Mortgages: February 2009 Archives

Working with a borrower all day today. Truly ugly situation because he doesn't have a long history of credit, and this is the major obstacle to getting the loan done. He actually makes the money, and has a sufficient history of making the money to justify the loan "full documentation". But: He only has one usable line of credit, and it is only 9 months old. Most lenders require a minimum of three tradelines, at least one of which must be open for 24 months.

On the other hand, there exists a method to help this person. What he is going to do is approach close relatives with long term stable, paid up lines of credit, and ask if he can be added to one of their revolving accounts as a co-user. He does not have to get a charge card, or actual access to the account, he just needs to be added to the account as a co-borrower, and he will get the benefit of however long the trade-line has been open. He doesn't even have to know the account number (and the credit report omits several digits, so he doesn't get it there, either).

This has two effects. First, he will get the benefit of the length of the trade lines, and second, he will get the benefit of the tradelines being paid promptly and on time for however long. Preferably, these are low limit and low to zero balance accounts, because he will be dinged for any necessary payments on his debt-to-income ratio. But it will likely raise his credit score significantly (I would guesstimate at least sixty points) by giving him a several year history of on-time payments, as well as giving him an adequate history of tradelines.

Nor is this fraudulent in any way, shape or form. This is being done in full consultation with the lender. The lender has been notified in writing and approved of this. It may seem like I'm always going off about fraud, but in this case something that may appear a little shady actually turns out to be something that both the bank and the regulators can live with. So if you're thinking that loans are always about NO NO NO, here's a very strong YES to go along with it.

Caveat Emptor

UPDATE: As articles like this illustrate, 'Piggybacking' Roils Credit Industry, this is starting to be seen as a problem. It certainly is not a silver bullet. Indeed, it's something to avoid if there are other alternatives. Two major drawbacks apply: First, the payments hit your debt to income ratio. Second, if your "benefactor" has a late payment, that hits your credit also. Since neither of these are under your control, this makes this trick something to avoid if there are better alternatives.

UPDATE: Fair Isaacsson, the modeler for FICO scores that lenders use to judge creditworthiness, has changed their method of scoring since this was originally written. Having gotten wise to the practice and realizing that this really doesn't make any difference to the borrower's creditworthiness, they no longer take accounts where you have this kind of access into account when modeling credit score. Just one more demonstration that the markets are always changing, and that lenders and those who serve them are not passive in the face of people trying to game the system. Sometimes, the response is grossly disproportionate, too.

Original here

I hear it and read it all the time - advice that says to pre-emptively reject the possibility of paying points. People that talk to me about loan rates that tell me they will not consider any loan that requires paying points.

What they're thinking is that they don't want to pay origination. They don't want to pay for the person who gets their loan approved, figuring that the interest rate is enough for the bank. Here's a cold hard fact: Nobody does loans for free. The interest you are paying does not go to the bank who does your loan. It goes to the actual investor who furnishes the money. And here's the fallacy that completely guts the advice: What has become the most common system of loan origination, where the originator is separate from the investor, has become the most common system because it is cheaper for the consumers.

Once upon a time, all residential mortgages were done by lenders who intended to hold them for the life of the loan. There was no origination. There was no discount. The Rate was The Rate, and they would give you whatever rate they were offering everybody else that week - if you qualified - as they wanted to make a certain comparatively high margin on the money. If you didn't qualify for The Rate, there were alternatives but none of them was advantageous. In any case, The Rate wasn't that great, but there weren't many alternatives at all, and all the banks charged about the same Rate, and there was pretty much always a prepayment penalty of some sort because they had to be certain they'd make enough money via interest to pay their employees for doing the loan.

This started changing a very long time ago, with the advent of Fannie Mae (and its younger sibling, Freddie Mac). Nonetheless, the two GSEs didn't work in a way that made their role obvious to the consumer until about thirty to forty years ago. The fact that they bought mortgages, allowing lenders to loan what was essentially the same money over and over again meant that rates went down, but also as part of the same phenomenon that lenders were no longer making money from the interest rate of holding those mortgages. The upshot was that consumers now had a choice: In order to get the cheaper rates made possible by the GSEs, they had a choice: They could pay origination, or they could accept a higher rate, such that the lender who did their loan received either a bond premium or yield spread premium, which amounts to a different piece of the same thing. The advice not to pay points for a mortgage actually dates from this period, as holdouts equivalent to today's portfolio lenders came up with what was an advertising slogan that made it look like dealing with agency lenders was actually costing you more, when in reality agency lenders were saving consumers money over the longer term, albeit with slightly higher upfront costs. But when it's saving you as much as two percent per year over the portfolio lenders of yesteryear (who began charging points themselves because they could), it doesn't take long to see that paying a point of origination, or one percent of loan amount upfront in order to get a rate two percent lower with the agency lender was a much better deal than the alternative.

Once started, the advice to not pay points took on a life of its own. After all, what's not to like about not paying for something? But origination points pays for a real service, and if it saves you money in your particular context, then it is worth paying. But if you reject in blanket fashion the possibility of paying points, then you never consider the very real possibility that it might save you money. Nor, in the modern world, is not paying origination a real possibility. I can make my money in the form of points, I can make it via an explicit dollar figure charge that amounts to the same figure, or I can jack up the rate and make the money when the secondary loan market pays me more than the face value of the bond because the interest rate is above that of similar mortgages. Note that there is no option that says "your lender doesn't make money for doing your loan." If your lender doesn't make money, they don't stay in business. I don't do free loans. Nobody does free loans. If I'm not going to make money anyway, I'd prefer to stay home and play with the dog and teach the girls about TANSTAFL, because plainly there are an awful lot of naive children somehow getting through the educational system without absorbing this critical concept. Pretty much everyone else in the loan industry needs to make a living also. Refuse to pay origination, and you're back in the old days of portfolio lenders - with a rate two percent or so above the agency lenders for the same loans.

Points actually come in two forms. As well as origination, there is discount. Origination is going to be paid on every loan. It can come from a figure in points you are being charged that amount to a certain number of dollars, it can come from an explicit number of dollars you are being charged (that amounts to the same number of dollars as the points do), or it can come from jacking the rate up so as to receive yield spread (which must be disclosed) or a secondary market bond premium (which does not). It literally does not matter to me how I make my money - it's still the same number of dollars - but it is going to be made or neither I nor anyone else is going to do your loan. Some companies charge more origination than others, but if they can deliver a loan that is likely to save you money overall, that higher origination is worth paying. Don't lose sight of the forest because you're obsessed with one particular tree, and origination is not the only way that loan providers make money. Not too long ago, I had someone bring me a HUD-1 form where the lender hid eight thousand dollars of profit in plain sight where the borrower couldn't recognize it, in addition to the $1500 they claimed was all they were making via origination. Nor do all forms of origination have to be disclosed. Direct lenders and correspondent brokers do not have to disclose what they make when they sell the loan to the final investor and so advice telling you not to pay points or not to pay origination allows them the ability to cut out other loan providers, at least with the gullible, which is most of the public. Evaluate the loan in terms of the bottom line to you.

I happen to think it's both fair and a good idea to charge origination in terms of points. When I guarantee the rate and cost of your loan, I'm risking more for a bigger loan - and working harder, too. If I make a mistake in pricing the loan, I have to pay a figure in points in order to make it good. If your credit score suffers a sudden drop, the difference isn't a flat fee - it's a charge in points. If you don't get me information I need promptly, or the lenders are just so snowed under that we need to extend the rate lock, that's a charge in points. The bigger the loan, the more work it is to get it accepted by the investor. Conforming loans are, by and large, the easiest. Super conforming get a little tougher. Non-conforming loan amounts these days are like pulling teeth without anesthesia and it gets worse from there. The points charge for origination may go down in steps for larger loans, but for everyone in the industry, you're going to find that the bigger the loan, they larger the number of absolute dollars the lender needs to make it worth their while. They can hide it, lie about it, or risk scaring children of legal age away by honestly disclosing it, but I promise you that you are going to pay it in the final analysis. If your loan provider won't guarantee both the total cost and rate for their quote, that should tell you everything you need to know about doing business with them right there, or in other words, don't.

Discount is an explicit charge for getting a lowered rate. This figure is always expressed in points. I can translate it into dollars for you, but the actual charge is a certain percentage of the final loan amount. Paying discount is pretty much optional, and the answer to the question of whether you should (and how much) changes with the type of loan, your situation, how long you're planning or likely to keep a particular loan, and the tradeoffs between rate and cost available at any given point in time. Discount points can be thought of as negative yield spread or bond premium, and yield spread or bond premium can be thought of as negative discount points. You cannot have discount points on a loan with yield spread or one where the loan officer says they will make what they need to on the secondary market. What you are paying in such cases is origination, not discount.

In neither case is cutting points out of a loan a matter of negotiating skill. Cutting points down is a matter of effectively shopping your loan and asking the right questions of prospective loan providers and nailing them down as to exactly what they are really offering and paying attention to the answers. You're probably not going to see huge differences of three points for the same rate or a full percent lower on the same loan for the same cost unless you're comparing yourself to someone who doesn't shop their loan effectively, but saving half a point on a $400,000 loan at the same rate is $2000, and saving an eighth of a percent for the same cost is $500 per year for as long as you keep the loan. I don't know about you, but that's more than enough to motivate me to spend the necessary time and effort to shop for a better loan.

In any case, evaluate loans in terms of the bottom line to you, not by how much the provider makes or has to disclose that they make. How much it's going to be in points and closing costs to get the loan done in the first place, versus what it is going to cost you in interest charges every month. They're not going to yield a single unequivocal answer, but rather breakeven points, or "How long do I have to keep this loan in order to get back my initial investment via lowered monthly cost of interest?" When you're refinancing, a zero cost loan is the only thing that can be ahead from day one, but even an ardent fan of zero cost loans like myself is finding them hard to justify in the current market, because the rate cost tradeoff is so shallow on that part of the tradeoff curve. In plain English, when you break even on increased costs in six or eight months due to lowered cost of interest, it's very hard for me not to recommend you pay those slightly higher costs, knowing that the median time people keep loans is about 28 months, and they'll get their money back four times over in that period, and keep getting it back all over again every six or eight months they keep the loan.

By the way, if someone won't guarantee their rates and costs, how are you going to get those figures that gives you the answer of which loan is most likely best for you? The lender knows, or should know, what they can really deliver. You don't, except for what they tell you. They should assume pricing risk. If you're not going to follow this model, you're in the same position as the woman who goes to the singles bar looking for Mr. Right. What she's going to find is Mr. Right Now, the sleaze ball who says anything to get her into bed with him and leaves her feeling dumped on and used. The parallels are exact. Nothing wrong with it if all you're looking for is a quick roll in the hay - but I've never heard of anybody who went loan shopping with the intention of getting screwed.

If you don't nail them down with a written guarantee, loan providers can and will lie, omit charges that you are going to pay, and just flat out pull promises out of their backside in order to get you to sign up for a loan. The new RESPA rules that don't go into effect until the end of 2009 will make it only a little more difficult, and it you don't sign up for their loan in the first place, there is no way they're going to get paid for doing that loan.

What I hope you take away from this article is simple: The idea that it may be to your benefit to pay points on a loan, and rejecting the possibility only encourages prospective loan providers to lie about what loan they are really going to deliver. Instead, nail them down as to exactly what they're willing to offer, whether they're willing to guarantee it, and what the limitations upon that guarantee are. Once you have this information, you have the information necessary to decide whether paying points is in your best interest - because it might very well be.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

From an email:

Our rate was locked (on our mortgage broker's recommendation) on December 4 at 5.375% for 30 days. On December 18 we finally received the rate lock form, which was dated December 17 (the prevailing rate was 4.75% on that date). No explanation was ever offered despite multiple queries. Another disclosure form said compensation would be anywhere from 0% to 5% at closing (on a 400K loan). Is the date on a rate lock form important? If the broker recommends the timing of the rate lock, should the broker be allowed to bet on declining rates? Would we have been protected had rates risen? We unwisely had asked the broker to lock us if the fabled two-hour exceptionally low rate (we were thinking 4%!) had occurred, but a few days later he locked our loan on a 1/8th point decline even though we were under no pressure to refi, the then-current rate was not particularly favorable, and all signs pointed lower (which promptly came to pass). We ended up going with our backup loan.

The date the loan is actually locked is critical, because that was the date your loan was actually locked, and the rates in effect when the loan was locked are what apply.

Many lenders tell clients the loan is locked, and bet they can earn some more money by letting the rate float. Actually, when they are doing this, they are letting the tradeoff between rate and cost float. Unless and until the loan is actually locked, any quote you may have is worthless. Available rates (and the costs to get them) change every day at an absolute minimum. Some days they go up, other days they go down. Nor is it just the bond market that influences prices. Back in August of 2003, lenders boosted rates by almost a percent and a half, just to allow their underwriting and funding backlogs the opportunity to clear out. The bond market rates didn't hardly change at all - but over a period of three weeks, the best available loan rate went from 5.125% without any points to 6.5% without any points.

They did this precisely to curb demand and give them a chance to get caught up. No collusion as far as I'm aware - but they'd been paying two hours of daily overtime for four or five months and requiring mandatory six day weeks and canceling all time off, they finally got to the point where they couldn't sustain it any more. When they caught up in October 2003, rates started dropping again, to the point where they got down to 5.25% without points again in December 2003 and January 2004, about where they should have been. But for those loans that weren't locked, they became stuck with the rates that existed in the meantime. You always have the opportunity to bail out of a loan, but if you've already spent money for an appraisal, put money out for a deposit on the loan, etcetera, you are just out of luck. The real purpose for charging a deposit on a loan is to give them leverage to get you to accept the loan if they don't deliver as good a loan as they talk about in order to get you to sign up.

There are two reasons why lenders (especially brokers, but lender branch office employees are guilty as well) tell you a loan is locked without actually locking it. Both are the result of them trying to make more money. Actually, there is a third but that's a completely different can of worms. The first two have to do with trying to scam more money from the same loan. First, a shorter lock is cheaper than a longer lock. If they tell you they locked it for thirty or forty five days, and they instead wait until they can do a fifteen day lock, that's an eighth to a quarter of a point on every loan, if the rates simply stay the same. They can also rationalize telling you about the fifteen day lock rate and cost. Second, if the rate/cost tradeoff goes down, they can deliver the same loan and make more money. Occasionally, they can even surprise a client with a marginally lower loan rate - something that is always the result of failing to lock when they should have. If rates go up, however, you're stuck - and if you think that lender or loan officer is going to eat the difference, say hello to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny when you see them. The vast majority of all lenders try to pretend you're not going to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars in real costs on their loan quotes anyway.

(How can you tell loan quotes aren't lowballs? Ask them if they will Guarantee their loan quote, as in anything more than what's on the paper, they pay it. Very few will. Most will try to distract you by talking about how they honor their commitments, but none of the forms you get at the start of a loan are commitments in any way, shape or form. I just ate two appraisal fees for someone on their investment properties when Fannie and Freddie changed their standards to require appraisals on investment property, and still delivered the loan at the rate and cost initially agreed upon. That's a real guarantee. "We honor out commitments" is a dishonest red herring, and when it's used to answer a question about "Will you guarantee your quote?" a red flag as well that you should not do business with that lender)

The third major reason why lenders play games on loan locks is due to "pull through". Pull through is the percentage of loans a given loan officer locks that are eventually funded. Loan investors are trying to play hardball with pull through these days. There is a good reason for it, but the practical effect for the consumer is that loan officers don't want to lock loans that don't look rock solid. So quite often they don't. Until recently, some investors were giving incentives for good pull through, but at this point, the carrots have mostly gone away and it's pretty much straight penalty box for pull through ratios they're not happy enough with. Since loan standards have become quite difficult of late, many loan officers are failing to lock loans they should to prevent their pull through ratio from dropping. Some investors even want to charge the loan officer's personal credit card when we lock a loan, when the pull through ratio doesn't meet that investor's hopes.

There is nothing wrong with not locking a loan, providing the client is aware of it and concurs. If I have concrete reason to expect better rates to become available in the near future, and I persuade a client to "float" their rate, that is perfectly fine. However, until the loan is locked, the rates can also go up at any time. A loan rate that's not locked is not real until it is locked, and you certainly can't get any kind of loan quote guarantee. There is no assurance rates won't go up on unlocked loans. A rate lock is the only real assurance, and you don't have it, therefore assurance of pricing doesn't exist. With all of this in mind, I'm biased towards locking as soon as practical. The rate you want is available now, and at a price that makes it attractive. You can lock it in and know it will be there when the loan is fully approved, or take a risk of it vanishing more thoroughly than if it popped into another universe. Sometimes the risk can be something worth taking, but it's always a risk you can lose. If you lose it, you don't get the appraisal money or anything else you have spent back.

You shouldn't expect rates to make sudden major movements, where by locking in during a particular two hour window of opportunity you get a rate half a percent lower than you'd otherwise get for the same cost. That is quite rare, and I don't remember the last time I saw anything like that. More common are differences of a quarter point of discount for the same rate. An eighth point slide in the rate at the same cost is quite significant for an individual movement of rates. However, over the course of a week, rates can move much more than that. Nobody minds when they're moving down, but hoping they're going to move back when they're trending upwards is usually not going to be rewarded. Furthermore, rates tend to move down more slowly than they move up. If you've got to have a loan at a certain rate and cost target, locking in when it hits that target is recommended, and if you've missed an opportunity to lock at your target and rates are moving upwards, it's usually a good idea to make a decision whether to lock immediately or walk away from the loan. You can string hope along that rates will fall again for several weeks, but it's not likely to happen.

Caveat Emptor

One of the things that has constricted the most with the current paranoid lending environment is the ability to use rental income to qualify for a mortgage. It seems that lenders are seizing upon any excuse to deny income from rental property. Since the denial of rental income usually means that debt to income ratio is too high to qualify for a new loan, this means that if all of the ts are not crossed or if any i is left undotted, you don't qualify for the loan you're applying for.

The lenders do not have an unreasonable concern. Due to bad advice telling people to walk away from upside-down real estate (Seriously, don't walk away from upside down real estate if you can avoid it), and the phenomenon of "buy and bail" the lenders are losing money. It is not unreasonable of them not to want to lose money, and if you're planning to stiff your current lender, that is quite rightly something they should expect you to disclose and they are within their rights to guard against. It is a reasonable position to take that someone who stiffs one lender is more likely to stiff a second. Indeed, the entire credit model currently used is based off this well-documented fact. If you're planning to stiff someone, even though you haven't yet, that's something a reasonable person would agree should be grounds for rejecting your loan.

However, loan standards have gone completely overboard. One phenomenon that was (barely) tolerable when it was just a requirement for government loans was the requirement for appraisals on all property a loan applicant might own. Even if there's a stable, fixed rate loan in place with a positive cash flow, since last summer FHA loans and VA loans have both required exterior appraisals on other property the loan applicant might own. Furthermore, they want a minimum of 30% current equity! As you can imagine in the current market, even if someone bought six or seven years ago, this can be hard in a lot of cases. Someone with an 800 credit score and thirty year fixed rate loan on their investment property, and 28% equity cannot get credit for rental payments, no matter how positive the cash flow! Is that brain dead or what? These people have taken care of their credit rating their whole life, invested frugally, managed their money well, have no late payments, have a positive cash flow every month on the investment property, have eighty or a hundred thousand dollars net equity even in a severely trashed market (as in that's what they'd get if they sold their $400,000 property), and the situation is even completely sustainable because the loan they have now is never going to adjust. Nonetheless, because they are being tarred with a broad brush of general market trouble, these folks cannot afford to buy a new property in the area their employer moved them to, thousands of miles away. If you know of a set of circumstances more likely to encourage people to do something shady, I'd like to hear about it.

At a cost of $300 per rental property appraisal, that's a not inconsiderable additional cost, either, especially since it has to be paid before the new loan funds in most cases. However, due to limits built into government loan programs, this didn't strike all that often when it was just official government loans. Now that the feds have their fingers into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, it's been expanded to include the entire A paper loan market, as even non-conforming loans tend to copy the standards expressed by Fannie and Freddie in all particulars except loan amount. The only exceptions currently being made are in portfolio loans, with all of their disadvantages, chief of which is a higher interest rate. We should all send Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and other unindicted co-conspirators (including Barack Obama) a note of heavily sarcastic thanks for preventing the overhaul of Fannie and Freddie long enough so the government could take them over after ruining them. Maybe if all the guilty parties would take the campaign contributions made to encourage them to do this and use it to ameliorate the fallout, it might amount to a tenth of a percent of the damage they did, and are continuing to do.

In short, getting credit for rental income on an investment property has now become incredibly difficult when you're applying for a loan. This has the effect of artificially constricting the real estate market, because the mortgage market controls the real estate market, and it also constrains the start of any recovery. People in good solid situations cannot qualify to buy investment property, and the loan standards are making it harder for them to qualify for buy a new primary residence if their employer has transferred them or they've had to move to get a new job. The alternative of selling the previous property has a lot of reasons against it right now (off the top of my head, adding to supply in an oversupplied market, turning temporary losses on paper into hard losses with permanent consequences, and having to give up extra equity in order to compete with other properties on the market). Lest you misunderstand the socioeconomic consequences of this, it isn't the rich folks with mansions in La Jolla, Rancho Santa Fe, or up on Mt. Helix who are getting toasted by this. The people getting hurt are the middle class folk in the corporate trenches who work hard, save their money, and have to go where their job is.

Once upon a time, this was a legitimate use for stated income loans (and "no ratio" or NINA loans as well). The lenders would (and will) only allow a 75% credit for rental income, despite vacancy ratios consistently in the 2-3 percent range in markets like San Diego and New York. It is very possible to be making money hand over fist, even showing such on your taxes, and still have the accounting lenders use in loan qualification show you as losing what was left of your shirt and undershorts every month. Unfortunately, once people figured out the illegitimate uses to which stated income could be put, it was only a matter of time until lenders stopped accepting stated income loans and regulators started regulating it out of existence. There are a few portfolio lenders who will still accept stated income loans, albeit at higher rates, and under restrictions that would make people accustomed to the Era of Make Believe Loans blanch, but it does still exist as of this writing. It's anybody's guess as to how much longer that is going to last.

If you're in this situation, what can you do? Well, most people can't really create thirty percent equity while at the same time coming up with a down payment. Even if they've got the cash for one, they don't have the cash for both. For those in such situations, there are some serious decisions that need to be made: whether to sell their former residence so they can buy now, rent for a while until they do have the required thirty percent equity, or pay higher rates for portfolio loans. A general knowledge of phenomena like leverage and the fact that Buyer's Markets Are A Great Time For Moving Up (but a lousy time for moving down) gives me general ideas of what's likely to be best, but every situation needs to be evaluated individually, and there is no such thing as a risk free move. Anything options you might have - including to do nothing - all have their downside risks.

If you can meet the basic qualification (30% equity on all investment properties), you can prevent something stupid from disqualifying you. All monies received on rental properties need to have a paper trail leading back to the renter - especially deposit checks. Do not accept cash if you can avoid it. If you can't avoid it, create a receipt and make a copy of everything, and have the tenant sign everything, including that receipt for money they are paying you. Include a clause about cooperating with any mortgage applications you may submit in your rental agreements. Lenders are requiring a canceled deposit check, and the only way to get that may be from the tenant. All leases should be for at least a one year period. I hate to say it, but it may be worth paying a management company to manage your property in order to have third party verification of the accounting, even though lenders are increasingly skeptical of any third party attestations. There have been too many attestations that did not tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

It isn't impossible to get credit for rental income, but due to the current environment, most lenders are making it far more difficult than it should be. Take action ahead of time, and be aware that having a rental property can severely impact your budget for buying a new primary residence, particularly if you don't have the required equity. Better to limit yourself in the first place to something you will be able to afford per current underwriting guidelines, because otherwise you are risking the deposit and any money you spend investigating that property. If the lender won't give you credit for rental income, a property that you thought you had good reason to believe within your reach can be completely beyond the realm of possibility.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

A couple years ago, underwriting standards were way too loose. Lenders were competing for loans, and the presumption was that with real estate having continued to gain in value, it was difficult to actually lose money on real estate. Needless to say, that presumption has now changed. Lenders are stuck on the horns of a dilemma. They have had massive losses on real estate loans, yet real estate loans offer a very large profit center. Furthermore, because The Mortgage Loan Market Controls the Real Estate Market, the more they constrict lending policy, the more they lose on those people who have no choice but to sell. It's a tragedy of the commons type situation, though, as any given lender loosening their loan policy exposes themselves to the risk of a bad loan, while only reaping a fraction of the benefit on their existing loans.

Therefore, the individually rational decision for them is to be very careful that the loans they do make are going to be repaid. And boy are they. Underwriting standards have become completely paranoid. Things that were not an issue at any time in the last ten years are becoming "Loanbusters." There have been quite a few additions to that category of late.

To give an example, I just spent three full days arguing about a rental property my client had 2000 miles away. Because the client had accepted a cash deposit as opposed to a check, they did not want to give my client credit for the monthly rental, despite the fact that the property had been rented for several months. With the rental income, my client was able to satisfy debt to income ratio requirements and the new loan was no risk at all. Without the rental income, debt to income ratio was too high. The client had everything else - bona fide transfer from employer, plenty of income documentation, time in line of work, etcetera, and remember that the property had been rented for several months. But because the basic underwriting standard is to demonstrate payment of a deposit via a canceled check in order to credit rental income, I had to argue the case - along with the reasons for the underwriting standards - up four levels in the process before I got to someone with the authority and understanding of the reasons for the underwriting standards to agree to an alternative standard my client could meet.

You can help yourself in advance of applying for a loan. Have a paper trail for all money - especially anything having to do with any rental property you might own. Document all of your income, especially on your taxes. Pretty much every single loan done right now is requiring IRS form 4506T. The only exceptions I'm aware of are portfolio lenders. Be careful moving your money around, and be certain there is a paper trail sourcing all money that appears on any of your bank statements. Where did the money come from? Also be aware that just because you made $X this month does not mean lenders will necessarily accept your income as being $X per month. In general, income is averaged over the previous two years, so if you've had a big raise you were counting upon for loan qualification, you might not get full credit for it. In case of doubt or dispute, the numbers on your tax form - that you reported to the IRS and paid taxes on - becomes the ultimate fall back.

It has become more expensive to get a loan, and more problematical. Investment properties, in particular, are creating many problems. Since last summer, government loans have required exterior appraisals on investment property (at a cost of about $300 each) and they want to see 30% equity - difficult in the current market. Fortunately, people with investment property have always been comparatively rare on VA and FHA loans due to limits built into those programs. In the last two weeks, however, these standards have spread to conventional Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans, a much bigger problem. Once again, portfolio lenders may be the only alternative. Since portfolio lenders tend to have significantly higher rates, not having 30% equity on an investment property can mean you can't get a loan that makes it worthwhile to refinance, and it might mean you can't qualify to buy a property, even if the investment property is thousands of miles away from your current job. Is this brain damaged, or what? However, it's the way things are right now - and I guarantee your loan officer isn't any happier about it than you are.

Rates are great right now - so much so that it's easy for most people to find better loans than the one they've got. Actually qualifying for that loan is much more problematical, and by "qualifying" I mean meeting all of the underwriting and funding standards so that you actually get that loan (the best loan quote in the world isn't going to do any good if the loan can't be funded). My processor is telling me stories of other loan officers she works with that are losing sixty to seventy five percent of the loans they work with. If you don't think that's having an effect on the prices they have to charge and the margin they need on successful loans, you'd better think again. They can only work on so many loans at once!

The importance of this is much greater for purchases than it is for refinances. On a refinance, you still have your existing loan. If the new loan doesn't get funded, it's usually not such a big deal. You still have the property, you still have the existing loan, and you can try again. On a purchase, you've got a good faith deposit at risk on a ticking clock. One loan getting rejected can mean you lose the deposit, the property, and anything you've spent investigating it.

Given this, what advice do I have to give? Underwriting standards and flexibility vary from lender to lender. Because one lender is not willing to compromise on an issue doesn't mean that nobody is. However, for the average person applying with a direct lender, it's a matter of cut and try. If the loan fails, you have to start all over, and that includes paying for a new appraisal. A new inspection, too, if you have to find a new property because the seller got tired of waiting and sold to someone else. All of this is wasteful of money, not to mention your time and patience.

Brokers, however, have already had experience with what lenders are being hardcore and unreasonable about what issues, and which are acting in a matter closer to sane. Furthermore, if you're the one where they find out with a problem at a particular lender, they can resubmit the loan package elsewhere, and because the appraisal is done in their name, they don't need a new appraisal, and brokers can usually use exactly the same loan package except for one piece of paper.

You also want to choose a loan officer who has the time to argue your case with a particular lender, and motivation to do so. If you're one of fifty loans that month, the loan officer doesn't have the three days I spent arguing with underwriters so that you can get the great rate you have locked in - not to mention losing time on a purchase contract if you have to resubmit to a new lender. If your buyer's agent does loans themselves, it might be worth considering for this reason alone. I would like to think I would have argued just as hard anyway, but I wasn't just arguing about a loan that meant a standard commission to me. I was arguing over a loan that meant not only that, but an agency paycheck as well, and the house my new friends had their heart set on, the months of work we spent picking it out and negotiating the sale, and their deposit. I had all the motivation I could possibly want. My processor was floored that I argued it up as far as I did, and that it worked. Most of the loan officers she works with were letting arguments drop a lot earlier than that. Quite a few are basically just wringing their hands in despair. That seems to be consistent with the stories I'm hearing from consumers elsewhere.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

One of the things that is really helping military families afford good properties is the military housing allowance and the way that lenders treat it, making it much easier for them to qualify with regards to debt to income ratio, while the magic bullet of VA loans makes loan to value ratio essentially a non-issue. Between these benefits, the military is sitting pretty for being able to afford housing.

I should mention that this math helps non-military getting a housing allowance just as much, but there are relatively few people outside of the military receiving a housing allowance.

Receiving a housing allowance actually works out far more advantageously for purposes of loan qualification than if they just paid them the extra money. $X basic salary plus $Y housing allowance is demonstrably more money than a salary of $X+Y. Here's how it works.

To start with, the housing allowance is generally non-taxable. I'm sure you know that's not the case with your basic salary. The $Y extra you get in allowance really is $Y, not the much lesser amount that you would get to keep.

On top of that, the housing allowance is "soaked off" against the expenses of housing on a dollar for dollar basis. In other words, compute your cost of housing - principal and interest on the loan, taxes, insurance, Homeowner's Association dues, Mello-Roos, etcetera. Add them all up. From this, subtract housing allowance. If the housing allowance is more than actual cost of housing, we're all done. You made it, at least on the basis of debt to income ratio. If the costs are more than the allowance, all is not lost. At this point, you have to add in other debt service to whatever is left, but then so long as you are less than the normally allowed debt to income ratio as compared to your regular salary, you still qualify. Is this a great country, or what?

Here's a concrete example of how it all works: Let's say you make $3000 per month salary from the military. In addition to that, you get a $2000 housing allowance. You have other monthly debts of $250, and you want to buy a property where the monthly expenses of owning it (principal and interest on sustainable loan, taxes, and insurance, or PITI) are $2500. If you made that $5000 per month as a regular working schmoe, you would be told you aren't likely to qualify. Your "front end" ratio would be 50%, and adding the other monthly debt service makes 55%. Normal guidelines are 45% "back end" (housing plus all other debt service) for conforming loans, and you're way over that on the front end alone. Maybe in some circumstances such as disability or retirement income with a "walks on water" credit score, that might be accepted by one of the automated loan underwriting systems, but under manual underwriting rules you are dead in the water.

As the beneficiary of that housing allowance, however, things are quite different. The $2000 housing allowance draws off housing expense dollar for dollar, not at the 45% ratio of the rest of your salary. Instead of $1 enabling you to have forty-five cents of housing expense, it enables your to have $1. So subtract $2000 housing allowance from $2500 housing expense, and you have $500 left over.

If housing allowance was $2500 against that $2500 housing expense, or to use the general case, if housing expense was less than or equal to housing allowance, we'd be done, at least on the grounds of debt to income ratio. We're not done yet in this case, but the remaining $500 of housing expense plus $250 of other debt service equals $750, which divided by $3000 regular income yields a 25% back end ratio. Since this is less than 45%, bing! Debt to Income ratio works - by which I mean that you are over the most important hurdle in loan qualification.

So there you have an example where somebody making exactly the same number of dollars does not qualify where someone getting part of their salary via a housing allowance does. Since the military is pretty much the only folks that get paid that way (I can't remember the last time I had anyone not in the military with a housing allowance) , advantage: military.

A couple of caveats need to be mentioned and emphasized right now. As should be obvious to the mathematically inclined, Comparatively small amounts of difference make much larger differences to debt to income ratio. Change the PITI payment to $3000, and your debt to income ratio stands at 40 percent, getting close to the ultimate edge of qualification.

You should also be careful that you really can make the payment on the loan. Foreclosure is no fun, as millions can attest right now. Make certain you really can make the payment, considering your family's lifestyle and other bills that may not be monthly debt but would be difficult to eliminate. I have written multiple times warning Never Choose A Loan (or a Property) Based Upon Payment.

Because I am normally careful to quote in terms of purchase price and loan amount and interest rate, I want to say why I did it this way, quoting in terms of payment, in this case. It's a complex subject, and the math gets hairy very quickly, and varies constantly and from market to market and time to time as interest rates and home prices change. Judging by my traffic, people are going to be reading this article months from now, if not years. I wanted a concrete, easily understood example of the subject that's not going to be completely out of line six months from now when the rates have changed and some housing markets are recovering strongly while others are still in the process of crashing.

I also should observe that companies looking to help their employees while conserving costs can do this every bit as much as the military does by carving off a portion of the salary and paying it in the form of housing allowance - but in order to do that, they'd have to admit these people were employees. Pay the social security taxes lots of companies are manipulating the law to avoid, give them all the rights contractors don't have in employment. Of course, the reason why that happens is due to government action. Every time the legislature or some judge adds another cost to having employees or makes it more difficult to terminate those who need to be terminated, they give corporations another reason to avoid hiring them in the first place.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here