Levy 9, locked into a collision course with Jupiter, and nothing short of a miracle will break them off that course for disaster. You can use search engines to pull up some pretty spectacular images of what happened there.

Which of those situations would you rather be in? This market we are in now is a market in which the people who do the right thing will be rewarded when the market has worked through the immediate problems.

Funny how karma works sometimes.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

I have in the past told people to ignore APR. APR should not be used to compare between loans. Not only is it a one dimensional number used to measure what is fundamentally a two-dimensional trade-off between rate and costs, but it is computed based upon you keeping the loan for the period - no refinancing, no selling the property, not even paying off the loan earlier. Basically, nobody does this. Why pay attention to a number that doesn't tell the entire picture, and wouldn't apply to you even if it did?

But there is something that the difference between the putative APR and note rate can tell you: How big the costs of the loan are. Don't read too much into this. As I may have mentioned a time or two (in my articles on Good Faith Estimate, how much low-balling is legal, and Loan Quote Guarantees off the top of my head), at loan sign up, these are only the rate and fees that they are admitting to. Unless they're giving you one of those Loan Quote Guarantees, the APR is subject to every bit of low-balling that the Good Faith Estimate (Mortgage Loan Disclosure Statement in California) is. Furthermore, be advised that prosective loan providers are permitted a lie, I mean an error, of a full eighth of a percent for fixed rate loans, twice that for ARMs. So be aware that unless you are careful to nail prospective loan providers by asking all the right questions and requiring a quote guarantee, what you get won't be any more accurate than political spin.

Where this is primarily useful is in reading advertisements. Not that mortgage rate advertisements are a good place to be looking for loans, but people will persist no matter how much I warn them against it.

APR does not include all costs. Federal Reserve Regulation Z allows mortgage providers to exclude third party costs from the calculation. This includes escrow, title, and appraisal costs at a minimum, as well as notary and processing costs, if they are performed by outside providers. I'm going to assume a 6% thirty year fixed rate loan. For such a loan processed "in house" for $400 would have an APR of 6.056, while the same loan where the $600 processing was "contracted out" instead would have an APR of 6.044. Note that you pay $200 more for the loan with the lower APR! You therefore need to know what's included and excluded when comparing APRs. For the same reason, a loan where there's a difference of $1000 in fees due to one loans title company, escrow company, or appraiser padding their pockets while those associated with the other loan don't, will not show up under APR calculations. If other factors are the same, the expensive loan will have precisely the same APR as the cheap one.

With all that said, let's look at a thirty year fixed rate loan, starting from a $300,000 balance, with $1500 of closing costs included per regulation Z, first, with all closing costs included, then paying all costs but no points (par), then with one point, then two points. These are rates that were really available a few days ago, but will be different by the time you read this

Note that a loan with two full points is pretty expensive. It costs almost $9400 in actual costs, never mind impounds or prepaid interest that you may also be adding to your balance and paying interest on. Nonetheless, it boosts APR over note rate by less than 1/4 of a percent, and that the actual APR keeps going down even though the costs are skyrocketing. This means that for people who shop by APR, loan providers will advertise a loan with even more points. Even though you'll never recover the costs of those points, if all you look at is APR, the lower rate looks better.

Now let's hold everything else constant, but pretend that you have a choice between refinancing a $300,000 balance on a 6% thirty year fixed rate loan with all costs paid, where you pay the costs but no points (par), with one point, and with two points. This is never going to actually happen - the cost differentials you will shop between will not be that broad. If there's that much difference between the loans you're being offered, something is wrong. It could any of a number of things - I can't tell exactly what without a lot more information. This much variance should never happen - I'm doing this solely for illustrative purposes, so you can see how costs influence APR. There is always that tradeoff between rate and costs, and they are more likely to discover physics that repeals gravity than economics that repeals this relationship.

With that said, here's the comparison.

Now keep in mind, that every number here in this article is as correct as I can make it. This is, once again, to illustrate how various factors influence APR, not to illustrate the games that can be played with APR.

What other factors influence APR?

The size of the loan makes a difference. A $100,000 loan with $1500 of included costs (per Reg Z) at a note rate of 6% has an APR of 6.142, while a $400,000 loan with the same costs has an APR of 6.035. Note that this is a pretty low-cost loan, but it makes a real difference to comparatively small loan amounts. The difference ordinary costs make for smaller loans is one reason why folks with smaller loan balances should focus far more on cost than rate. Given that most people don't keep their loans longer than about three years, it can be very difficult to recover increased initial costs of doing the loan via lowered interest costs.

The basic note rate also influences how much the same cost influences APR. A $300,000 loan with $1500 in non-excludable costs (under reg Z) at 9% has an APR of 9.056, a difference of (actually) 556 basis points higher, while the 6% loan with the same costs has an APR of 6.046, an actual difference of only 463 basis points. Lower note rate means that the same costs influence APR less.

The term of the loan makes a huge difference. If that same thirty year fixed rate loan at 6% in the previous paragraph was a 15 year loan, it would have an APR 6.078. Not only can this mean that at shorter loan terms, a lower cost loan with a higher note rate can actually have a higher APR, if further illustrates how counter-productive paying attention to APR is. When the APR is computed as if you allocated those costs over the term of the loan, and most people sell the property or refinance in three years or less, the proper term to compute spreading those costs over is two or three years, not thirty. If cutting that period in half, from 30 years to 15, almost doubles the APR spread, what do you think cutting the period still further does? I'll tell you: If you only keep that same loan three years, the effective APR is 6.333 - and this is a very inexpensive loan. That two point loan from the first example at 5.875 that gets you the low payment has an effective APR of 7.549 if you refinance it after three years! Not only that, but you're going to be paying for it in the form of higher interest costs on a higher balance for as long as you have a home loan, and probably quite a while thereafter. By comparison, let me call your attention to that true zero cost loan at 6.75% from the same example, which has an APR of 6.750, no matter what period it is computed over. If you're going to refinance or sell in three years, which of these loans do you think it makes more sense to choose?

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here