Mortgages: August 2019 Archives

If you don't know the answer to this, don't be embarrassed. Lots of alleged professionals forgot the answers to these questions for several years, if indeed, they ever knew. It seems like quite a few still don't know the answer

Loan qualification standards measure whether or not you can afford a loan. By adhering to them, the lenders both lower the default rates and have some assurance the loans they make will be repaid, while borrowers avoid getting into situations where foreclosure is all but certain. Lest you misunderstand, this is a good thing for both the lenders and the borrowers. It isn't like the lenders want to stand there like the Black Knight shouting "None Shall Pass!" They want to loan money - that's how they make profit. But unless you live in a cave, you may have heard of some problems with defaulted home loans of late. You may have heard they're a major problem for both the lenders and the borrowers. Guess what? They are.

From the lender's standpoint, of course, the important thing is that they prevent loaning money to people who can't afford to repay the loan, but the other isn't a trivial concern. Even if they get every penny back when they foreclose, foreclosures are still bad business, with negative impacts on cash available to lend, regulatory scrutiny, and not least important, business reputation.

Going through foreclosure is no fun from a borrower standpoint either. I don't think I have ever seen or even heard of a situation where somebody ended up better off from having gone through foreclosure than they would have been if the lender had just denied the loan in the first place. So whether you like it or not, the lenders are doing you a favor to decline your loan when you're not qualified.

There are many loan qualification standards, but the two most important ones are debt to income ratio, often abbreviated DTI, and loan to value ratio, often abbreviated LTV. The first of these is much more important than the second, but both are part of every single loan.

Debt to Income ratio is a measurement of how well your monthly income covers your monthly payments. It is measured in the form of a percentage of your gross monthly pay, averaged over about the last two years. The permissible number can change somewhat depending upon credit score in some situations, and with enough in the way of assets in others, but the basic idea is you can afford to be paying out 43 to 45 percent of your monthly income in the form of fixed expenses - housing and consumer debt service. You can cancel cable TV or broadband internet, you can cancel your movie club or book of the month - but the items debt to income are concerned with are essentially fixed by your situation. You owe $X on student loans, and you're required to repay so many dollars per month. Your mortgage payment is this, your pro-rated property taxes are that, your homeowners insurance and car payments and credit cards are these others. There's no possibility of this money suddenly disappearing - you already owe it, and you are obligated to repay on thus and such a schedule.

Loan to value ratio is not a measure of whether you can afford the loan. It is a measurement of how likely the lender is to get its money back if you do default. With appraisal fraud and similar problems, it's not any kind of a magic bullet - but it is the best they have. When values are rising quickly and holding onto a property for six months generates a 10% profit, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the lenders are willing to take more risks with loan to value ratio than they are in the reverse situation. Many properties have lost value and even if the borrowers had kept up the payments before default, they would still owe more than the property is worth.

Lenders aren't going to refinance on good terms if you're "upside down" or even close to it. But being upside down is not a big problem so long as you have a sustainable loan situation and can afford your payments. You keep making those payments, eventually you are going to have equity again. You try to get another loan after default and foreclosure, and you'll find out in a hurry that lenders are not forgiving. Kind of like the Wild Bunch in a way - mess with one, you mess with them all. Lots of folks are thinking that the smart thing to do is walk away when you're upside down. Even if they do have a non-recourse loan, they're going to find out soon enough that wasn't so smart. Making the payments on a sustainable loan lowers the balance, and values are going to come back - sooner than a lot of people think. Put the two together, and as long as you can hold out until you have equity again, you're better off making those payments.

These standards do, and always have, arisen out of "cut and try". Experience really is the best teacher - unfortunately getting that experience has a habit of being kind of rough. Experience may also be what you get when you didn't get what you wanted - in this case, a satisfactorily paid loan - but the lenders have regulators after them, and those regulators are sensitive to political pressures, and sometimes regulators won't let lenders do something they really do want to do - like loan money with a level of qualifications regulators look askance at - because if the lender makes enough bad loans, even if they survive financially, the regulators may decide they're doing something they shouldn't, and shut the lender down for predatory lending practices. It takes a long time and a lot of evidence to persuade lenders and regulators and especially investors to relax standards, while a comparatively few bad experiences will have them toughening standards. Over-tightening lending standards has major bad effects upon everyone, including causing foreclosures that would not otherwise have happened, but it's hard to point to any specific victims and there's always idiots with a political axe to grind who will claim the people hurt by over-tightening standards were themselves victims of predatory practice. Right now, both lenders and regulators have been royally burned, and so they don't want to assume any risks they can avoid. This will likely change within a few years, but for now, that's the way it is. You can learn what you need in order to qualify and get your loan approved, or you can go without. Right now, most lenders are too paranoid to care that having their standards too tight means they lose profit, because they've been burned too much, and the money they have in their accounts is not at risk from having made bad loans. When they make between six and eight percent per year on a successful loan, out of which they have to pay taxes, employee wages, facilities costs and everything else, a one in 100 chance of losing the entire investment to a bad loan is unacceptable, and although the default rates on newer loans is practically zero, they're still working through the bad stuff made during the Era of Make Believe Loans.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

The easy, general rule is that legitimate expenses all have easily understood explanations in plain english, they are all for specific services, and if they are performed by third parties, there are associated invoices or receipts that you can see.

Let's haul out the Mortgage Loan Disclosure Statement (California) or Good Faith Estimate (elsewhere), and go right down them line by line. To be certain, it's the HUD 1 form that's really definitive, but you don't get that even in preliminary form until you're signing loan documents, and if it's not on the earlier form it shouldn't be on the HUD 1.

Origination is not a junk fee. It can be excessive, but it is a real fee to pay a real service. Relating to this is Yield Spread on the HUD 1, which is what the lender will pay the broker for a loan on given terms. Origination plus yield spread plus line 808 (Mortgage Broker Commission) is what the loan provider makes if they are a broker. If they're a lender, they make a lot more, and they can hide it more easily. Yield Spread and Origination and Broker's Commission are disclosed on the HUD 1, while the price on the secondary market is not disclosed anywhere, and if you're talking to a direct lender, they don't have to disclose Origination or Yield Spread because there may not be any; they can decide to be paid entirely off the premium the loan sells for in the secondary market - and then they tell you you're buying it down from there with discount points. This is why I keep telling people to shop for loans based upon the terms to you. If you evaluate it on the basis of loan provider's compensation, a broker who has to disclose compensation of $4000 is going to look like a worse bargain that the direct lender who does not apparently make anything but turns around and sells your loan for a $25,000 premium. In this example, the broker's loan is likely to be about a point and a half to two points cheaper to you, but if you evaluate it on the basis of who has to tell you how much they make, you lose.

This has gotten an order of magnitude worse as the new 2010 Good Faith Estimate treats Yield Spread (for brokers) as a cost and requires it be included in the computation of costs. It isn't a cost at all - it's now money that actually reduces your cost. But bankers used political contributions and connections to ram through a law requiring it to be quoted as if it were a cost, thereby making a direct lender loan appear more attractive than it is when compared to a broker originated loan by someone who doesn't understand this - which is to say the vast majority of the American population. Nor do direct lenders have to so much as disclose how much they are going to make selling the loan on the secondary market. The politicians have deliberately obscured actual cost to the consumer in favor of aiding one class of loan provider over another. I'm planning an article that directly compares the exact same loan done on a correspondent or direct lending basis versus a broker originated loan.

Loan Discount Fee is the fee you pay in order to get an interest rate lower than you would otherwise be offered. It is not junk, but you probably don't want to pay it, as most folks never recover the money they pay to get the lower rate via the lower payments and interest rate charges. Note that you are actually getting something for your money - lowered cost of interest over the life of the loan. It's just that it takes longer than most people realize to recover the money you spend upfront. I never pay discount points for anything except a 30 year fixed rate loan that I'm going to keep at least ten years.

Appraisal Fee is not junk. There is an appraiser who needs to get paid for doing the appraisal. Before this year, many times this got marked PFC on the MLDS/GFE, to make it look like a given loan provider was cheaper than they were. Make no mistake, there's going to be a figure in the range of $400 associated with it eventually, but because it's performed by a third party, the loan provider could (and usually did) pretend it doesn't exist as part of the charges until you have to pay it.

Credit Report is not junk. It's not free to run credit, you know.

Lender's Inspection Fee is usually (not always) junk. You're paying the appraiser. If you're smart, you're paying a building inspector before you buy, and the lender often makes you do it even if you don't want to. Every once in a while, there's a home with a documented pest or structural problem that the owner wants to refinance, and that's where this comes in as non-junk.

Mortgage Broker Commission/Fee: Is all a part of how the broker gets paid. Around here the money made is usually expressed as origination and yield spread instead, but this could be part of what a broker gets paid. Origination plus Yield Spread plus this line is the total of what they get paid. If these are larger at closing than when you signed up, that's par for the course most places, unless they guaranteed their fees up front in writing. I do it. I know one other company that does it. Those who are members of Upfront Mortgage Brokers guarantee the total of the items that are their fees, but not the rest of the form. For anyone else, they can and most will change the numbers on these forms within very broad limits (and to illustrate with an example someone recently brought into my office, the difference between one quarter of a point and three points on a $450,000 loan is over $12,000).

Tax Service Fee is not junk, unfortunately.

Processing fee is not junk but it may be negotiable. When it's imposed by the lender, it's not. When it's imposed by the broker, it's to pay the loan processor, which may be negotiated sometimes. Often, some places pretend they're not charging it, while adding a larger margin to origination or discount. It is a real fee, however.

Underwriting fee is real. Lenders charge it to cover paying the underwriters.

Wire Transfer Fee is real, because it costs money to wire money. If you don't need it, don't get it.

Prepaid Interest (line 901) is definitely not junk. This is interest, exactly the same as you're going to pay every month of your loan.

Mortgage Insurance Premium is not junk but may be avoidable.

Hazard Insurance premiums are not junk, either. This money is to put a policy of homeowner's insurance (or renew an existing policy) on the property. Lenders having been burned a few times in the distant past, the insurance policy needs to be in effect from the exact instant they commit their money - half a microsecond later is not good enough for them.

County property taxes are not junk, either (darn!). If you buy during certain periods of the year (e.g. April through June in California), you'll need to reimburse your seller for property taxes they already paid.

VA Funding fee is charged by the VA on VA loans only. Not junk, but if it's not VA, it doesn't have this. As I remember, if you're 10% or more disabled this can get waived.

Reserves deposited with lender are not junk, either. They will be used to pay your fees as they become due. It isn't the lender who owes property taxes and homeowner's insurance. It's you. They're just holding the money.

Title charges: Settlement or Closing Escrow Fee is a real charge to pay the escrow company. Like Appraisal fee, this is often marked PFC, but something like $500 plus $1 per thousand dollars is common.

Document Preparation Fee is mostly real, and actually the lenders do most of it these days. When the title or escrow company need to do it, they will charge fairly steep rates (I've seen $200 for a single sheet document), but you are a captive audience unless you discuss it beforehand.

Notary Fee is to pay the Notary. It's real. It often fell into the PFC trap, previously discussed for Appraisals and Escrow, but you really do need certain documents notarized. Sometimes you can save some money by finding a less expensive notary, but this can bring up other issues, like getting everyone to the same place at the same time.

Title Insurance is real. If it's a purchase, there will actually be two policies of title insurance purchased, one for the new owner and one for the lender. This insures against unknown defects in the title of your property, and yes, title claims happen every day. Lenders won't lend without one. Title insurance is another one of those third party fees that got marked PFC so that less scrupulous loan officers could appear to be less expensive than their competition.

I'm going to mention subescrow fees here, even though they aren't preset onto the form, and are not only junk but also avoidable if your agent did their job. The title company charges them because they are usually asked to do work that is, properly speaking, the realm of the escrow company. But if you choose a title company and escrow firm with common ownership, they will likely be waived.

Government Recording and Transfer Charges are not junk. They are charged by the county, and they are not avoidable, nor should you want to. Recording fees and tax stamps (if applicable) are just part of the cost of doing business. Beware of one provider pretending it doesn't exist while another honestly discloses it.

Additional Settlement Charges. Pest Inspection is the only one on the form, and it is not junk. You want a pest inspection if you're buying the property. The lender can require it in some circumstances upon refinance.

Now, you'll notice that of the permanently etched items on the form, there's not a lot of junk, but everybody keeps talking about high junk fees. What are these, and where are they?

Well, most of the things that people talk about as junk fees aren't junk fees. These are fees like Appraisal fee, escrow, credit report, notary, etcetera. These are, incidentally, half or more of the closing costs for most loans. They may have been hidden from you on the initial form, but they're not junk. They are essential parts of the process, and if you don't see explicit dollar values associated with them, somebody is trying to lie about their fees by not telling you about all of them. It's not like you're going to somehow not pay them. They're just pretending you're not in order to get you to sign up with them.

This has diminished significantly this year with the advent of the 2010 Good Faith Estimate. The regulators may be intentionally deceiving consumers about the costs of broker loans versus the cost of direct lender loans, but they did one thing to the benefit of the consumer - if it's not on the Good Faith Estimate, there are now fewer circumstances where the lender is permitted to raise what they disclose, so there is less pretending a loan is going to be all but free and then socking people for $12,000 in closing costs.

Nonetheless things that really are junk fees are a real problem, but the reason they're not among those listed on the form is that the items listed on the form are mostly real. It's the extra stuff that gets written into the extra lines that you've got to watch out for. It was fine and legitimate for a loan officer to write "Total of lenders fees $995" or however much it was, although the new 2010 Good Faith Estimate no longer permits this. On the HUD 1, these should be broken out into separate charges, but this way the loan officer only has to remember one number. As long as they add up correctly, no harm and no foul, and it doesn't make any difference to you whether it's underwriting and document generation or spa visits for their senior management, it's part of doing business with that lender. What is probably not legitimate is to start writing all kinds of other fees. Miscellaneous fees. Packaging fees. Marketing fees. Legitimate Messenger fees should be something you know about because you need them at the time they happen. But the majority of messenger fees are the title/escrow company trying to get you to pay for daily courier runs that happen anyway. If you choose the right title/escrow combination, you should be able to avoid them in most cases.

It is also a common misconception that all junk fees are lenders junk fees. I don't impose junk fees on my clients, and I do my best to keep title and escrow from doing so. However, coming into situations other loan officers have left behind where it's best to simply go with what's already in place, title companies and escrow companies, in general, appear to impose about an equal amount in junk fees with most loan providers. This is also changing now with the new Good Faith Estimate which makes lenders and loan officers liable for the extra fees - as a result of which title and escrow companies who don't want to lose business are cleaning up their act. I have told more than one title and escrow representative that the first time I end up paying their extra fees out of my pocket will be the last dime their company sees from my clients. Multiply this by the number of loan officers in the country, and you can see that they've suddenly gotten a powerful incentive to treat broker clients, at least, honestly.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

(This is an updated reprint of an article written in February 2007. The Era of Make Believe Loans that made it easier to qualify people for inflated loan amounts ended abruptly a few days later, but the sort of thinking that set people up for later default is still with us)

Not very long ago, a woman who was impressed by my website called because she wanted to get pre-qualified for a loan. "Great!" I told her, and proceeded to ask about her income and her monthly obligations and everything else, and came up with a figure of about $220,000 that she could realistically afford. If you're familiar with San Diego, you know that that's a 1 bedroom condo, or maybe a small two bedroom in a not so wonderful area of town. Even with prices down now, it's definitely not a house. With a Mortgage Credit Certificate, it got to maybe $260,000. If she bought somewhere there was a Locally based first time buyer program also, that would add whatever the amount of the program was, but the only one with money actually available was a place she didn't want to live. If we went so far as to go interest only, we might have boosted the base loan amount as high as $300,000. Severe fixer houses might be had for $350,000 or so - and she had the literature for a brand new $700,000 development. She had her upgrades and drapery all picked out, too. So I tried to be gentle in pointing out that the property appeared to be a bit more than she could afford.

Was she grateful? Heck no! She then asked, "How am I supposed to afford a house with that?" She was spitting mad! She acted like I was personally standing there saying "None Shall Pass!" (about a minute and a half in). "Well, if you won't qualify me for a house, I'll go find someone who will!"

I'm sure she did find someone to tell her she could have a $700,000 loan if she wanted it. Put negative amortization together with Stated Income or NINA, and there are any number of people out there who will not only keep their mouths shut about the consequences to you, but aid and abet you in staying ignorant about those consequences - at least until they've got their $25,000 commission check. And you know, I can do that loan also, if you don't mind that real interest rate adds $100,000 to what you owe over the course of three years and the payment all of a sudden adjusts to over four times what you can afford, and you lose the property and your credit is ruined for at least ten years. Not to mention the fact that rarely do people allow the mortgage payment to go south on its own.

There is no conspiracy keeping you away from home ownership. There is no smoke filled back room deal setting the price of properties such as the one she wanted out of her reach. Lest you be unaware, here in Southern California, we haven't been building enough new housing for the people who want to live here since the late seventies. Those desirable properties are highly priced because they are scarce, and the prices are where they are because that's where the supply of such properties balances the number of people who want them badly enough to pay those prices. Notice that I did not say, "The number of people who can afford those prices." This is intentional. If you want them bad enough, there are lots of loans out there, and at the time, there were lenders eager to make them, such that you could have that dream house - for a while. But the way financing works is like the laws of physics. Specifically, like gravity. It's there, all the time, pulling away, and there is no analog to the ground that holds us up. Think of it as an very tall elevator shaft going both directions from where you start. This month's interest is gravity, pulling you down. What you're paying is like the upward thrust of a rocket, pushing you up. When you make an investment (and a property is an investment), you want to go up, but if pull down is more than thrust up, you start going down instead. Furthermore, we are talking in terms of acceleration, not just velocity. If down is more than up next month, too, you're now going down even faster. And so on and so forth.

But the elevator shaft is never infinite going down, and now ask yourself what happens when you're going down, at a speed you've been building up for months and months, and the elevator shaft ends? I've been watching old cartoons on TV sometimes, and I've noticed that they usually don't show Wile E. Coyote's impact any more, but what just happened to you makes the time he got caught under the anvil, the lit cannon, and the huge falling rock look like a love tap.

Real estate agents don't set prices. The market does that in accordance with supply and demand. In southern California, there's twenty million plus people demanding housing and not enough being built. You want to change this, take it up with politicians. All buyers agents can do is try and find the best bargain out there, while listing agents are trying to get the most possible money.

Your budget is your budget. You make what you make. You spend what you spend. Your savings is what you have saved plus what it has made. You can afford more for a home if you make more, spend less, save your money, and invest it effectively. If you don't do these things, you can't afford as much. Indeed, most people kill their budget voluntarily, by spending more than they need to. It isn't my opinion that matters, or anyone else's. All of these are cold hard numbers. You know what you make, you know what you spend. If you could do better, that's something for you and your family to work with. All a loan officer can do is work with the numbers as they are.

These numbers give the payments you can afford and your down payment. The rates are what they are. The variations in available rates are smaller than most people think. Actually, the largest difference in rates and their associated costs is how much the loan providers want to make for doing your loan (and whether they will admit it). Not the only difference, but the largest one. The second largest difference is in finding the loan program that is the best fit. When you put all of these factors together, if you come up with variations of more than half a percent for the same loan at the same cost, then I will bet money that either the higher quote wants to gouge you badly, the lower rate is not quoting something they can really deliver, or possibly both. The point is this: If someone working with real numbers says that you can afford $X, any pre-qualification or pre-approval you get that's more than about 5% different should set alarm bells ringing.

So now let's revisit Ms. Eyes Bigger Than Her Wallet. She thinks all she has to do is say "Abracadabra!" and the whole thing will work out. But the interest rate is what it is, which means the monthly cost to have that loan is fixed - if she didn't bump it up by wanting something she can't afford. That lender is run by some pretty smart people, who understand all of this extremely well. They have the assistance of some very sharp lawyers in writing those loan contracts. One thing I can absolutely guarantee is that if they don't get their money - all of their money - you will be even unhappier than they are. The upshot is that the vast majority of the people who think they're solving their problems with a wave of some magical wand and the phrase, "Abracadabra!" are in fact doing something Unforgivable to their own financial future, roughly equivalent to pointing that magic wand at their own finances and mangling the pronunciation to "Avada Kedavra"

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

People always assume they'll be able to refinance later. Even most of my articles have it as an implicit assumption.

But what if you can't refinance later?

There are situations where it happens. Many situations, as millions of people are finding out now. When I originally wrote this I was getting large numbers of search engine hits from people who were looking to refinance into another negative amortization loan, but Wall Street had figured out that they weren't good investments by then. Currently, it's due to over-reaction to losses that were,at the root, the lenders and investor's own fault - but the practical upshot is that millions of people who should be able to qualify to buy or refinance cannot. But people don't pay attention to most real estate problems until they're smacked in the face with a cold haddock. With a half million dollar investment on the line, this is roughly equivalent to pigs following a swineherd to the slaughterhouse, but people still do it.

It is one thing for an investor who can afford to lose the entire investment to make a bet on the future of the market. If they win, they win. If they lose, the investment may be gone but they've still got a place to sleep for the night. It was a calculated risk where the dice came up snake eyes. Never any fun to have happen, but survivable. Furthermore, in order to be able to win, it must be possible for you lose.

It is something entirely different to counsel someone to make a bet they cannot afford to lose. If the consequences of a losing bet include homelessness, bankruptcy and might as well be permanent damage to your credit rating which makes it impossible to get started again, that's a different category of bet.

Real Estate loans, done wrong, are a "bet the farm" type bet - on something that nobody involved in the decision making process can control. Not the consumer, not the loan officer, and definitely not the real estate agent who says, "I know someone who can do the loan, and the Payments will be affordable.

There are several things that can prevent someone from successfully refinancing. Some of them may be somewhat under consumer control; most of them are not. These include:

Time in line of work: You can change employers and not fall afoul of this, but changing from employee to self-employed (or vice versa) can mean you don't qualify. Changing careers because the economy means there's no demand for what you used to do is also a turndown for at least two years - potentially forever if the new career doesn't make enough.

Documentation of income can mess you up more than anything else, often for the same reason that time in line of work does. You were getting a regular paycheck and a W-2, now you've gone to self employed, the clients have been a little slow in paying, and you've been very certain to take all of the legal deductions on your tax form. Good for your tax bill, not so hot for your ability to qualify for a loan, particularly if you've had to put more than usual on credit. Once again, the interest expense for business items may be deductible, but it can also put a huge crimp in your debt to income ratio. Not to mention that stated income loans are no longer available anywhere I'm aware of, making life difficult for the small business owner who wants to buy real estate.

Changing from owner occupied to investment property can sink you, particularly with a loan to value ratio over 80 percent. Your employer says you can keep your job, but you've got to move to Timbuktu, which means you can't live here any more, and because you can't live here, you no longer qualify for "owner occupied" loans

Loan guidelines change over time. This one has been a killer problem for a lot of folks of late, as when I first wrote this, guidelines had tightened more in the previous few months than they loosened in the previous ten years, and it's continued to the point where it's gotten ridiculous. No more stated income, no more 100% conventional financing, as neither PMI companies nor second mortgage lenders will touch it right now. The down payment assistance programs are dead. Even if you are one of the folks who still theoretically have significant equity, you may not be able to refinance into something sustainable.

Then there are market problems. If the property has lost value from when you bought, you may owe more than the property is worth. For quite a while I;ve been writing about what a pain it is to refinance when you're upside down, as well as the fact that it's not likely to be an improvement over what you've already got, even with Fannie and Freddie's 125% refinancing program.

I wrote Losing Property Value with Highly Leveraged Properties in March 2006 (updated just a few months ago), when people were still in denial about the problem, or thinking it was somebody else's problem. But the problem is always a possibility, and it's no respecter of anyone's stress level. Life is what happens while you're making other plans.

With this in mind, at least for your own principal residence, you want to have a sustainable, fully amortized loan in place, with a fixed period of at least five years. Actually, I'd be more comfortable with shorter fixed periods now that the air is out of the market. Even if we do lose a little bit more, which I don't think we will here locally, by the time three years are up, values are very likely to be at least 20% higher - and you will have paid down the loan by several thousand dollars. But most people who chose shorter fixed period loans, or Option ARMS (which have no fixed period at all) was the low initial payment allowed them to appear to qualify for the loan for a more expensive property than they could really afford. This is precisely the reverse of how it needs to be done: Figure your purchase price budget using an available thirty year fixed rate loan, and then if you want a loan with a shorter fixed period in order to save interest and closing costs, you still want to stay within the same purchase budget, not choose a loan because that's the only way you can afford the payments on this property that's way beyond your budget. Lest you now have figured it out yet, that's a recipe for personal disaster of a sort that takes many years to recover from, and some people never do recover from it.

For this reason, having an unsustainable loan, where the payments are going to adjust to something you cannot afford later, can change the answer to "Is it a good idea to refinance?" from "No - the available tradeoffs between rate and cost don't save me any money (or don't save enough)" to "Yes - I need to move to a more sustainable loan, and if I don't do it now, I may not be able to qualify later." If the market value of the property may be ripe for deflation, if your employment or income may become unstable or undocumentable, if your payments are predictably going to adjust to something unaffordable within two to three years - in all of those situations I have advised people that refinancing may not put them into what appears to be a better situation now, but if they wait, their current loan is going to become unaffordable and there is a serious chance they will not be able to qualify for another loan when it does. Sometimes the situation can be as simple as loan guidelines are likely to tighten up later - I predicted the demise of 100% conventional financing as a consequence of market deflation almost five years ago. Being temporarily "upside down" on your mortgage or having insufficient equity to refinance well under current guidelines is not a big deal if your loan is a fixed rate fully amortized loan, or even a medium term hybrid ARM. The loan is in place, on terms that you can handle. You keep on making those payments, your lender is happy, your pocketbook can handle it, your loan balance decreases, and prices will come back - sooner than a lot of people think, in the current media hullabaloo. In a year, or two, or three, you'll have equity, be able to sell for a profit, your job or income will be stable and documentable again, and the rough patch will be behind you. It's what happens when you need to refinance now and can't that gets folks into trouble.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

One of the things that always seems to be aiming to confuse mortgage consumers is advertising based upon whether the loan is fixed rate, and for how long.

First, I need to acquaint you with two concepts: amortization and term. The term of the loan is nothing more than how long the loan lasts. How many months or years from the time the documents are signed until it is done. At the end of the term, the loan is over. In some cases, the payoff schedule (or amortization) will not pay the loan off in this amount of time, leaving you with a balance which you must pay off at that time. When this happens, it is known as a "balloon payment."

Amortization is the payoff schedule. In other words, if the term was long enough (it isn't always) how long would it take you to pay the loan off with these payments?

There are four basic types of home loans out there. The first is the "true" fixed rate loan, the second is the "true" ARM, or Adjustable Rate Mortgage, the third is the hybrid, which starts out fixed but switches to adjustable, and finally, the Balloon.

"True" Fixed rate loans have the interest rate fixed for the entire life of the loan. Loan term of a true fixed rate loan is always the same as amortization period. Until you pay it off or refinance, the rate never changes. They are most commonly fixed for thirty years, but are fairly common in fifteen year variety, and widely available in 25, 20, and even 10 year variants, and the 40 year loan is one of those things lenders bring in and out of availability depending upon how badly they need it to sell loans. The shorter the period, the lower the rate will be in comparison to other loans available at the same time, but the higher the payment, as you have to get the entire principal paid off in a much shorter period of time. I seem to always use a $270,000 loan amount, so let us consider that. Making and holding a few background constraints constant, when I originally wrote this the rates from a random lender for a thirty year fixed rate loan was 6.25% at par (no points, no rebate). The 20 was 6.125, the 15 year 5.75. The 15 sounds like a better deal, right? But where the payment on the 30 year fixed rate loan was $1662.43, the payment on the 20 year fixed rate loan was $1953.88, and the payment on the 15 year loan was $2242.11 So you may not be able to afford the payment on the 15 year loan. (This particular lender didn't have 25 or 10 year loans.)

Some thirty year fixed rate loans are available with interest only for a certain period, usually five years, and then they amortize over the last 25 years of the period. Some people do this because they expect a raise in their income over the next few years, and some just do it for cash flow reasons, planning to sell or refinance before the end of the fifth year. Using the example in the preceding paragraph, this would have you making a monthly payment of $1406.25 for the first five years, then $1781.11 for the last twenty-five.

If there is a pre-payment penalty on a thirty year fixed rate loan, it is typically in effect for five years. Considering that over 50% of everybody will refinance or sell within two years, and over 95 percent within five, this is an awfully long time for a pre-payment penalty to be in effect. Practically everyone with a five year pre-payment penalty is going to end up paying it.

"True" Adjustable Rate Mortgages, or ARM loans, are adjustable from day one. The interest rate is, from the time the loan starts, always based upon an underlying rate or index, plus a specified margin. There is no fixed period whatsoever on a "true" ARM. This makes them in general hard to sell, because people cannot plan their mortgage payments, and except for the Negative Amortization loans sold on the basis of a temporarily low payment, these loans have always been very rare.

(If someone offers you a rate that appears way below market rates, like 1%, they are offering you a Negative Amortization loan. The 1% is a "nominal" or "in name only" rate, the real rate on these is month to month variable from the start based upon an underlying index, making this a "true" ARM.)

If there is a prepayment penalty on a "true" ARM, it must therefore be for a longer period than the fixed period, which is zero. You are taking a risk that you will have to pay a pre-payment penalty because the rate did something that you did not anticipate, and you may not be able to afford the payments if the rates change but the penalty is still in effect.

Rate adjustments on ARMs can be monthly, quarterly, biannually, or annually, with monthly being most common, including for every Negative Amortization loan I've ever seen.

The third category is the hybrid loan. Hybrids are often called Adjustable Rate Mortgages, and most loan officers are really talking about hybrids when they discuss ARMs. You should ask if uncertain, but in general, everybody from the lender on down calls them ARMs (I myself almost always call them ARMs), but when you get down to the technical details, they are a hybrid. Hybrids start out fixed rate for a given period, then become adjustable. The overall term of the loan is usually thirty years, but the forty is more likely to be available for hybrid ARMs than for fixed rate. Unlike Balloons, if you like what they adjust to, you are welcome to keep hybrids for as long as they fit your needs. There is no requirement to refinance a hybrid after the fixed period.

Hybrids are widely available with 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 year initial fixed rate periods, and they may also be available "interest only" for the period of fixed rate at a slightly higher interest rate. Two years fixed is typically a subprime loan, and while five and seven and ten year fixed periods are available from some subprime lenders, they are more commonly "A paper" loans. Three is common both subprime and "A paper". Once they begin adjusting, "A paper" typically (not always!) adjusts once per year, while every hybrid subprime I've ever seen adjusts every six months.

WARNING: I often see hybrid loans advertised and quoted as "fixed" rate loans, and you find the fact that they are hybrid ARMs buried in the fine print somewhere. Yes, they are "fixed rate" for X number of years. But this is fundamentally dishonest advertising. This is one of the reasons I keep saying that any time you see the words "Fixed rate," you should immediately ask the question "How long is the rate fixed for?" Please go ahead and ask, for your own protection. Ethical loan officers know that people get sold a bill of goods on this point every day, and so they're not offended. And you don't want to do business with the unethical ones, right?

Now, I am a huge fan of hybrid loans myself. When I originally wrote this, I went so far as to say that I would never have a thirty year fixed rate loan on my own home unless the rates do something economically unprecedented. Well, that has now changed due to the stringency of qualification requirements and how people's economic circumstances can change to make it impossible to qualify for a new loan. The benefit to hybrids is you get a lower interest rate because you're not paying for an insurance policy that the rate won't change for thirty years, without jacking up the minimum payment to something you may not be able to afford. Most people voluntarily abandon their thirty year interest rate insurance policy (also known as "Thirty year fixed rate loan") within about two years anyway. So why would I want to spend the money for that policy in the first place, when I'm likely to only use two or three or five of those years?

Nonetheless, particularly with subprime loans, you need to be careful. I have seen precisely one subprime loan in my life without a pre-payment penalty, and I've seen a lot of loans (at least thousands, maybe tens of thousands - I wasn't counting at the time - where your average real estate agent has seen maybe a few dozen, and your average bank loan officer maybe a few hundred). Many loan providers, even "A Paper" loan providers will stick you with a three or five year pre-payment penalty on a two year fixed rate loan. Why? Because it increases their commission. So if you take one of these loans, you will have a period of time when you don't know what the rate will be doing, but if you refinance or sell during that period, you will have to pay your lender several thousand extra dollars. This puts many people on the horns of a dilemma - whether to keep making payments they can't afford, or pay the pre-payment penalty. The bank wins either way.

One final point about hybrid loans. Once they adjust, they all adjust to the same rate plus the same margin. Unless you need the lower payment to qualify for the loan, it makes no sense to pay three points to buy the rate down on a five year hybrid ARM (or anything else) when it takes eight to ten years to recover the cost of your points. Why? Because you'll never get the money back! When the rate adjusts on the loan you paid three points for (IF you keep it that long), it goes to the same rate as the loan where they would have paid all of your closing costs. Judging by the evidence, most people don't understand this.

The final category of loan that I'm going to discuss here is the Balloon. This is a loan where the amortization is longer than the term. So if the amortization is thirty years, you make payments "as if" it were a thirty year loan, but since the actual term of the loan is shorter, you will have to sell, refinance, or somehow make extra payments to pay it off before the loan term expires. The thing I don't understand is that Balloon rates are typically higher than the comparable hybrid ARM, despite the fact that you either have to come up with a large chunk of cash at the end or sell or refinance prior to that. This makes them a less attractive loan. Furthermore, pre-payment penalties are every bit as common. Balloons are widely available in five and seven year terms with thirty year amortization, and I've seen three and ten, as well. Probably the most common "balloon" loan, though, is for those who do a fixed rate second mortgage, where the best loan available is usually a thirty year amortization with a fifteen year balloon. Since over half of everybody has refinanced within two years anyway, and 95 percent within five, the fact that it's got a fifteen year balloon payment just doesn't affect a whole lot of people, and it shouldn't scare anyone off.

WARNING!: I have seen Balloon Loans mis-advertised in the same way as I talked about with hybrid ARMS a few paragraphs ago. I regard this as even more misleading than advertising hybrid's as fixed. Unfortunately, many states do not have good regulations on rate advertising, and in many others, enforcement is lax. When a loan provider advertises, the entire game is to get you to call, and then control what you see and what you learn from that point on. Your best protection from this is to talk to other loan providers. Shop around, compare offers, tell them all about each others' offers. If something is not real, or it has a nasty gotcha!, if you talk to enough people, somebody will likely tell you about it. If you only talk to one person, you're at their mercy. Even if you somehow ask the right question to discover the gotcha!, the people who do this have long practice in distracting you, or answering another question that somehow seems similar enough that you let it go.

Caveat Emptor



Original here

Everybody knows that you want the lowest rate, and everybody knows that you don't want to pay any money you don't have to, in order to get it. However, not everybody makes the connection that it is always a tradeoff between the two. At any given point in time, each home lender has its own set of tradeoffs in place.

There are two components to the costs of a loan: Closing costs and points. Points have to do with the cost of the money. Closing costs relate to the work that has to be performed in order to get the loan done. These are not junk fees, although junk fees do happen.

Let us consider for a moment the home loan. You want to buy a home for your family, but don't have enough cash. Without somebody willing to loan you the difference, you cannot buy. You check with your family, your friends, your neighbors and they're all tapped out (or say they are). But there's a bank over there willing to loan it if you meet their terms.

The banks are not being altruists, of course. They're making a good chunk of change for doing so. But you would not believe the amount of complaints I hear out sympathetically about how this evil horrible bank is charging all this money and making people jump through all these hoops to get this money ("They want a pay stub! Actually they want two pay stubs! What is the problem with these nazis?"). Fact is that this bank is doing you a favor, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on you so that you can own a home for your family. They are doing something for you that all of your friends and family were unwilling or unable to do: loan you the money to buy a home. I'd say that puts them pretty high on my "nifty list", not "Nazis", but it's your life. When you think about it, they're doing you a favor by making certain you can afford the payments on the loan (It's more than many agents and many loan officers will do), as well as insuring that if something goes wrong and you can't afford the loan, they'll get most of their money back. Real Estate is not sold on a whim. Just after the market peaked, another agent in my office had a listing of an $800,000 home. The family involved makes about $60,000 a year. Their interest alone was 76% of their gross pay, never mind property taxes and insurance. An unscrupulous agent sold them the house based upon the ability to flip it whenever they wanted, and found them a similar loan agent to get them a negative amortization loan so they've got about fifteen hundred dollars a month being added to their mortgage and they still can't make the payment. But real estate is not like stock; you can't sell it at will. The market cooled just a little bit. They lost their entire investment before they even came to us, and they came to our office to get it sold before worse things happened, and we did everything that could be done, and still nobody wanted to buy it until the price was reduced.

There's a lot of this out there. You would likely be amazed at the loans a competent loan officer can still qualify people for, and that if you understood what you were getting into, you'd drag them into the sunlight and run a wooden stake through their hearts before running away, instead of believing them to be your friend. I'd have gotten an extra client a week, at least, if I didn't sit down with the people to find out what they can really afford before I showed them the $800,000 house that's going to get me paid a Huge Pile Of Money, when I really should be telling them about 2 or 3 bedroom condominiums, or even telling them to continue renting. It's hard to get a client enthusiastic about a 900 square foot 2 bedroom condo when someone else is showing them a 5 bedroom 2800 square foot House! With It's Own Yard! No Shared Walls! and telling them they Know Someone Who Can Get The Loan! Well, I could have gotten them the loan, too, if they really wanted it, but it really doesn't help them if they can't make the payments. The world will catch up to those other agents and loan officers, and I put a certain value on the good opinion of the man in the glass.

Getting back to the issue of closing costs, there is work that has to be done before you get your loan. The people who do that work are entitled to be paid. You don't work for free. They're not going to work for free. As I have covered elsewhere, realistic closing costs without junk fees are about $3400, and can easily be higher. The bank is not just going to absorb these costs because they're going to make money off the loan. They have money, and if you want them to loan it to you, you need to meet their conditions.

Each home loan, whether the lender intends to sell it or not, has a value on the secondary market. They also cost the lender a certain amount (they have to pay for all money they lend, whether by borrowing or by opportunity cost). Based upon these two facts, the lender sets a level of discount points or rebate for each rate for each type of loan. When you pay discount points, you are actually paying the lender money in order to buy a rate that you would not otherwise be able to get. When there is a rebate, it means that the lender will pay out money for a loan done on those terms. A rebate can be thought of as a negative discount, and vice versa. Whatever the level it is set at by the lender, there's going to be an additional margin so that the broker or loan officer can get paid, even if the loan officer is an employee of that lender. This margin is not necessarily smaller by going direct to a lender - actually a broker usually has a better margin than that lender's own loan officers. As I say elsewhere, the supermarket banks often have their best rates posted, and I'm usually getting someone a better loan (lower cost/rate tradeoff) with the same lender.

But within a given type of loan, the lender always sets the loan discount higher for the lowest rate. The lower the rate, the higher the discount and the higher the rate the lower the discount. Choose the lowest rate, and pay not only closing costs but the highest discount as well. Whether it's coming out of your checkbook or being added to your mortgage, you are still paying it. Choose a somewhat higher rate, and there will be no discount points, just closing costs. There's a name for this rate where there's no points but no rebate; it's called par. Rates below par involve discount points, rates above par will get you some or all of your closing costs paid by the bank or broker.

Many people will want the lowest rate; after all that has the lowest payment. But it is (or should be) the client's choice, not a choice made for them by the loan officer. It's actually easier to qualify for lower rates, because the payment is lower. However these lower rates can be costly, because the fact is that the median mortgage age in this country is about two years, and fewer than 5% of all loans are more than 5 years old. This means there's a 50% chance you've refinanced (or sold and bought a new home) within two years, and over 95% within 5 years. The exact numbers vary over time, but I see no reason for these consumer habits to change. Furthermore, I'm a consumer, and so are you. There are people who bought a place and paid off their 30 year loan and now own the property free and clear, but they are rare these days. Much more common is the person who bought their house in the 1970s, has refinanced ten or twelve or fourteen times, and now owes ten times the original purchase price. More common yet is the person who's on the third, fourth, or fifth house since then. You might be one of the first group, or you might not be, pretend you are, and be hurting only yourself. It's likely to be a costly illusion.

Let's look at three different 30-year fixed rate loans. All of them start from needing $270,000 in loan money. Rates are lower now than when I first wrote this, but the comparison of results is still valid.

Loan 1 gets a 5.5% rate, but has to pay two points to get it, so his loan balance starts at $270,000 plus $3400 plus two points, or $278,980. He paid $8980 to get his loan. Loan 2 gets a 6% rate at par, and his loan balance starts at $273,400, because he only had to pay $3400 to get the loan. Finally, Loan 3 chooses a 6.5% loan where all closing costs are paid for him by the bank or broker. His loan balance starts at $270,000.

Your first month interest with Loan 1 is $1278.66, and principal paid is 305.36, on a payment of $1584.02. Loan 2 pays $1367.00 interest and $272.17 principal with a loan payment of $1639.17. Loan 3 is going to pay interest of $1462.50, principal of $244.08, and have a total payment of $1706.58. So far, it's looking like Loan 1 is the best of all possible loans, right? But look two years down the line when 50 percent of these people have refinanced or sold:

Remember, the original balance was $270,000. Loan 1 has paid $2130 less in interest the Loan 2, while Loan 3 has paid $2301.92 more. Furthermore, Loan 1 has paid down $7728 in principal, while Loan 2 has only paid down $6921 and Loan 3 still less at $6237. It's really looking like Loan 1 was the best choice.

But remember, 50% of all loans have refinanced or sold within two years. When you refinance or sell, the benefits you paid money to get stop. But the costs to get those benefits are sunk on the front end, and you're not getting them back. Look at the balance of Loan 1. The person who chose this still owes $271,251 - $1251 than they did before they chose the loan in the first place. Furthermore, his balance is $4773 higher than loan 2, and even though he paid $2130 less in interest, he's still $2643 worse off. Furthermore, whether he refinances or sells and rolls the proceeds over into a new property, the new loan is going to be for $4773 more money than Loan 2's new loan. Assume everybody got a really fantastic new loan at 5%. Loan 1 is going to have to pay $238 more per year to start with in interest expense for his new loan, simply because his remaining balance on the old loan was higher. Loan 3 is in even better shape than Loan 2. He's paid $2301.92 more in interest, but his balance is $2715.99 lower, for a net benefit over loan 2 of $414, not to mention that his interest costs on his new loan will be almost $136 lower simply because his starting balance is lower.

Now let's look 5 years out, when over 95% of the people will have sold or refinanced.

At this point, Loan 1 has saved $5353 in interest relative to Loan 2, while Loan 3 has spent $5783 more. Loan 1 has cut his balance difference to $3535 more than Loan 2, so he looks like he's ahead! Furthermore, Loan 3 is really lagging, having paid $5783 more in interest although the difference in balance is only $1660 to his good.

Well, loan 2 is ahead of loan 3 pretty much permanently at this point. Assuming all three refinance or sell and buy a new property with a 5% loan right now, Loan 3 is only going to get back $83 per year of the $4122.80 he's down relative to Loan 2. Especially considered on a time value of money, that's permanent. But despite Loan 1 being ahead of Loan 2 right now, Loan 2 will get back almost $177 per year. Ten years on, assuming a ver low 5% rate, loan 2 is back to even, and most of us are going to be property holders the rest of our lives. Consider also that 95% of the people who chose loan 1 NEVER got this far - they never broke even in the first place.

The point I'm trying to get across is that money you roll into your balance hangs around a very long time. And you're sinking potentially many thousands of dollars into a bet that most people lose. Yes, if you keep the loan long enough, the lower rates (at least for thirty year fixed rate loans) will pretty much always pay for themselves, several times over in many cases. The other point I'm trying to make is that most people don't keep their loan long enough for the benefits to pay for their costs to get those benefits.

As a final consideration, consider what happens if one year later interest rates are one-half percent lower. I can get Loan 3 the same loan that Loan 2 has for zero cost. He's got the same interest rate as Loan 2, whom I can't help right now, but a lower balance - neither one of his loans cost him anything. And it has happened that the rates dropped down to where I could get someone 5.5% on a thirty year fixed rate loan for zero - lender pays me enough to pay all the closing costs. Net to them, zip. Suppose rates do this again. I call Loan 2 and Loan 3, and now they've both got 5.5 %, but this doesn't help Loan 1. Now Loan 2 has the same as Loan 1, while only adding $3400 to his balance to get it, as opposed to Loan 1 adding nearly $9000, and Loan 3 has the same loan without adding a dime to his balance. Who's in the best position?

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

The short answer is not only "yes" but "damned straight"

I refinanced my house, and the lender put as one of my payoffs my Acura lease that I have 3 years left, whick equals about $19,000. I told him that was a lease and not a credit card, and he said he would take it off. I'm supposed to get my money tomorrow wired to me, but when he sent me a good faith estimate to sign today the Acura lease was still there. He said I would have to take it like that cause he forgot. I'm not gonna pay $20,000 on a 3 year lease left for a 30 year fixed rate refi!!! In the end I will have paid over $40,000 for a car I will only have for 3 more years. Can he do this to me? I need the money and signed everything else??? Please help

The first thing you have to understand is that THE most important measure of whether you can likely afford a loan is your debt to income ratio. If you make $5000 per month gross and you have to pay $3000 of it in debt service that's a 60% debt to income ratio.

Debt to income ratio is total cost of housing PLUS contracted monthly outlays divided by gross monthly income. It includes student loans, car leases as well as car purchase payments - everything you have contracted to pay out on a periodic basis. They want to measure how well you can afford to make payments out of continuing income. In the email quoted above, I see warning signs of being over-extended already.

For myself, I don't like the idea of refinancing a short term debt into a long term debt. I don't like suggesting it to clients - while debt consolidation refinance can be powerfully beneficial, there are huge traps that most people fall into. The benefits only happen if you keep making the equivalent of the same payments, and only if you keep doing it longer than the consolidated debts would have lasted. If you're doing it for reasons of cash flow, the only justification is to keep yourself out of bankruptcy. This person seems to understand that debt consolidation is generally a bad thing, but wants some cash out that they really can't afford.

That is the only reason a loan officer should broach the idea of debt consolidation. Unfortunately, it happens far too often because loan officers are paid on the basis of loan size. Larger loan equals bigger paycheck. Also, all too many consumers understand only cash flow, and that cutting their payments means they apparently have more money to spend on entertainment, travel, toys, or whatever else their personal desires point them towards.

The basic challenge illustrated, however, is that in order to qualify for the loan, this person does not make enough money - or hasn't proven they make enough money - to satisfy the underwriting guidelines on debt to income ratio. In plain English, they cannot afford the loan they are contemplating. Perhaps they could afford it if they only had the home loan, but they have car payments, car leases, student loans, credit cards, and installment payments on other goods as well. All of these are contracted monthly outlays. You must continue to pay them.

(Believe me, you don't want to tell a prospective lender you want to stiff existing creditors! They don't take it well)

The homeowners nonetheless want the money. The email didn't say why, but I strongly suspect it's a desire rather than a need. So the loan officer is trying to find a way to get it to them by qualifying them for the loan. It's within the context of serving the client's perceived "needs", and yet it rarely serves client interests. There are damned few loan officers who reflexively use this kind of red flag as a reason to sit and and consider whether the client real interests are served by the loan; after all, if the answer is "no" they don't have a loan and they don't get paid. I try, and I usually find out later that they got a worse loan from someone else because they didn't want to tell me they appreciated my concern but wanted to do it anyway. Nonetheless, if loan officers supposedly have a fiduciary responsibility (and we do) it should be an obvious requirement for situations where the client may be compromising their long term ability to afford the loan. I doubt the results of the Era of Make Believe Loans would have been so devastating if consumers in this situation had some mandatory protections in the form of counseling on the effects of getting this money. This is one thing that should have been done in response to the overextension of credit to so many homeowners, and wasn't. Might have something to do with the fact that the big banks make large campaign contributions, while homeowners, not so much.

There are tricks that enable the lowering of debt to income ratio, and debt consolidation is the chief of those. It has perils for the consumer, but it does exist. By spreading the principal payments over 30 years (and usually by lowering the interest rate), debt to income ratio can be greatly lowered. This gets the loan approved, which means the consumer gets the money they want and the loan officer and their company get paid. Win-win in the present tense. All too many of these, however, sabotage that homeowner's financial future - it just takes a while for that to be apparent.

Keep in mind, the question is not "Do they owe this money?" They do. There is no question about that. Nor are their existing debts the moral responsibility of a real estate loan officer. The question is whether a way to restructure the debt exists that both qualifies this homeowner for the new loan they want, and does not unduly compromise their financial future. The question for the lender and the underwriter, however, is even more concrete: Does the new loan or loan structure comply with underwriting guidelines such that there is a reasonable expectation of future payments being made on time? That is the bottom line. If the projected monthly payments are too high, the answer to the question is "no", so people go looking for ways to lower those monthly payments and change the answer to "yes."

A $500 car payment that would have been paid off in 3 years may add only $100 or so to a real estate loan payment. If the homeowner makes $5000 per month, that cuts their debt to income ratio by about 8% right there. For a loan officer, 8% off Debt to Income Ratio is a huge amount, and I've seen situations where debt consolidation cuts 20% off a Debt to Income ratio. When 45% is the cutoff, consolidating debt can make a huge difference in a homeowner's ability to qualify. The trick is for it not to lock the consumer into a situation where a year from now they've got to have a new car to get to work because the old one disintegrated, and there's just no way they can afford it. The lender and underwriter do not care about that. They care whether the projected monthly cost of housing plus debt service is within guidelines.

I don't know by how much, but its apparent this person is in that kind of situation. They want the money, but given their other debts, they can't afford it without consolidating their other payments into the loan. The homeowners have the right to refuse, but then the lender has the right to refuse to fund the loan. It is a strict quid pro quo: cut your payments by this much (in addition to whatever other underwriting requirements there may be) and we will fund your loan. Don't, and we won't. While declining to consolidate may be the smart thing to do in many situations, most consumers decide they want whatever benefit the loan has enough that they decide to do what the lender requires. It is the homeowner's choice, but the bottom line is that if you want the loan in such a situation, then yes you have to do it.

Caveat Emptor

Somebody asked me about a deferred payment mortgage for a purchase. The long and the short of the story is that they don't have any cash to put down, and they can't qualify for the payments under any kind of reasonable debt to income ratio.

A few years ago, in the era of Make Believe Loans, we could have gotten this person a loan. It wouldn't have been the smartest thing in the world, but we could have done it. I'm confident I would have turned him off the idea back then too, as I did many others who hated me then but may now be reconsidering. Most have figured out that the loan officers who had a policy of "just shut up and get paid for putting the loan through" were not their friends after all.

Even then, however we would have to have dealt with calculating debt to income ratio, as well as the fact that purchase money loans evaluate the property on a lower of cost or market basis, where the appraisal is the "market" and the official purchase price is "cost." Since it's the lesser of the two values that is used, there is never equity at purchase in excess of whatever down payment you make, at least as far as the lender is concerned.

A paper fixed rate loans use the fixed rate of the loan for calculating front end ratio. They are permitted to use a higher rate than actual, but not a lower one. If your rate is 6%, and they use 6.25% because the rate isn't actually locked on a $300,000 thirty year fixed rate loan, the number they will use is $1847.16. This is not an arbitrary number; it's the most important measurement of whether or not you can afford the loan. The front end ratio, which is the loan payment itself, is not generally a deal breaker if it's too high, but the back end ratio, which is the loan combined with taxes, insurance, homeowner's association, and all your other monthly debt service, is a deal breaker - as well as the most important measurement of whether you can afford the loan. Those other numbers are all fixed based upon your situation. You owe what you owe, property taxes are what they are, and you only make what you make - or actually, as far as the lender is concerned you make what you can prove you make. I've written against overstating your income from the very first on this site.

Why do they use the higher number? As insurance against available rates going higher. If rates decline and you can actually lock in something better (or for a lower cost), no problems ensue. But if that payment goes up at all when you go to lock the loan, that means the file has to go through another complete underwriting. One dollar per month or ten thousand, it makes no difference. Up is up. So to avoid that, loan officers who are not complete doofuses add a quarter percent or so to the rate they expect in order to generate a "qualifying rate" and "qualifying payment" with some room for error when the loan isn't locked. That way if things do get worse, the whole process doesn't have to start all over again. (Regular readers will understand it's really about the tradeoff between rate and cost, but a higher cost for the same rate also triggers re-underwriting, albeit focused on cash to close rather than debt to income ratio)

When you move to A paper ARMs, the allowable back debt to income ratio actually goes down, usually to 38% from 45%. Not only that, but the rate used to compute the payments is usually much higher than actual. The calculations require the use of, not the initial rate on the note, but the final, fully indexed rate on the note. They use current rate for the underlying index the ARM is based upon, plus the rate margin. Say the initial loan rate is 5.25% but the underlying index is at 4.75% plus a margin of 2.25%, they will use 7% for the purposes of determining whether or not you actually qualify for the loan. In the $300,000 example above, this means they'll use $1995.91, even though the actual rate and payment is lower - and due to lower maximum debt to income ratio, the ceiling on what you can afford at a given income level will be lower. Depending upon the lender, they may even add a bit of a margin to that qualifying rate. This makes it significantly harder to qualify for an A paper hybrid ARM than a fixed rate loan, even though the rates and payments are lower, and is certainly one reason why there aren't more of these loans out there. Nonetheless, this procedure they use for qualification does mean that someone who manages to qualify should be able to afford whatever the payment eventually adjusts to.

One of the reasons subprime loans got so popular was that they stopped using this method of determining whether an applicant qualified for the loan. The subprime lenders started qualifying applicants based strictly upon the minimum initial payment, despite the fact that they knew good and well that the payment was going to adjust upwards at a known time. Even if the initial payment was "interest only" or negative amortization. They just assumed that the people would get raises, be able to refinance with increased equity, or just be able to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps, or something else equally hope based. Three strong verses of "Kumbaya" would have been about as intelligent, but it worked so long as Wile E. Coyote didn't look down. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that this is one of the reasons why subprime crashed so hard, especially in conjunction with stated income loans. Because this made it absurdly easy to qualify for a loan, especially a larger loan than people could really afford, subprime loans were ridiculously popular for a while, even among people who should have been able to qualify for A paper had they limited their budget to what they could afford. When the adjustments hit, it was predictable as gravity that those folks who qualified subprime couldn't make their payments. When the market values stopped rising so quickly that they supported serial refinancing, it didn't take very long for large scale problems to emerge. In the overall scheme of things, subprime loan qualification was good for real estate agents who wanted easy commission checks, irresponsible loan officers, and people with the sense to cash out of the market while things were still going crazy. For the people who applied for subprime loans, not so much.

You should want to qualify with the toughest standards you can meet, preferably A paper full documentation, and even the A paper ARM standards if you can, but this concept was a little bit difficult to get across to the people who already had their hearts set on a property that was way too expensive for them, especially when everyone else is encouraging the speculative atmosphere. It got to the point where newspapers were running articles on "What's a fair margin over index for negative amortization loans," when the correct response would have been, "RUN AWAY."

The whole situation is enough to make you understand exactly how many people outsmarted themselves in pretty much the same wise as the people pictured in this clip:

Unlike the fictional characters portrayed, however, the consequences for borrowers who get in too deep does not end when the director yells, "Cut!" You might want to bear this in mind when figuring out exactly how much loan you can really qualify for. Even the subprime lenders who survived have now figured it out, proving that even the silliest English Knight ("Ca-niggit") can learn when the pain gets bad enough.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Been reading some of your informative tips. I am looking at refinancing and getting a $378000 mortgage. Now in the case of having a 3 yr prepay penalty, vs paying 1.5% in points to make it a 1 yr prepay, am i right in assuming it's wiser for me to pay the points than accept a three yr prepay when i know I will sell/move within 2 yrs? Any info you can provide would be great. I'm wondering if I'm missing something here.

I think they (sic) points would cost me around $5800.

I compute 1.5 points on $378,000 as being approximately $5756.

Here in California, the maximum prepayment penalty is six months interest, and that is the industry standard nationwide for when there is a prepayment penalty. A few lenders will pro-rate it, but for the vast majority, they will charge the same penalty on the day before it expires as on day one. This is pure profit, and they're generally not going to turn down pure profit any more than most people will turn down a bonus. So if your interest rate is 6 percent, you're going to pay a 3 percent prepayment penalty if you sell or refinance before the prepayment penalty expires. For Negative Amortization loans, the prepayment penalty is based on the real rate, not whatever fake come-on "nominal" rate they told you about.

On some loans, the prepayment penalty is triggered by paying any extra money. One extra dollar and GOTCHA! But probably eighty percent of loans with prepayment penalties give you the option of paying it down a certain amount extra each year, usually 20 percent, without triggering the prepayment penalty. (That's 20% of the balance at the beginning of the year, but making a flat payment of 20% will trigger the penalty because you're also paying it down with your monthly payments).

Assuming that it is a case of you won't move in less than one year, this is equivalent to the prepayment penalty on a loan with interest rate of between 3.05% (100 percent prepayment penalty) and 3.81% (80% prepayment penalty). Since even the 1 month LIBOR was a little over 3.8 percent when I originally wrote this, it was a cut and dried case of pay the point and a half.

Of course, if there is a possibility that you will need to move in less than one year, paying these 1.5 points could well be a costly exercise in futility. I can't begin to gauge that risk without more information. But if you're in any number of professional situations ranging from the military to corporate executive, this is common.

Given that you're talking about prepayment penalties, you're likely in a subprime situation. Subprime, when I originally wrote this, had a fairly uniform rate of 1.5 points of cost equals 3/4 of a percent on the interest rate. I'm going to assume you're getting about a 6.25% rate. If you decided to buy it off via rate, you'd be looking at a 7% rate. These days, the few subprime lenders still in business are looking for "A paper" borrowers who don't realize they're "A paper" borrowers.

Let's punch in the two loans. $383,750 (balance with 1.5 points) at 6.25% gives you a payment of $2362.81. Running it out 24 months gives you a balance of $374,467. You have spent $56,708 on payments.

378,000 at 7% gives you a payment of $2514.84. Running it out 24 months gives you a balance of $370,043.00, and you've spent $60,356 on payments, while paying your balance down $7957.

Now, assume you sell the home for $X at the end of this period. The first loan saves you $3648 in interest. The second loan gives you $4424 more in your pocket in two years. The second loan, with the higher interest rate and higher payment, as opposed to the higher balance, nonetheless saves you $776 as opposed to the loan with the lower interest rate, and also leaves you more money with which to buy your next home, which means lower cost of interest on your next home loan, as well. Of course, this is subject to some pretty significantly naked assumptions as I don't know anything more about your situation. Furthermore, it assumes that your income is not marginal, and that you would qualify for both loans. It is perfectly possible that you would qualify for the lower payment, and hence the lower rate would be approved, but not be able to qualify for the higher payment associated with the higher rate (The reverse is not the case). Finally, I assumed that because you know you're going to have to move in two years, you are looking at a two or three year ARM in the first place, as opposed to a longer fixed term.

I hope this helps you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

This question brought someone to the site

Can I change lenders after the loan is approved?

The answer is yes, but you need to start the loan process all over again.

Actually, you can change lenders any time you want to, just like you can refinance at any time. It may be expensive, it may be counter-productive, and it may or may not be an intelligent choice, but it is your choice. It's not like the lender can do anything about it. Deciding not to consummate a particular loan may also be the smartest thing you could possibly do, especially if you were significantly lowballed on the initial quote.

There can be external factors that prevent you from doing so. If you owe $500,000 on a property that has fallen in value to $450,000, you're not going to be able to refinance on any kind of decent terms unless you pay that loan down. If your credit is no longer as good as when you last got a loan, if your monthly bills are too high a proportion of your income, or any of a couple dozen other possible reasons, you won't be able to obtain financing as good as your current loan. This doesn't mean that you cannot legally decide to take something less advantageous. People voluntarily took out negative amortization loans right up to the moment the lenders did away with them and then people screamed they couldn't get them anymore. It didn't matter how much they hurt themselves - they wanted the low payments. It's all tied up in the freedom thing, even if it does mean you're free to make mistakes.

Just because you are free to change lenders, does not mean that there will not be consequences. That's also part of the freedom to make your own mistakes. It can be very expensive to change lenders. You are basically back to square one when you change lenders, a fact many loan providers make rapacious use of when they pull a bait and switch routine. I add that in the vast majority of these cases, that bait and switch was planned with malice aforethought, as you know if you're a regular here.

When you decide to begin the process over, you may or may not have to do everything over. If you're at a direct lender, there's no alternative. You have to do the loan paperwork all over. Credit Report and everything else, application and all the disclosures. Most folks are going to have to get a new appraisal. If you put down a deposit with the lender, you're likely to lose it. They did all of this work, and they're not getting paid for a funded loan. It's rare that lenders will refund deposits. That's why they require them, to commit you to the loan and prevent you from changing your mind. Mind you, the consequences of agreeing to a bad loan are usually much worse than losing the deposit, but people are silly about cash deposits. There's a good chance that if the lender requires a deposit, they're a lender you don't want to be doing business with in the first place.

When you change lenders even though you're staying with the same broker, the consequences are much smaller. Since the application, etcetera, should have all been done in the broker's name, the loan officer has to begin the underwriting process all over, but the basic paperwork is pretty much the same. They have to give you new copies of the required paperwork reflecting the new loan, but that's it. On the other hand, if there's something underhanded going on, it's almost certainly the doing of the loan officer, so staying with the same brokerage is likely to be perpetuating the problem. This applies to direct lenders as well.

There is always a moment of truth in every loan, when the final loan papers are presented. If they do not reflect what you were led to believe in order to get you to sign up, you probably shouldn't sign them. Many people do sign loan documents that amount to shooting themselves in the head financially. Refusing to sign can cost you money, make no mistake. But agreeing to bad loans will usually cost you more. Nor are you legally committed to that lender until, well, at least after you sign the note, and not completely until the loan is funded and recorded.

It is comparatively rare that you should sign loan papers if the loan you are agreeing to is not what you were lead to expect. There is no "Get Out of Contracts Free" card in the real world, and once that loan is funded, you are bound to all of the terms of the contract, and this includes not only high potential costs and rates, but prepayment penalties and everything else.

With that said, I should talk about one reasonably common exception: Purchase money loans. The escrow period in purchases runs only so many days, and you have to have everything done during that period, or the good faith deposit you made to hold the property is at risk. It's still usually a good idea to negotiate an extension on your purchase escrow rather than agree to a bad loan or even a less good loan, but there are cases where it can be smarter to sign the loan documents now and refinance later.

For refinancing your primary residence, just because you sign documents does not mean you are stuck. There is a federally mandated three day right of rescission when you refinance your primary residence. It's not a good idea to sign just because you can rescind later; that three days is gone before most people are realize it. The rescission period is a last chance to avoid disaster, and signing loan documents can commit you to paying certain costs and fees even if you later rescind. Better not to sign in the first place if you find a problem, and you should always look for problems before you sign.

Just because you signed and the loan funded does not commit you to it for ever and ever. You are always legally free to refinance or sell. There may be prepayment penalties, and you won't get the costs you paid to get the loan you are replacing loan back, but if you're at nine percent interest rate and you can have six on terms as good or better, it's likely to be worth going through the paperwork and paying any prepayment penalty. The math may say otherwise in specific cases, but that is once again a matter of specific situation versus broad rule. Prepayment penalties don't mean you cannot refinance, they only raise the opportunity costs of doing so. Lenders put them into contracts because they not only raise that opportunity cost, they also provide a good boost to their profit if you do jump over that raised bar.

So you can change lenders at any time. There may be reasons not to do so, but that doesn't mean you cannot do it. In every situation, the answer as to whether you should is in your contract and in the math, and it may take a good amount of informed professional judgment to help you make the choice, but that choice is always yours.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

First, I just got engaged, and my fiancee and I have been discussing what we want in a house after we get married. It will be the first house for both of us. She spent the last two years living with her parents to pay down her credit card debt.

So she doesn't have a current rental history. Given that she makes more than I do, if we purchase together, my understanding is she will be the primary borrower. Thanks to your site, I've figured out what I can afford without her, and it isn't what we are looking for.

My questions are:

1. Are lenders going to be reluctant to loan to us if she doesn't have a recent rental history? If so, how much time would a lender require.

2. Once we figure out when we are going to be ready to buy, how early is too soon to get a buyer's agent and start looking?

Yes, lenders are more reluctant to lend to you with insufficient rental history. What they are looking for there is a verifiable history of making regular payments for housing.

Used to be, A paper lenders wanted two years history of making housing payments on time, and might have waived it down to twelve months in some cases. Sub-prime generally wanted the same two years, but it's pretty easy to get it waived down to one year, and occasionally possible to get it way down. Three months in one loan I did about two years ago. All the way down to zero? Probably not.

For a while, with the general loosening in underwriting requirements, this had largely gone by the wayside. One of my favorite A paper wholesalers called as I was originally writing the article, and I asked him about Verification of Rent, and he said "We just don't require it any more unless there's something fishy about the situation." Basically, it's up to the underwriter and whether they make it a requirement for the loan. With the way the investor market has changed due to recent losses, Verification of Rent (aka VOR) has become more important again, but it's one of the few things they will still consider waiving if the rest of your credit and financial picture is strong enough. You can never count on getting it waived, but if you're strong enough otherwise, it does still happen.

There are potential ways to satisfy the requirement, even if they're being a stickler. If your fiancee has been paying rent to her folks, it's likely that the lender will accept canceled checks for six to twelve months as evidence that she has been paying rent. In the case of family situations like this, they want to see real solid evidence of the rent payments being made on time, they want to see that the checks were written and cashed at appropriate times, and they will not, generally speaking, accept a family member's word for it unsupported by paperwork. When you're renting an apartment or something from an unrelated third party, that third party has no particular motivation to paint your situation as being better than it is and they will usually accept that person's word.

I've seen people advocate this as an application for a stated income loan (when stated income loans were available) , where you qualify as a lone individual, but state your income as being enough to qualify for the property and necessary loan that you want. The thinking goes that combined, you make the money, and it's only the fact of some "obnoxious administrative rules" that you can't use her income to qualify. That much is true enough, and that such rules were relaxed when the article was originally written was one thing in their favor. However, it's still lying on a mortgage application (i.e. fraud), and that lender can make life very sticky for you if they should desire to. For one thing, you are de facto using her income to qualify for the loan without giving them a chance to scrutinize her credit record. For another, it's very possible that stating enough income is something the underwriter will challenge (which will happen if you go over the 75th percentile for your occupation), at which point you're not going to get the loan. I wouldn't want to do it without notifying the lender's representative in writing as to what was going on, and it's unlikely that they would approve and fund a loan under such circumstances, but doing otherwise is fraud. I'm sure everyone is all excited by the prospect of doing business with a loan provider who's "only a little bit crooked," right? Finally, stated income is not available from anywhere I am aware of at this update, and new regulations actually prohibit it in a lot of situations. Even if not prohibited, there's a lot less willingness on the behalf of lenders to accept stated income loans, and when they eventually return, expect them to only allow a much lower loan to value ratio, necessitating a larger down payment than most people have, especially for a first time purchase. Plus, of course, the rate is going to be much higher, impacting your debt to income ratio and therefore, your ability to qualify for a given property. Finally, none of the various government programs to help encourage home ownership has ever accepted a loan done on a stated income basis.

There is one issue I haven't dealt with that relates to all of this: Payment shock. The idea behind payment shock is that you're used to living on so much money, and people (in the aggregate) strongly tend towards living the same lifestyle over time. Payment shock becomes an issue when your new payments for housing (loan, taxes, insurance, etcetera) are a certain percentage more than you are used to paying for that same thing (rent, in your case). How much more varies from lender to lender and even according to circumstances. For instance, many sub-prime lenders will take into account all of the bills you are paying off in a refinance. Exactly what percentage increase triggers the "payment shock" used to be lender specific, but of late Fannie and Freddie have instituted payment shock guidelines.

When payment shock is a factor, they are going to require you to have some cash reserves somewhere. Typically, it's two to three months PITI, or principal, interest, taxes and insurance, on your new loan. It generally needs to be in checking, savings, non-restricted investment accounts - some form where you can get to it, not IRAs and 401s, which have restrictions on access. This needs to be left over after your down payment, closing costs, etcetera. So even though you are not making a down payment on the property (difficult currently unless you're buying with a VA loan), you can need to have the money to do so available to you.

Payment shock is one of those things that can make a situation look fishy. If you are trying to avoid payment shock requirements and state that you are paying an amount of rent that is clearly above market rates, they will want to verify it. Can you say, "Out of the frying pan and into the fire?"

Caveat Emptor

Original Article here

I thought I'd share this with you as an example of the sort of mind set to beware. This is a real email I received, with identifying information redacted.

I found you through the DELETED web site and I thought you might appreciate the following idea for GENERATING MORE REFINANCE BUSINESS:

What would happen if you sent the following email to your email list of former and prospective clients?

====================================

Subject: OWN YOUR HOME FREE AND CLEAR IN 8-11 YEARS

Dear (former or prospective client):

We recently found an interesting 23 minute video on the web that shows you how to Bring MORE MONEY into your Life, OWN YOUR HOME FREE AND CLEAR IN 8-11 YEARS - instead of 30 years, AND SAVE 66% in Total Mortgage Interest. The video is about a computer program called the DELETED (May be a proprietary name). You can view this video by copying either of the addresses below into your browser and press "Enter":

CLICK --> (DELETED!) <-- CLICK

(Please Note: Your default video player will play the video, and your browser will stay blank.)

If you like the idea of bringing more money into your life, if would like to own your home FREE AND CLEAR in 8-11 years - instead of 30 years, and if you would like to save about 66% in total mortgage interest, get back to me at (123) 456-7890. We can make it happen for you.

Best regards,

(They had the gall to sign my name to this abomination!)

Here's WHAT YOU GET OUT OF THIS as a mortgage broker:

If your client wants to go ahead, a HELOC (DM: Home Equity Line of Credit) is required to implement the program, so they will need YOU to arrange an "Advanced" (Home Equity) Line of Credit for them (earning you a fully disclosed HELOC fee). Plus, you will Earn a $900 to $1500 fully disclosed commission for each DELETED you arrange, depending on your cumulative sales of the DELETED Program. All you do is help your client save tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in mortgage interest. They can also pay off credit card and other debts more quickly at the lower (HELOC) interest rate, and be guided step-by-step to become DEBT FREE.

This MMA program is a great RELATIONSHIP BUILDER. It will stimulate discussion with your clients and get you MORE REFINANCE BUSINESS.

....................................................

As an alternative, if you don't want to send out special emails like this, you certainly talk with people every day who decide NOT to refinance, or NOT to refinance with you. What if you were to ask "one more question"?

FOR EXAMPLE: "By the way, if you don't want to refinance, I know of a way you can bring more money into your life AND own your home FREE AND CLEAR in 8-11 years - instead of 30 years, and save about 66% in total mortgage interest, WITHOUT REFINANCING. Would you like to know HOW to do this? (Yes/No)

(If yes): "Point your browser to DELETED. This will play a 23 minute video that explains how the DELETED works. Will you watch the video? As soon as you've watched it, call me, OK?"

....................................................

Some clients should not have a HELOC because they do not have the financial discipline to handle easy access to credit responsibly. The factor of financial discipline could be part of your discussion with the client.

In any event, the above email gets you into direct contact with clients you would otherwise NOT connect with, without bringing up the subject of refinancing their loan. This allows you to assess and attempt to meet the client's needs in a perceived context of genuine service.

Sounds good? Get back to me at DELETED for more information and to get started!

Best regards - for increasing prosperity all around,

NAME AND CONTACT DELETED TO PROTECT THE GUILTY

Offer some brokers a way to make money, and they won't care if it hoses their clients. Others just won't examine the program, because it looks like it helps clients while it makes them money, although in fact it does not help clients.

Their web video wouldn't run, and I wasn't going to lower my computer's security settings for SPAM. But I found their information elsewhere. It's an accelerator program combined with a debt consolidation program. It wasn't much work at all to find.

Lowlights include:

$3500 sign up fee for something that should be free, as it cuts the lender's risk factors significantly. Furthermore, as I wrote in Debunking the Money Merge Account Scam, this cost is literally never recovered, even if you keep the loan until paid off. You will pay the loan off sooner if you simply take the $3500 sign up fee and use it for a one-time direct paydown on the mortgage.

Multi-level marketing scheme. I sign up other folks to sell it, I get paid for their production. Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with multi-level marketing, but it does serve to inflate costs. Sometimes it is less expensive than retailer's inventory carrying costs and marketing costs, but for financial services it is a dead give away that something is not right here because there are no inventory costs, and they're certainly spending enough money on marketing - $900 to $1500 commission plus over-rides per program sold. What a beautiful idea, to get the suckers to pay for your marketing!

Unrealistically low mortgage balances, and outrageously high assumptions of extras payments under the program. This has the effect of magnifying the apparent benefits. It posits extra payments on the order of what it would take to pay off the loan normally in ten years. In reality, if you could afford that level of payments, you'd have a ten year mortgage or a more expensive house. Your average total benefits will be half a months interest savings on anything deposited. So if you deposit your entire $5000 paycheck and you have a $2000 mortgage payment, that's about half a months interest on $3000. At 6%, that's about $7.50 per month gain. Certainly not worth all the hoopla, is it? Definitely not worth thousands of dollars in sign up fees, not to mention the costs of that Home Equity Line of Credit. Considering the costs involved, you'd do better to ignore the program (which has a monthly cost of more than that), and just send the lender $10 extra per month. As a matter of fact, most of the increased benefits these programs claim has to do with the bank retaining a certain amount that they claim you just end up not spending - and I can do better than 6%, even net of taxes, with that money if I invest it elsewhere. If you can't do better than 6% elsewhere, just add whatever you want to your regular monthly payments when you send your lender their money, and ask them to apply it to principal. You will come out ahead. Not to mention I don't have to take out a second or refinance to get money out of investment accounts if I decide to do something else with it!

And that's the real kicker. There is no benefit to these programs that mortgage consumers cannot do cheaper or better themselves. The real benefits obtained by these programs are comparatively small, and in no way justify sign up expenses of hundreds to thousands of dollars, or monthly fees above $1 or so. Don't waste your money. If your lender will give you one of these for free, that's one way to get five extra dollars or so applied to your loan principal per month. If they want to charge you, don't waste your money on the sign up or the monthly fees. Instead, add whatever the program's fees are to whatever amount you would ordinarily pay, and you'll be ahead of the game.

I keep saying this because it is true: mortgage lenders do not want to compete on price, so they will try offering all kinds of bells and whistles that might appear to be neat stuff but are really a distraction from what's really important. Some very big names are trying to use these to sell much higher rates than people would otherwise be able to get, by distracting people with this shiny new toy of Mortgage Accelerator Programs that don't make nearly the difference that some folks say they do. Take your time and do the math. If you can save a fraction of a percent on the interest rate, or even just cut your closing costs by a thousand dollars because the other lender's trade-off between rate and cost is a little better, you'll be better off going to the other lender. Mortgage Accelerator Programs like this are an expensive waste of your money.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here