Mortgages: September 2021 Archives

(This is a reprint originally from December 2005. I have reasons for reprinting it even though these loans are not currently available)

My article on Option ARM and Pick a Pay - Negative Amortization Loans is one of my most popular. It's number one for multiple search engines and several ways of running the search. If I don't get at least 20 hits a day on it, it must be a sign that the public has caught on to this loan's horrific gotcha! On the other hand, given the number that are still written, I can get very depressed at how small a percentage of the population does simple research.

I intentionally left a lot of what goes on with these things out of that post, simply because I want to keep these posts readable and comprehensible within the space of no more than half an hour. But I keep getting hits asking questions I didn't deal with, so here goes:

A Negative Amortization loan is defined as any loan where the minimum required payment is less than the interest charges. Regular loans pay off part of the balance every month, whereas negative amortization loans typically have an increasing balance because the difference between the interest charges and what you pay is added to your balance owed.

Because the name "Negative Amortization" causes some difficulty in marketing, they are sold by all kinds of friendly sounding names. "Option ARM" (if you look at my article on loan types here, these are the about the only "true" ARMs with a significant portion of the residential loan market). "Pick A Pay." "Option Payment." "Cash Flow ARM." I've seen all kinds of combinations of these, as well.

Negative Amortization loan rates are typically quoted based upon a "nominal" ("in name only") interest rate. This rate is not the rate of interest that the people who have them are really being charged. It's a thing for purposes of computing the minimum payment only. In other words, the minimum payment is computed by using this rate instead of the actual rate that you are being charged. They are being marketed more heavily right now than at any time in the previous twenty-odd years. If you are quoted a rate of 1%, 1.25%, 1.95%, 2.95%, or anything else under about 5% right now, they are talking about a negative amortization loan. If you look at the Truth-In-Lending form, it will list an APR somewhere in the sixes or higher, usually five or more entire percentage points above the nominal rate. Another way to tell is the presence of several "Options" for payment. If they talk about three of four payment options, guess what? They're talking about a Negative Amortization loan. Note that this is a different situation from "A paper" loans that have no prepayment penalty, in that you are explicitly given these payment options, and may not have any others. "A paper" loans, the minimum payment at least covers the interest (if it's an interest only loan) or actually pays the loan down, and anything extra you pay is applied to principal to pay the loan down faster. I pay extra every month but that's my decision, my choice of amount, not theirs. A negative amortization loan gives you a limited number of choices. Furthermore, there are more of the so-called "one extra dollar" prepayment penalties on negative amortization loans than any other loan type.

Negative Amortization is generally a bad thing because with over 95 percent of those who have them, over 95 percent of the time they are making the minimum payment. That's why these people got them, because they couldn't afford the real payment. So their balance increases. They owe more money every month, and due to compound interest, every month the difference between what they owe and what they pay gets wider. This can only end one of three ways. They sell the house. They refinance the house. They get to "recast" point on the loan. None of these is good.

If you sell, the loans come out of proceeds, and the bank gets more money than you originally borrowed, usually plus a prepayment penalty. I keep using a $270,000 loan amount as an example, so let's look at what happens. The minimum payment will be $868.42. But your real rate is not fixed, and even if you've got a good margin and your rate doesn't rise in upcoming months (It will rise), your real rate is something like 6.2%. That very first month, your interest charge is $1395.00. You have $526.58 added to your loan balance. Take this out one year. Your principal has become $276,501.57, an increase of $6501.57. Now the minimum payment increases by 7.5% (another characteristic of this loan) to $933.56. Take it out another 12 months, now at 6.25% (and I'm being really stingy with rate hikes, given how much I think the underlying rates will go up) and you now have a balance of $283,561.76. Now you sell, and as opposed to selling it two years ago, you have $13561 less from the sale than you otherwise would have had. Plus a prepayment penalty of $9484.00, a total of $23,045 the loan has cost you not counting whatever your initial fees were. This is money you are not going to have to buy your next property with. Not to mention that if the rise in value doesn't cover it, you may find yourself short - getting nothing, and maybe even getting a 1099 form for the IRS that says you owe them taxes.

Let's say you don't sell, but refinance, and unlike roughly 70% of everyone with one of these loans, you actually make it to the end of the prepayment penalty period, three years. Your payment has been $998.70 for these 12 months, but your balance has still increased to $291,815.16. Let's say rates have magically dropped back to where they are now. You get a 30 year fixed rate loan at par at 5.875%. Your payment will be $1746.90, as opposed to $1597.15 if you just did that in the first place. But wait, it gets worse!

In the fourth year, your payment goes to $1063.84. But nine months in, you hit the recast point! Your balance has grown to $297,000 - 10% more than what it was to begin with. It's a thirty year loan, and now it starts amortizing at the real rate for the last 315 months, or until you manage to dispose of it, whichever comes first. Assuming your rate is still "only" 6.5%, your payment jumps to $1967.60 in the forty-sixth month, and this payment is no more fixed than your rate is, which is to say, not at all.

Let's say you have one of the loans with a higher recast - 20 percent instead of 10. Your balance goes to $299,010.60. Then the final year of artificially lowered payment, $1128.98 per month is applied to your loan, but it's accruing $1619.64 in interest and rising. Your loan balance is $305,077 at the end of your minimum payment period. Now your payment (assuming your real rate is still 6.5%, which I think unlikely) goes to $2059.90. If you're able to get a thirty year fixed rate loan at today's rates, your payment is $1825.35. If you couldn't afford $1600 per month in the first place, what make you think you'll be able to afford any of these alternatives? The needless increase in payment amounts to sucking $1.34 per hour out of your pocket, or if you want to think of it another way, you'd have to make $3.00 per hour - $500 plus per month - more to qualify at the end of the period with all that added to your loan, as opposed to right now. And that's assuming the rates are as low in five years, which I do not believe will be the case.

I attended a credit provider's seminar, and as I said then, credit rating agencies are currently considering making the fact that you have a negative amortization loan to be a heavy negative on your credit report, all by itself. From the writing above, it should not be hard to see why. Someone who has a negative amortization loan is not making a "break-even" payment. Their balance is increasing. This indicates a cash-flow problem, and cannot go on indefinitely. When the lowered payments expire, they find themselves in a nasty situation, worse than it would be if they had just gotten a different loan in the first place. So if the fact that you have a negative amortization loan knocks you down sixty, eighty, or a hundred points, there is a good likelihood that you will not qualify for any loan nearly so good as you would otherwise have gotten when you decide to refinance. It may even mean that if you go want another negative amortization loan, your margin may be higher next time. The last news I had was that they were looking at the modeling data for exactly how strongly it influences your chance of a 90 day late. I don't work for Fair-Isaacsson, but my guess, based upon working with people who have negative amortization loans, is that it's going to be towards the higher end of the range I cited.

In short, because most people concern themselves with quoted payment, not interest rate and type of loan, these things are most often sold via marketing gimmicks and hiding their true nature. Those selling them do not concern themselves with what will happen to you after they've gotten their commission check. They are designed (and appropriate for) a couple of specific niches that most people do not fall into. Last set of figures I saw was that they are the primary loan on about 40 percent of all purchases here locally - and owner occupied purchase is not one of the niches they are designed for. An appropriate proportion of the populace to have these might be four tenths of one percent, a figure a hundred times smaller. Shop by interest rate and type of loan, and these look a lot less attractive. As I said, the real rate on these right now (if you've got a low margin) is about 7 percent. When I originally wrote this, loans were available that are really fixed for five years at about 6 percent, or thirty years at about 6.5 percent, no hidden tricks, no surprises, no gotcha!s. I can do much better than that now. These are not only lower rate, but also better loans.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

No, this isn't the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

But having written half a dozen articles roundly critical of the way in which these loans are generally sold, it's not unusual for me to get e-mail like this one:

Hi, Dan:

Okay, I'm absolutely PANICKED after reading your article on negative amortization loans as I have one! I thought it was an "option ARM" and that my entrusted Realtor's entrusted loan officer was wise beyond his years in his financial advice. He was semi-retired, wealthy, and said that this was the only loan he'd ever use for his own substantial real estate portfolio. I even reassured a good friend of mine who is economically savvy not to worry as it wasn't a negative amortization loan!

I purchased December of 2006. The home I was going to purchase was appraised at $780,000 eight months prior to my purchasing it for $570,000; I put $100,000 down, had a good credit score, but the stickler was my monthly income. I knew I would make a substantial bonus and raise June of 2007, so DELETED sold me on the Option ARM. The bonus was one third what I expected ($2700) and my raise was only 4% rather than 7%.

My question is this - what do I do now? Is the loan okay as long as I pay the principal and interest amount of payment? I've only been paying the minimum, but could swing it by squeezing. It's a high rate - 7.5%. And I would have a prepayment penalty if I refinanced. I'm a single mom, 46, with two kids and annual earnings of $64,000. I have $50k in savings.

Yes, I am that poor sap you speak of in your article, completely trusting, desperate for my dream house, blind sided and now stuck. Any advice would be helpful! Thanks so much...

First rule of getting out of holes: Stop digging! Pay at least the interest every month!

Now, let's look at your situation. You owe $470,000 on a $570,000 property. The real payment on that is $3286.30 per month, as opposed to a "nominal payment" of $1511.70 at 1%. Actually, by my calculations, you owe about $483,000 now and will owe more than $527,000 by the time your pre-payment penalty expires, if you make just the minimum payment.

Now, let's consider what's actually available out there. When I originally wrote this, one rate sheet picked at random showed a 30 year fixed rate loan at 6.375% costing half a point retail. Let's figure out if you're likely to qualify for that. $64,000 divided by 12 is $5333 per month. 45% of that is $2400. Both of those are potentially important figures. Let's assume your value is still $570k, so 80% of that is $456,000. Paying the penalty and costs of the loan via rolling it into your balance, I get that you'd be left with a balance of between about $507,000. The payment on the first mortgage would be $2845, which is more than you can apparently afford right there. On the other hand, many single parents have alimony and or child support that can be used if they so desire that they don't include in their income.

At this update, 30 year fixed rate loans can be had for a considerably lower rate of 4 percent or under, depending upon how much you're willing to pay in costs - the lowest rates since my grandparents first bought a house. That yields a payment of $2245. That's the lowest payment we can figure on ever being able to refinance you into.

I'm trying not to build fairy castles in the air. From the information presented, you can not afford the loan by standard measurements. The flip side of that is you don't have to qualify for the loan you already have, and you say that you actually can afford to keep making at least the interest only payments. As long as you do so, you're not digging yourself in any deeper. If you can actually afford to make at least the interest only payment, there is no reason to panic.

Getting yourself that 6.375% fixed rate loan would have cost you roughly $24,000 - $18000 plus in pre-payment penalties, about $6000 in loan costs. To save 1.125 percent originally, about 3% now, albeit fixing the loan. Your current cost of interest at the $483,000 balance is $36,225 per year. Cost of interest after refinancing: $32,321 per year. Interest savings $3904 per year. Your break even on this is about 6 years, 2 months - if you could qualify, which you don't appear to. Even the 4 % loan has a breakeven of about 20 months, which is good, but that's if you can do it, and I'm not at all certain you qualify.

If you make the payments for the next 27 months until the penalty expires, that higher interest rate will have cost you roughly $8900, offset to a certain amount by lowered income taxes. But here's where everyone's getting ulcers right now: Rates and the costs of getting them aren't set in stone - they're all "right now today" good only until tomorrow morning at most. Not that I expect tomorrow's rates to be much different, but I won't know until I see them. The cold hard fact is that only some kind of deity might know at this point what the rates are going to be like when your prepayment penalty expires. I certainly don't, and neither does any other human agency with which I'm familiar. There's a lot of estimates out there, but nobody knows. Furthermore, with a negative amortization loan, you don't know what your rate will be a year from now, as most of these abominations adjust month to month. So no matter which way you choose, stay or refinance, there are pitfalls, and there's no way to be certain of the right decision except in retrospect - when your penalty expires - at which point today's rates will no longer be available.

In your situation, I'd probably sit tight. As bad as it is, the alternatives all look worse. I wouldn't refinance into a loan that took me six years to break even on the costs of, and I doubt whether anyone else should, either. Alternatively, keeping in mind the fourth solution to Getting Out of Paying Pre-Payment Penalties, some people might want to see if their current lender will refinance them into a thirty year fixed without charging the penalty, although in your case that does not apparently help because you don't appear to qualify.

But your situation is not the same as the person who is only looking at a negative amortization loan. Like it or not, you've already done it. That narrows your choices to "What do I do from here?"

The first thing to set in motion is a consultation with your lawyer. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been reading about the courts ordering these abominations rescinded, brokers paying damages, etcetera. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but that means the sooner you start them grinding, the sooner they get there. It seems likely to me that there were some misrepresentations and gross negligence somewhere along the line there.

My local market colors my perceptions, and what may be appropriate for San Diego may not be appropriate elsewhere, but as long as you can make at least the interest only payment, and make it long enough such that your prepayment penalty expires, I think you're likely to see a profit on the sale of the property then, provided things go as I think they will. It might be rough in the mean time, and preliminary numbers indicate that you're not likely to be able to afford to keep the property then, but panicking rarely does any good. There's nothing you can do at this point that does not have significant and costly risks. But from what you've sketched out, holding on until the penalty expires seems to be the least risky, most attractive alternative to me.

A couple of other options: A short sale or a loan modification. The first gets you out of the situation by accepting the immediate damage when there may not be any reason to do so; the second keeps you in the property and buys you time, but nobody knows for certain whether most market will recover enough in the bought time so that it will turn out better than accepting the damage in the first place. Every situation, in every market, is different. I can't give a universal answer as to what's likely to be best because there isn't one. Every situation has to be analyzed on its own individual characteristics.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

(This is a republish of one of the first articles I wrote back in early summer of 2005. Everything I wrote then still applies. I am grateful that lenders have for the most part, stopped offering these, as they were always the worst sort of Make Believe loan, and expecting them to be sold on any other basis than the temporarily low payment was one of the larger examples of wishful thinking I have seen in my life. They are still legal, however, so expect them to get brought back out eventually. The disclosure requirements have been stiffened a bit, but in my opinion, not nearly enough. The body of the article is almost exactly what I wrote back then)

I am not exactly certain how to start this essay. I'm kind of in a position analogous to writing Hitler's biography in late 1940. We know at this point he's a miserable excuse for a human being, but we don't have the evidence discovered in the last four and a half years of the war as to how sick he truly was.

The negative amortization loan is in a very similar situation. It's a miserable excuse for a loan, causing a lot of damage, but we don't yet know how much. With most housing market gurus finally agreeing with what I've been saying for the last year, talking about a need for a readjustment in real estate prices, we are pretty certain that there's going to be a drastic re-evaluation of the home market soon. We are missing the data of exactly how bad it's going to be.

The negative amortization loan, with all its friendly sounding synonyms (Option ARM, Pick Your Payment, 1% loan, and variations and combinations thereof), is an idea that comes around periodically, and right now happens to be one of those times. Last time was the mid 1980s, and we had people driving their cars through the lobbies of savings and loan buildings in protest after they got hit with this loan's GOTCHA! If you see ads on the Internet or elsewhere advertising "$200,000 loan for $650 per month!" (or something similar) one of these abominations is what they're trying to hook you with.

These loans look, at first glance, to be wonderful - too good to be true. That is because they aren't true. Furthermore, given the fact that loan officers and real estate agents want to get paid, and the damage isn't apparent to the average consumer until well down the line, the unscrupulous ones sell a lot of these. I can point to loan and real estate offices where they do no other kinds of loans. Why? Because given the fact that most people shop for a loan or a home based upon the monthly payment, these are the easiest loans in the world to sell, and how many homes do you usually buy from a given real estate agent anyway? Cash flow is important, but watching only cash flow ends up in Ponzi schemes, Enron, and negative amortization loans.

I want to make very clear that yield spread is not a reason not to do a given loan. If a loan officer shops around and does the work to qualify you for a better loan on the same terms while increasing their compensation, they deserve to be paid that money. But you need to do your due diligence, also. Bottom line, no loan officer or real estate agent can rip you off without your consent. Make sure it's a better loan by making an apples to apples comparison based upon what you, the client, are actually getting. For example, if one provider is getting you a loan at 5.5%, that looks to be better than 6.5% at first glance, correct? But if the first loan is only fixed for two years, and has two points on it as well as $4000 of closing costs and a five year prepayment penalty, while the second loan is fixed for thirty years and the lender is paying all of your closing costs with no prepayment penalty, I submit that the second loan is the better loan. The negative amortization loan, piece of garbage that it is, compares favorably with no other loan available today. The yield spread varies between three and four points on these things, with most of the lenders tending towards the higher end of that spectrum in order to compete. To give you a comparison, in order to get four points of yield spread on any other type of loan, I have to stick people with an interest rate at least two full percent higher than the going rate!

Basically, what this loan does is give you three or four options for your payment every month. The lowest of these is the bank allowing you to make a payment as if your interest rate was somewhere between one and two percent, with most of them now congregating towards the lower end of the spectrum in order to compete with one another. This low rate of 1% or so IS NOT YOUR REAL RATE. IT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY BEING CHARGED! I don't know how many people I've talked to that were being taken for a ride and asked me, "Isn't there any way this is the real rate?" THE ANSWER IS NO. Let's pretend you are a bank officer. Remember, you're one sharp person, and you have another whole group of very sharp people watching what you do. If for an equivalent amount of risk, you can get about 7 percent somewhere else with a different investment, are you going to give some poor sap I mean someone you don't know a 1% loan that messes the heck out of your quarterly usage of capital bonus? Not to mention your boss's? Not on planet Earth.

The second payment option will be to make a payment based upon an interest only loan at the real rate you are being charged. I've seen the piranha that sell these loans trying to prey on each other extolling the virtues of COFI or MTA loans, depending upon which they have. The fact is that they've each got their limitations, and their upsides and downsides as opposed to the other. The problem with each and every one of these is that they are month to month variable from the beginning. There is no period where your real rate is fixed. You will never know next month's rate until it happens. Thus far in my career, I've always had loans that are fixed for three to five years, at rates lower than this rate that the loan is really charging you (and more often than not, 30 year fixed rate loans too). In other words, this second payment option is based upon a rate that changes every month, based upon the movement of an underlying index plus a margin.

The third payment option is to make an amortized payment based upon that same month-to-month rate. This is roughly analogous to a standard thirty-year loan, except that it is not fixed, and unless you make a payment of at least this much, next month's payment options are going to be worse. The fourth and final payment option given by most lenders who do these is for the client to make a fifteen-year payment. Before we move on, the point needs to be made that almost nobody actually makes the payment for either of these options, much less makes these payments habitually as opposed to the other options. These payments are higher, and are not good selling points for this loan. If the client could afford to make these payments, there are better loans to be had. This is a metaphorical fig leaf to cover their naked taking advantage of you. "Well, he could make (or could have made) this payment but didn't. It's not my fault." The reason they didn't make the payment, Mr. Unscrupulous Realtor, is because YOU told them they didn't have to. You SOLD them the house based upon the nominal payment, not the real cost. You got a bigger commission by making it look like they could afford more house than they really can. Unless they start making drastically more money at some point, they are likely to lose the house, and they may lose it anyway. I know you think it's not your problem, but some ex-client with a good lawyer is going to make it your problem.

Now, what happens if you make each of these payments? Obviously, if you make the payment for either the third or fourth option, you are paying your loan down. If you make the payment for the second option, that is basically a break-even, except that next months payments will be computed based upon one fewer month with which to pay the loan off.

What happens for 95 percent of the people who do these loans 95 percent of the time is they make payment option one. What happens in this case, where the client is making a payment that is less than the amount of interest on the loan for that month? The bank isn't going to just eat the difference. That interest has to go somewhere.

Where it goes is into the balance of the loan. This means the balance for your loan - the amount you owe the bank - goes up every month that you make this payment option. Furthermore, next month it earns interest also. Next month the difference between what you pay and what you are charged gets higher, and even more money is applied to your loan balance. You're being bit by compound interest. This is the first reason why the lenders will pay loan officers who do these loans so much. The lender knows that in the vast majority of all cases, the clients will end up owing them more money than they originally borrowed.

Furthermore, every single one of these loans that I know of has a three-year prepayment penalty. This means that even after you figure out that you've been taken for a ride, you're either still stuck with them for the rest of three years or you're going to pay a penalty amounting to thousands of dollars. Not a bad position for a lender to be in for leading you down the primrose path, is it?

I haven't even gone over recast provisions (the 1% rate, even though it's nominal, not real, doesn't last forever), and various other lurking GOTCHA!s. I hear a lot of arguments from the various lazy lowlifes who make a habit of doing these loans rationalizing what they're doing. "Those old loans had no cap. Now there's a nine percent cap" The fact is that if the client could afford six percent, there are other better loans to be doing. "They'll more than make up for it in increased equity as prices rise." Well, maybe, IF the market continues to rise, which is unlikely at the current time and never something you should bet other people's financial health upon. It's a crapshoot, at best, and the prevalence of these loans is one reason why the market is so overheated. In any event, the client is going to end up owing more money. Unless they're going to sell and not be a homeowner any more, they're going to have to pay the loan sometime, and in the meantime the longer they keep it, the worse it gets. What happens in three years if home prices are lower and the loan gets recast and now they cannot refinance out of it? Another refrain I hear from these people: "It's the only way to get them into a home!", meaning it's the only way for them to earn a commission (or, more often, the way for them to earn a bigger commission). The clients still end up owing more money at the end of the pre-payment penalty, and it'll keep getting worse the longer they keep the loan. They're still going to need to pay it back, unless they sell, and sell at a sizable profit. Furthermore, if they couldn't afford a reasonable loan in the first place when they needed to borrow $X, what makes you thing they're going to be able to afford a reasonable loan three years down the line when they owe $Y more. This is not a stable, sustainable situation for the client! Maybe in a case like this, they should continue renting. Of course, that doesn't get you a commission, does it, Mr. Unscrupulous Realtor? It certainly doesn't encourage the client to stretch beyond their means and get you a bigger commission, either, does it?

For any loan officer who does these reading this, face it: These things are a way to mess up your client who is putting money into your pocket. These put the clients into worse situations than when they started. You are betting upon factors beyond your control to save both you and them. One of these days, probably very soon, these are going to come back and bite you hard. Violation of fiduciary duty. All it takes is one of your clients getting into a bad situation who gets a good lawyer, and your career is toast along with your pocketbook.

For those of the general public reading this, I hope I've opened your eyes to some of the pitfalls of this loan. I encourage you to ask questions if you have them. But this loan is one that is designed for a narrow set of circumstances tailored around cash flow for a limited amount of time (and the one time I actually had a client who was in the situation where he could actually benefit from a negative amortization loan, none of the companies I submitted it to would approve it. This tells me that who they say it is for and what they really want are two separate things). Negative Amortization loans are abused by being misapplied because it's such an easy loan to sell to those who do not understand the way they work, and all because people shop for a loan based upon payment. So don't shop for a loan based upon payment. And if anyone offers you one of these loans, drag them into the sunlight, drive a wooden stake through their heart, and RUN AWAY! Somebody who offers you one of these is not your friend.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

what happens if partner refuses to pay his half of the mortgage?

The lender will hold you each responsible for payment in full. They don't care who pays; only that they get the full amount every month. That's the long and the short of it. You both agreed to the loan contract, and if it's not paid in full there will be all of the consequences: Hits to your credit, notice of default, foreclosure.

This is basically blackmail on the part of your partner but a disturbing number of partnerships have this phenomenon occur. The only way I know of to recover the money is through the courts, which takes forever and costs more money. Even when you have a judgment, it can be difficult to actually get the money if they have taken certain steps to place it beyond your reach. Talk to an attorney right now, keep good records, and send everything Certified Mail.

Unfortunately, there are no method except time that I am aware of to repair the damage to your credit once it has been done. You just have to wait it out. For that reason, it is usually cost effective to loan your partner the money, even at zero percent interest.

What if you don't have the money for both halves of the payment? Well, that's a real question, and the answer is found in the article What Happens When You Can't Make Your Real Estate Loan Payment. This is not a good situation to be in. Talk to that attorney about liquidating your investment. It takes time and a lot of money if your partner doesn't want to.

What can you do to prevent this from happening? Pick a good partner that won't pull this nonsense. Spend the money to protect yourself up front with a partnership agreement (It should protect your partner from you as well). But the fact is that if your partner wants to be a problem personality, you really can't stop them in the short term. Not that it makes any difference to your pocketbook, but sometimes it's not intentional. People do fall on bad times for reasons not under their control.

Corporations are another step people take to protect themselves from this sort of thing, but that brings in all sorts of further problems. How the corporation qualifies for a loan is often a significant problem, and many times practically speaking, is insurmountable.

Borrowing money in partnership with someone else is something to be done with a lot of forethought and preparation, otherwise there's nothing you can do when bad things happen.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

after Katrina I am upside down with my mortgage. my house is uninhabitable. My flood insurance check doesn't payoff the mortgage. How can i get a short payoff due to financial hardship - i.e. relocation loss of jobs and steady income?

This is one of the hard truths about mortgages. They are a contract between you and the lender to pay back a certain amount of money that you borrowed in order to purchase that property. They have nothing to do with any unforeseen hardship, and if you do not pay that money back, in full and on schedule, you can anticipate negative consequences no matter how good the underlying reason. Especially to your credit, and those are going to be long term consequences indeed.

Unforeseen disasters, like Katrina, Earthquakes, floods, fires etcetera, are some of the biggest reasons why things go wrong with your ability to repay that money. Something happens to the property and now you can't live in it, and you do need to pay for housing elsewhere. Furthermore, in widespread disasters like floods and earthquakes, since your job may no longer be there, you may have to relocate a considerable distance away in order to find work, and have difficulty paying your mortgage even if your property, in particular, came through just fine.

There are several issues that trap the unwary or uninformed consumer. Homeowner's Insurance in general is the first of these. Many lenders in other states have requirements that the property be insured for the full amount of all mortgages against the property. This requirement is illegal in California (and a few other states), and actually is counter-productive as this implies that the objective is to pay off the lenders, when the objective of insurance is to repair the damage. The phrase that California lenders look for in the policies of homeowners insurance that any lender can and all lenders do require is "Full replacement value." In other words, the insurer must agree to bring the property back to being in the same condition it was in prior to the covered event that caused the damage. Nonetheless, there are many properties where this kind of coverage is not available, most often due to their location in areas vulnerable to periodic fires. In such instances, you can expect lenders to require significantly larger down payments and charge higher interest rates, if they are willing to lend against the property at all. Since this adversely effects the owner's ability to sell their property, you will therefore likely get such a property for a lower purchase price than you would otherwise - but you will also have the same difficulty when selling it. You should be advised that this difficulty will persist before you purchase the property, no matter how much you have for the down payment. An agent who doesn't tell you about this issue on properties where it is an issue is either incompetent, or not looking out for your best interest.

Another issue with homeowner's insurance is that you must keep the insured amount reflective of your home's current value. If you bought in the eighties here in San Diego, you probably paid about $150,000 for a three bedroom single family residence. Property values are higher now - let's say $450,000 and that's low. The insurance companies, quite reasonably I might add, take the position that even if you have "full replacement value" coverage, your home is only insured for $150,000, and is worth $450,000, you are not insuring it for the full value and will not pay the full bill for any repairs even if it is only for $100,000. In such a case, it's been a while since I went over the figures that are the legal basis for the math, but in this particular instance, I get that the insurance company will pay $41,666 out of that $100,000 repair bill in this particular instance. The threshold is legally if you had the property insured to at least eighty percent (80%) of its actual value, they will pay the full bill, but you only had it insured to 33 percent of the value, and therefore they will only pay 33/80ths of the bill. So once every couple of years (more often in markets rising 20% per year!) talk to your insurance company about making certain your property is properly insured. Yes, you'll pay more money, but it is a trivial amount compared to the cold hard fact above. My first property multiplied in value by about three and one half times, and the difference between the insurance premium then and the insurance premium now is less than fifty percent. Some insurers (mine among them) have a good record of not invoking the 80 percent rule I'm talking about here and paying the full amount, but this is a matter of company policy, not legal requirement, and it can be changed at any time and no matter how benevolent they are, if the disaster is bad enough they will have no choice. Furthermore, those folks who keep their coverage updated are de facto paying for those who don't under such a policy, and for those who do make a habit of keeping their insurance coverage updated may find more competitive rates with other insurers.

Two things everybody needs to be warned about is that no regular policy of homeowner's insurance, not even the vaunted H.O.3 policy with the H.O. 15 endorsement, covers against flood or earthquake. If possible flood or earthquake is an issue where you are, you need to buy a special policy to be covered by them. Flood and earthquake policies usually have a higher deductible than a basic homeowner's policy, and the reason for this is simple: solvency of the insurer and price of the insurance. Flood and earthquake are typically widespread devastating disasters that make for major damage over a widespread area. If the deductible was smaller, the price of the added policy would need to be much higher, as paying off such claims strains the financial resources of even the strongest insurer. If you're buying on stable soil atop the highest ridge line for miles around, flood insurance is probably not a worry for you. I sit roughly two tenths of a mile from a creek bed, but the amount of territory it drains is relatively small, only a of couple square miles, as the big watercourses go well away from where I sit and there are large hills between me and them. On the other hand, being in California, I've had earthquake insurance since the day I bought the property.

One more thing with flood insurance: There is a federally mandated thirty day waiting period between application and payment of premium and the time it goes into effect. This is to prevent, for instance, people in New Orleans waiting until there is a hurricane headed their way and rushing out and buying flood insurance, then canceling it and asking for a return of their premiums afterwards. I think the thirty day requirement is waivable to the extent that it can go into effect on the day you buy your property, but talk to your insurance agent.

Now, one final thing to be aware of. The value of the land itself is not insured, only the value of the improvements to that land. If a flood goes through your land, the land will still be there afterwards (and research riparian rights sometime if you're worried it will not be - another thing a good agent should warn you about if it's relevant). So if, like many in San Diego, you bought the property for $500,000, but it only cost the builder $200,000 to put the property together, the value of the land is obviously $300,000, right? Well, your mortgage is for eighty percent or ninety percent of the value of the improvements plus the land. Let's say 80%, $400,000, although I suspect that's on the low side of both mean and median. So when a disaster destroys the improvements (i.e. the home) and your insurer sends you a check to rebuild those improvements, that $200,000 check is obviously not going to cover the full amount of the mortgage. What do you do?

Well, that's where the importance of a good insurance policy, that will cover the costs of housing while you rebuild in addition to the costs of rebuilding the home in the first place, comes in. You'll also need to learn the value and importance of managing cash flow versus amount you may owe, but that's a subject for another essay and you should consult a good professional financial person if you haven't learned this before said happens in any case. Trying to learn that financial skill "as you go" is a recipe for guaranteed disaster. Furthermore, no matter how good your policy of insurance is, there is always a deductible and there are always extra expenses of rebuilding that you need or desire to undertake because it's the best and cheapest time to do so. This illustrates the value of building up and maintaining an emergency fund that you can access, because even if the finished property will be worth far more, no regulated lender will touch a refinance for cash out while the property is still under repair. A "hard money" lender might lend you new money, but they require so much equity in the property "as it sits right now" that this is not an option for the vast majority of all property owners. And in the meantime, you must keep up all payments required under the original loan contract you agreed to. Yes, it's a hardship. But it's what you agreed to do when you signed that mortgage contract.

PS: I've said this before, but being 'upside-down' on a mortgage is one of those things that just isn't important unless you need to sell or refinance right now. Don't magnify the importance of transient numbers on paper to the real world.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

This is one of those commercial gambits I keep seeing that has nothing intrinsically wrong with it, and yet it is most often a tactic employed by the more costly loan providers. In short, sharks and scam artists.

The basic come-on is this: Loan provider offers to pay for your appraisal if you do the loan with them. They often use such come ons as "free appraisal!"

TANSTAAFL. Repeat after me. TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. "Free" stuff has an ugly habit of being the most expensive there is, and this particular come-on is no exception. Offer you a few hundred with the left hand while picking multiple thousands out of your pocket with the right. If you want to be an educated consumer, engrave TANSTAAFL upon your soul.

What's going on here is that they are trying to make it look like you're getting something free. You're not. They may front the cash for the appraisal, but in all but a few cases you're going to get explicitly charged in the end. Even for those people whose final loan papers does not show an appraisal charge, they are charging it to you somewhere else. Odds are that they're charging it about ten times over somewhere else. Either in origination or yield spread, one way or another you are going to pay for this appraisal. Actually, you are likely going to pay for that appraisal several times over. People are strange about cash. Many folks, if told they don't have to lay out $300 to $500 for an appraisal, will choose loan providers where the proposed rate is 1/4 to one half a percent (or more!) higher than competing loans, with closing costs thousands of dollars higher. They are getting the cost of that appraisal all right. In this scenario, they're making half a point to one point more than anyone else on the same loan, plus all of the extra closing costs. That's if they're a broker. If they're a direct lender, the difference is between a point and a half and two and a half points, more if there's a prepayment penalty!

Furthermore, in that packet of papers you're asked to sign will almost certainly be a form where you agree to pay for the appraisal if the loan doesn't close. Practical effect: To hold you hostage at the end of the loan.

Appraisal standards that took effect in May 2009 require the lender to pay the appraiser. This is a good thing in that the appraiser who has done the work should expect to get paid, not stiffed for the bill when escrow doesn't close. However, the lenders have a choice: They can require a deposit for all loans, or they can jack up their profits per loan, effectively forcing those clients whose loans close to pay for the appraisals of those clients whose loans don't close.

Low cost loan providers do not pay for your appraisal. The loan providers who pay for the appraisal are paying not only for your appraisal, but the appraisal of all the people who cancel, and a good margin besides. Not to mention that this loan provider completely controls the appraisal, leaving them in control of what happens if you actually notice their huge fees when you go to sign loan documents, and decide you want to go somewhere else. This is one of the ways that loan providers avoid competing on price, by pretending to give you something for free. I say "pretend" because they are not giving you anything for free. I do not understand that normally competent adults who are well aware what "free" really means in other contexts will think it means they're getting a benefit. But just like the "buy one, get one free" offers that jack the price up threefold first, this is only a good bargain if the few hundred dollars it saves you stays saved, rather than giving you $400 with one hand while taking $6000 with the other, through higher loan rates and costs. Rate and cost trade-offs on real estate loans vary constantly. You can't know what the best bargain is right now unless you price it out right now.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

The question every good loan officer hates is "What is your lowest rate?", usually the first thing in a phone conversation. People think that this sort of rate shopping is going to help them. The fact is that it almost ensures they are going to get ripped off or worse, as millions of people have discovered in the last few years - and most of them don't understand that this attitude is precisely what got them into the toxic loan that ruined them financially.

First off, everybody doesn't get the same choices. As I've said before, somebody who can prove they make enough money, has a history of paying their debt, and offers the lender a situation where there's 30 percent equity (or more) gets a different set of choices than somebody who can't prove they make enough money, has a questionable history of paying debt, and wants to borrow 100 percent of the property value (or more).

Second, different loans get different rate-cost tradeoffs. The loan that most people seem to consider the most attractive loan, the thirty year fixed rate loan, is always the most expensive loan out there. It always has the highest set of cost/rate tradeoffs. Why? Because on top of the cost of the money, you are essentially purchasing an insurance policy that says your rate will not change for thirty years. Even when long and short term rates are inverted there is a premium charged for the thirty year fixed rate loan. It makes a certain amount of sense; insurance policies are never free, and the thirty year fixed rate loan is the most desired loan out there. Simple economics: Higher demand equals higher price. Goods perceived as more valuable carry a higher price tag. So if you're looking for a thirty year fixed rate loan, and all you say is "What is your lowest rate?" you are likely to get quoted a rate from a Negative Amortization loan, the most toxic, least desirable loan out there, because it carries the lowest nominal rates. Even today with those gone, there are replacements which may not be quite so toxic, but are certainly nothing you actually want to be signing a contract for. If you want to argue with me, consider the meltdown we had for several years caused by toxic loans. If interest rate (or worse, payment) is your only datapoint from the various loan providers you talk with, you are likely to do business with the one who quotes you the negative amortization loan, not the thirty year fixed rate loan. Matter of fact, the loan provider who tells you about the loan that you really wanted is least likely to get your business in this scenario, because you're focusing in on the red cape of rate and payment when you should be paying attention to other things.

Third, and most importantly, for every situation and every loan type, there is more than one rate available. Why is this, you ask? It seems obvious to you: Why not just choose the lowest rate, which has the lowest payment? It takes a little examination to see why.

The difference between the rates is in cost of the loan. There will be a rate called par. This is the rate at which the lender will loan you the money straight across. They don't charge you any money (discount points) to get a lower rate. They don't pay any of the costs of the loan. Getting a loan done really does take a minimum of about $3000 in closing costs (actually, that figure is for California, which believe it or not is one of the cheaper states to get everything done in - every other state I've done business in has higher closing costs), plus whatever the lender makes in order to do your loan. Whether points and closing costs are paid out of your pocket or added to your mortgage balance, you are still paying them. Indeed, when shopping for a mortgage, the phrase "nothing out of your pocket" from a prospective loan provider should immediately put you on guard.

For rates below par, you must pay discount points. This is an upfront incentive to a lender to give you a rate lower than they otherwise would. Every situation is different and should be analyzed with numbers specific to that situation, but as a rule of thumb: Unless you're getting a thirty year fixed rate loan and you have a history of keeping loans at least five years before sale or refinance, you should avoid paying discount points if you can, and accepting a rate with a bit of yield spread to offset origination is probably a good idea, even though it will be at a higher rate. The lower payments you get with the lower rate are rarely worth the cost of adding the points to buy that lower rate to your mortgage balance. People who don't qualify for A paper may not have this option, but more people qualify A paper than think they do. These days, with true subprime essentially extinct, it's A paper, what professionals used to call "A minus" which is essentially for people who barely miss qualifying A paper, or nothing.

For rates above par, the lender will actually pay part or all of your closing costs. It's rare that they will actually put money in your pocket, but it can happen. Note that this is different from a stealth "cash out" loan that adds the cash you get to your mortgage balance, charges you closing costs, and often puts a couple points on the whole amount of your new mortgage, and so where you've been told you're getting $2000 in your pocket, there may be $20,000 or more added to your mortgage balance. This is where the lender is actually paying part or all of the costs of the loan, so it is neither coming out of your pocket nor being added to your loan balance. This is called a "yield spread" or "rebate". Yield spread can be thought of as the opposite or negative of discount points, and discount points can be thought of as a negative rebate. There are never both discount points and yield spread on the same loan, although there can be origination points on loans where there is a rebate. I still believe it's a material misrepresentation, but that's the way Congress and HUD now require it to be done.

The critical fact that most consumers never figure out for themselves, and certainly never realize the implications of, is this: The vast majority of borrowers don't keep their mortgage loans very long. The median age for a mortgage was roughly two years when I wrote this and is still under 3 years. Fewer than 5 percent of all loans are five years or older. If you're the exception, bully for you. Otherwise, take heed and remember this fact: Whatever costs you pay for a mortgage are sunk at the beginning. This money either comes out of your pocket, or goes onto your mortgage balance. If it goes onto your mortgage balance it is even worse than paying it out of pocket because this money you owe sticks around a very long time and you pay interest on it. When you sell or refinance, (or when your rate starts adjusting), the benefits stop. They are over. Done with. If you haven't recovered the costs you paid to get a lower rate by that point in time, you have made a losing investment. Period. End of story. No chance for recovery. Matter of fact, even if you are technically ahead at that point in time, you can go negative later.

Let us consider a $270,000 loan. Smallish for California, but large in most other areas of the country. As I said earlier, real closing costs of doing this loan are somewhere in the neighborhood of $3400. Rates are lower now, but here are some real options that were available from one lender when I originally wrote this article:

You could do a thirty year fixed rate loan at par of 5.75 percent. Or you could get a one point rebate at 6.25, or you can pay one point and get 5.25 percent. Rates at this update are much lower than this, but this is still a good example to use so I'm going to leave the original figures untouched.

Assume you roll any costs into your mortgage like most folks do. Your starting loan balance will be $276,162 if you choose the 5.25% rate. If you choose the par rate of 5.75%, it will be $273,400. If you choose the one point rebate rate of 6.25%, your balance will be $270,666. These are real examples off the first rate sheet I happened to look at when I wrote this.

Let's compute the linear break evens: The 6.25% rate cost you $666 to get (Closing cost less dollar value of rebate). You pay $1409.72 in interest the first month. The 5.75% rate costs you $3400, and you pay $1310.04 in interest. The 5.25% loan cost you $6162 (Closing cost plus dollar cost of discount), and you pay $1208.21 interest the first month. Difference in cost divided by difference in interest.

6.25% versus 5.75% loan: $2734/$99.68 = 27.42 months.

5.75 versus 5.25 loan: $2762/101.83 = 27.12 months

5.25 loan versus 6.25: $5496/201.51 =27.27 months.

Actually, the break even is likely to come a month or two earlier. But let's compute what happens if you refinance again into a 5% fixed rate loan for zero real cost right at breakeven time, 27 months. This makes the residual cost of the previous loan as low as reasonable.

The 6.25% loan leaves a balance of $263,241. When you refinance under this scenario, the new monthly interest charge will be $1096.84.

The 5.75% loan leaves a balance of $265,193. The new monthly interest charge will be $1104.97. The extra money on your balance costs you $8.13 per month, $100 per year. Plus you still owe almost $2000 more. Yes, you have technically broken even at this point because you saved that much in interest, but that benefit is gone into the past, while the extra money you owe and the costs of it are still with you.

The 5.25% loan leaves a balance of $267,104. The new monthly interest charges will be $1112.94. The extra money on your balance costs you $16.10 per month, $193 per year, from here on out. Plus you still owe almost $4000 more.

These are actually favorable assumptions compared to the real world in that they treat the 5.25% loan option much more kindly than it deserves compared to the 6.25% loan. Furthermore, the breakeven on buying a loan down is usually 3-5 years, a much longer period. Also, in this example I chose to wait to refinance until you had theoretically broken even, even though you didn't, really.

Most people have done this multiple times. $10 or $15 per month doesn't sound like a lot, but do it a couple times and you have $100 per month, and owing tens thousands of dollars more than if you'd gotten a cheaper loan that carried a slightly higher payment in the first place. I believe in offering choices, but I also know which I would recommend and choose for myself.

One point that needs to be made again is sometimes costs get built into the back end of a loan, via a pre-payment penalty. Most loan officers will not volunteer whether there is a pre-payment penalty, and many will lie even if you ask, just to get you to sign up, knowing that once you sign up you will likely consider yourself committed. This may not be legal, but it happens, and is another reason to read your loan paperwork carefully and shop several lenders. Reading the Note carefully at signing of final documents is the only way to be sure that there is no prepayment penalty.

The tradeoff between rate and cost is the most important fact of loans, and almost nobody pays attention to all the money they sink into the front end of a loan that they never get back via the lowered interest rate they bought with it. Instead, they refinance (or sell the home and buy another, requiring a new loan), and how they do this over and over again, adding thousands of dollars into their loan balance, needlessly and wastefully.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Sooner or later, a pretty fair proportion of the population are going to get an offer for a much better job, but the catch is that job is located in another city on the opposite end of the country. What are the major issues relating to the mortgage?

Well, first off, the relocating spouse may not have the job until they actually report for their first day at work. Many times people are told "Go there and you'll have a job," and when they get there, they don't. So no matter how much time you have in that line of work, until you actually have the job things are iffy and you can expect loan underwriters to reflect that. The job offer letter may or may not get the job done - it usually doesn't. Usually they want at least an employment contract, sometimes (particularly A paper) the first pay stub as well. It can be rough, and a waste of money to rent, but over the lifetime of a loan with a higher interest rate, it may pay off to actually wait until you've got that first pay stub.

Now just because the one spouse has a job offer doesn't mean the other spouse will get a job in their field. Sometimes they work in a field where there is no problem finding work, like health care. Sometimes they work in a field where moving means they don't have a career, and they're going to have to start all over in some other field. If you worked in a distillery and you're moving to Salt Lake City, you're probably going to need a career change. If that job is similar enough to the one you left behind, that's cool. But if you used to be a bookkeeper and now you're a retail clerk, then you do not have two years in the same line of work. Chances are your family is not going to be able to use your income to help qualify for the loan. They are not going to be able to use it at all until you have a job that has income. Since this can take a while, you really might be better advised to rent for a month or two (or even six, if that's the shortest lease you can find). Of course, if one spouse isn't working and doesn't plan to, this isn't really an issue.

Next, there are the issues with the property in the old city. Many times, especially in a market like the current one, the property has not yet sold, becoming a drag upon your ability to qualify for a new loan. If you can rent it, that's certainly one solution, but most lenders will only allow 3/4 of the monthly rent to be used to qualify you for a new loan, but will charge all of the expenses against this. Considering that around here it can be tough to get a positive cash flow for a rental property, you can imagine how tough it is when your monthly income from the property is chopped by 1/4, and how much more you will need to be making, in order to justify the loan. Furthermore, there are caveats to whether the lenders will accept any rental income. Be damned certain there is a paper trail on everything: accept no cash - checks only and keep copies of those checks - and even if the rental is month to month, have a written rental contract.

Another thing is that most folks expect to be able to use the entire amount of the new salary to qualify, and that's not the way it works. If you made $6000 per month for the past two years, one month at $9000 isn't going to move that monthly average income up very much. The computation is done on a weighted average basis - you've got 23 months at $6000 per month, or $138,000, and 1 month at $9000, which when added makes for a grand total of $147,000, or about $6125. When it was available, often newly relocated folks had to settle for sub-prime loans when they are normally A paper so that they could use bank statements or something else to qualify. Stated Income is also mostly dead for now - only certain types of lenders can offer it, and they were getting so much as a proportion of their total loans that they stopped offering it.

Showing enough of the right income - and a paper trail to document it - has never been so critical to those wanting a loan so that they can buy a home. In cases of relocation, it has become necessary that you pick a loan officer and work with them to dot all your i's and cross all your t's before you apply - lest you go through the entire process only to find on moving day that you have no loan.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

"What mortgage fees can i recover after loan denial" was a search I got. The answer is basically, "None."

The only thing that should be charged up front is a credit check, which costs about $20, and you should be prepared to spend that $20 several times over while you're shopping lenders. If you're worried about twenty dollars when you are applying for a mortgage, chances are that you shouldn't apply.

Once you have selected a provider, however, expect to pay for the appraisal before it is done. The new appraisal code of conduct means that they are going to get paid for any appraisal done. Loan providers have zero control over the appraisal process, and once ordered, no avenue of appeal if the value is low, while being obligated to pay that appraiser. This means every loan company out there has had to make a bleak choice: Decide whether to charge an upfront deposit, or jack up their margins so that the people whose loans close and fund pay for the appraisals of those that don't. As I said in Loan Providers Offering to Pay For The Appraisal, this means that those companies that offer to pay for the appraisal (i.e. choose to jack up their prices) will make more. Your choice as to which to deal with, but either way you choose, you will need to do upfront due diligence. My choice has been to require payment for the appraisal before I order it. I don't like doing this but I like the alternative of charging those clients who stick enough to pay for the clients who don't even less.

Deposits were historically charged by lenders who want to get you committed to the loan, and they do it for at least two reasons. The first is psychological commitment. Usually when I mention things like that, I get people who immediately come back with, "Those kind of mind games don't work with me!" I'm not looking for an argument, and with most folks, I don't know their past history well enough to come up with an example, but this phenomenon is essentially universal as far as humans go, and those few not subject to it are probably suffering from some other more debilitating psychological problem. In fact, the normal progression of a loan is a series of commitments upon your part. The decision to talk to potential providers. The application.

After the application, lenders want the originals of your documentation and money. The original documents are requested so that you cannot shop or apply for a loan elsewhere. I, as a loan officer, do not need your original documents for anything I can think of. I need the original of the loan application and a couple other items you fill out with me, but not of your pay stubs, your taxes, your insurance bill, or any other documents you have pre-existing. Copies are just fine for any lender I do business with, so long as they are clean and readable.

The next step is to get money out of you. If all they want is the credit report fee of about $20, that's fine and normal. Credit Reports cost money, and if you're just shopping around, a loan provider has two choices: raise their loan prices slightly so that they charge those people who finalize their loans more, or charge folks whatever the cost is to run credit when they apply.

But many loan providers want more than the credit check fee. A lot more. They want a deposit that varies from several hundred dollars to one percent of the loan amount, even two percent in some cases. They might say it's for the appraisal, and usually at least part of it does go to the appraiser. I used to say that you should not give it to them, but the standards behind that advice are changing. I've had my clients tell me about the tales they've been told, about how that money is to pay the appraiser. The best thing for consumers is that the appraisal should be paid for when the appraiser does the work. Unfortunately, the new appraisal rules prohibit the consumer paying the appraiser directly, and require the lender to pay the appraiser (as well as preventing the lender from firing bad appraisers). As I've said before, you want to be the one who orders the appraisal, and therefore controls it. Unfortunately, the new standards completely prohibit this consumer advantage. An appraisal done under the old way of business will cause it to not only be wasted money as it is unacceptable, it stands a good chance of costing a lender their ability to do any business. Therefore you may have no real choice but to put a deposit for the appraisal up-front. But don't give the lender any more than the appraisal money.

The reason they really want larger amounts of money out of you upfront is two-fold. First, it builds that psychological commitment I talked about a while back. Second, it makes you financially committed to a loan, which tremendously raises the level of psychological commitment. It means they've got some of your cash. Most people don't really understand loans, not deep down where it really matters. Consider, for a moment, which you would rather have: $400 cash, or a loan that costs $5000 less (not so incidentally making a difference of $25 on the monthly payment), but is otherwise identical. Dispassionately sitting there on the monitor in front of you, the choice seems obvious. You're going to have to pay that $5000 back sometime, and in the meantime you're paying interest on it. But move it to a situation where these potential clients have already put down a $400 deposit with an overpriced loan provider, and the vast majority of them won't sign up for my loan. Why? Because they're thinking of that $400 in cash that came out of their checking account, not the $5000 in extra balance on their mortgage. Companies want that deposit to stop you from going elsewhere, to a loan provider that can do the loan (or, more importantly, is willing to do the loan) for much less money. Practically speaking, they're not only guaranteeing themselves a certain amount of money, they are guaranteeing that the client won't change their mind about their loan.

So do you get it back if the loan is denied? Nope. At least I've never been told about an instance where it happened. That money was a good faith deposit. Legally, it was an incentive for that loan provider to do the work of that loan, all of which costs money. Provably costs money, I might add. The loan processor doesn't work for free. The underwriter doesn't work for free. The escrow officer doesn't work for free. The appraiser doesn't, the title company doesn't. Nobody works for free. Phone calls and copies and word processors to generate all of your documents from the title commitment to the loan documents. Some documents are the same for every loan and can be computer generated. Others, like the title commitment, require humans to enter literally everything on them.

But a deposit for more than appraisal and credit report isn't necessary. In fact, you can find loan providers out there (I was one of them, and would like to be again, but while I can blow off a $20 credit check if the loan doesn't fund, I don't make enough money off loans that fund to enable me to pay for $400 plus appraisals for loans that don't) who routinely work the whole loan on speculation of it funding. They might ask you to pay for the credit report and appraisal up front, but everything else is paid for when the work is done and the loan funds. I would much prefer that you write the check to the appraiser when they do the work, but I can't legally do that any longer. You might ask the advantages to the consumer of this. That advantage would be that these loan providers are not holding your money hostage. This means that if the loan falls apart because the loan provider told you they could do the loan and they couldn't, they're out the money, not you.

As of this update, the law of getting loans has changed a lot in the last few years, and it's to the advantage of the banking and other interest groups, not the consumer. Look to the people in charge of Congress for the reason (Dodd-Frank, to be precise). Furthermore, the lenders are instituting more changes because they can, now that there are a lot fewer lenders and less competition. I'm not happy about any of this, but even the best loan officers have two choices: Adapt as best we can, or find a new line of work. If the best loan officers trying their hardest to help consumers leave, ask yourself what would be left?

So if a loan provider asks for a large cash deposit up front to begin the loan, chances are that you shouldn't give it to them. Chances are they are trying to lock you into their loan by holding your money hostage, and when you discover at closing that they tacked thousands of dollars onto the loan charges that they conveniently "forgot" to tell you about or pretended didn't exist ("Escrow's a third party charge. We don't have to tell them about it until afterwards"), and now you are facing a choice between forfeiting your deposit and signing off on a loan that's not what you agreed to when you gave them that deposit. Better not to face that choice, by not agreeing to pay anything beyond the credit fee up front, and the appraisal when ordered. The purpose of this article is to help you understand - before you sign that loan application and fork over a deposit - exactly what your choices are and the possible consequences to you.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Since May 1, 2009, we've been having problems with appraisals like never before. It's an interesting case study how the attorney general of one state used threats to blackmail a nationwide industry, installed personal controls and opportunities for graft into that industry, added a layer of overhead and administration increasing costs to consumers, decreasing compensation for appraisers, and many other things. Everybody in the industry - appraisers, loan officers, etcetera - agrees that this is one of the most misbegotten abominations to come down the pike in the political "let's pretend to do something to fix the problems without goring the ox of any major campaign contributors" response to the lending meltdown. The only people who don't hate it are the appraisal management companies.

To help enhance the integrity of the home appraisal process in the mortgage finance industry, in March 2008, Fannie Mae entered into an agreement with our regulator - the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) (then the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) - and the New York Attorney General's office to adopt certain policies relating to appraisals for loans delivered to us. Following a public comment period, the Home Valuation Code of Conduct has been modified and will be effective for single-family mortgage loans (except government-insured loans) that are originated on or after May 1, 2009, and delivered to Fannie Mae.

The final rule is here.

I'm going to quote large chunks of it and comment

B. No employee, director, officer, or agent of the lender, or any other third party acting as joint venture partner, independent contractor, appraisal company, appraisal management company, or partner on behalf of the lender, shall influence or attempt to influence the development, reporting, result, or review of an appraisal through coercion, extortion, collusion, compensation, inducement, intimidation, bribery, or in any other manner including but not limited to:

(1) withholding or threatening to withhold timely payment or partial payment for an appraisal report;

(2) withholding or threatening to withhold future business for an appraiser, or demoting or terminating or threatening to demote or terminate an appraiser;

(3) expressly or impliedly promising future business, promotions, or increased compensation for an appraiser;

(4) conditioning the ordering of an appraisal report or the payment of an appraisal fee or salary or bonus on the opinion, conclusion, or valuation to be reached, or on a preliminary value estimate requested from an appraiser;

(5) requesting that an appraiser provide an estimated, predetermined, or desired valuation in an appraisal report prior to the completion of the appraisal report, or requesting that an appraiser provide estimated values or comparable sales at any time prior to the appraiser's completion of an appraisal report;

(6) providing to an appraiser an anticipated, estimated, encouraged, or desired value for a subject property or a proposed or target amount to be loaned to the borrower, except that a copy of the sales contract for purchase transactions may be provided;

(7) providing to an appraiser, appraisal company, appraisal management company, or any entity or person related to the appraiser, appraisal company, or appraisal management company, stock or other financial or non-financial benefits;

(8) allowing the removal of an appraiser from a list of qualified appraisers, or the addition of an appraiser to an exclusionary list of disapproved appraisers, used by any entity, without prompt written notice to such appraiser, which notice shall include written evidence of the appraiser's illegal conduct, a violation of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) or state licensing standards, substandard performance, improper or unprofessional behavior or other substantive reason for removal (except that this prohibition will not preclude the management of appraiser lists for bona fide administrative reasons based on written, management-approved policies);

(9) ordering, obtaining, using, or paying for a second or subsequent appraisal or automated valuation model (AVM) in connection with a mortgage financing transaction unless: (i) there is a reasonable basis to believe that the initial appraisal was flawed or tainted and such basis is clearly and appropriately noted in the loan file, or (ii) unless such appraisal or automated valuation model is done pursuant to written, pre-established bona fide pre- or post-funding appraisal review or quality control process or underwriting guidelines, and so long as the lender adheres to a policy of selecting the most reliable appraisal, rather than the appraisal that states the highest value; or

(10) any other act or practice that impairs or attempts to impair an appraiser's independence, objectivity, or impartiality or violates law or regulation, including, but not limited to, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, or the USPAP.

Most of this section is actually pretty reasonable, and I agree with the majority. But subparagraph 2 removes the ability of anyone - loan officer or otherwise - the ability to stop using a bad appraiser short of an actual provable violation. Anybody else see a problem here? This has, of course, been a long term goal of appraisers. But just because I can't get them convicted of actual malfeasance doesn't mean they're any good. In conjunction with subparagraph 8, once they're approved, we no longer have the right to stop using them. Waste the money of every client they get by coming in with a low appraisal? Set me up for fraud by coming in with a high one? I am completely helpless to simply stop using them.

Subparagraph 5 is another one I have issues with: I can't ask them not to waste my client's money if the value obviously is not there. A good loan officer wants an appraiser who will return an honest value no matter what, but when 5 minutes checking says the transaction isn't going to fly, this is a waste of client money.

What they are doing is called "rent seeking behavior". Look that up. And everything else about this section was already present.

III. Appraiser Engagement
A. The lender or any third party specifically authorized by the lender (including, but not limited to, appraisal companies, appraisal management companies, and correspondent lenders) shall be responsible for selecting, retaining, and providing for payment of all compensation to the appraiser. The lender will not accept any appraisal report completed by an appraiser selected, retained, or compensated in any manner by any other third party (including mortgage brokers and real estate agents). The lender may accept an appraisal prepared by an appraiser for a different lender, including where a mortgage broker has facilitated the mortgage application (but not ordered the appraisal), provided the lender: (1) obtains written assurances that such other lender follows this Code of Conduct in connection with the loan being originated; and (2) determines that such appraisal conforms to its requirements for appraisals and is otherwise acceptable.
B. All members of the lender's loan production staff, as well as any person (i) who is compensated on a commission basis upon the successful completion of a loan or (ii) who reports, ultimately, to any officer of the lender not independent of the loan production staff and process, shall be forbidden from (1) selecting, retaining, recommending, or influencing the selection of any appraiser for a particular appraisal assignment or for inclusion on a list or panel of appraisers approved to perform appraisals for the lender or forbidden from performing such work; and (2) having any substantive communications with an appraiser or appraisal management company relating to or having an impact on valuation, including ordering or managing an appraisal assignment. If absolute lines of independence cannot be achieved as a result of the lender's small size and limited staff, the lender must be able to clearly demonstrate that it has prudent safeguards to isolate its collateral evaluation process from influence or interference from its loan production process.
C. Any employee of the lender (or if the lender retains an appraisal company or appraisal management company, any employee of that company) tasked with selecting appraisers for an approved panel or substantive appraisal review must be (1) appropriately trained and qualified in the area of real estate appraisals, and (2) in the case of an employee of the lender, wholly independent of the loan production staff and process.

So mortgage brokers as well as real estate agents are now completely cut out of ordering an appraisal. Actually, all loan officers are, apparently. So no more calling Appraiser A to find out how fast he can get me the appraisal. I have to use an appraisal management company, or delegate the ordering of an appraisal to an individual "appropriately trained and qualified in the area of real estate appraisals". In other words, appraisers decide who gets appraisal work. More specifically, senior appraisers decide who gets appraisal work. Not the hardworking young appraiser who's still trying to make friends. Not the independent appraiser who's willing to call other appraisers on what they're doing wrong or should be doing better. This reduces to "The old boys network decides who gets work". I thought we were trying to get away from that sort of thing - particularly when they owe no benefit of loyalty to anyone aside from each other.

Question: Would you like to have a real estate agent assigned by the old boys network without input from you? A loan officer?

This is going to have far reaching consequences for consumers, and they're not going to like it. One person, the identity of whom is not in any way controllable by them or anyone else with whom they have any contact, is going to control the outcome of their loan. Because The Mortgage Loan Market Controls the Real Estate Market, this is going to have the potential to break every single real estate transaction, randomly and arbitrarily resulting in unhappy buyers and sellers, lost deposits, and all other sorts of problems. If they take a disliking to you, all they have to do to spike the loan and the transaction is to come in just a little bit low on the appraisal.

IV. Prevention of Improper Influences on Appraisers A. In underwriting a loan, the lender shall not utilize any appraisal report: (1) prepared by an appraiser employed by: (a) the lender; (b) an affiliate of the lender; (c) an entity that is owned, in whole or in part, by the lender; or (d) an entity that owns, in whole or in part, the lender. (2) prepared by an appraiser (a) employed, (b) engaged as an independent contractor, or (c) otherwise retained by any appraisal company or any appraisal management company affiliated with, or that owns or is owned, in whole or in part by, the lender or an affiliate of the lender.

B. Section IV.A. shall apply unless: (emphasis mine)
(1) the appraiser or, if an affiliate, the company for which the appraiser works, reports to a function of the lender independent of sales or loan production;
(2) employees in the sales or loan production functions of the lender have no involvement in the operations of the appraisal functions and play no role in selecting, retaining, recommending, or influencing the selection of any appraiser for any particular appraisal assignment or for inclusion on a list or panel of appraisers approved to perform appraisals for the lender or forbidden from performing such work;
(3) employees in the sales or loan production functions of the lender are not allowed to have any substantive communications with an appraiser, appraisal company, or appraisal management company relating to or having an impact on valuation or to be provided information about which appraiser has been given a particular appraisal assignment before completion of that assignment;
(4) the lender, or its agents, and any appraisal company or appraisal management company providing the appraisal to the lender do not provide the appraiser any estimated or target value of the property or the loan amount applied for (except that a copy of the sales contract for purchase transactions may be provided);
(5) the appraiser's compensation does not depend in any way on the value arrived at in any appraisal or upon the closing of the loan for which the appraisal was completed;
(6) the lender and any appraisal company or any appraisal management company providing the appraisal to the lender has adopted written policies and procedures implementing this Code of Conduct, including, but not limited to, adequate training and disciplinary rules on appraiser independence (including the principles detailed in Part I of this Code of Conduct) and has mechanisms in place to report and discipline anyone who violates these policies and procedures;
(7) the lender's appraisal functions are either annually audited by an external auditor or are subject to federal or state regulatory examination, and, unless prohibited by law, the lender promptly provides to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac the results of any adverse, negative, or irregular findings of such audits and examinations indicating non-compliance with any provision of this Code of Conduct, whether or not the examination was conducted for the purpose of determining compliance with this Code of Conduct; and
(8) the lender and any entity described in section IV.A. providing the appraisal to the lender recognize that, once the Independent Valuation Protection Institute is established, the Institute will receive complaints for review and referral regarding non-compliance with the Code of Conduct. Referrals and reports shall be made to Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac regarding such complaints and the Institute will provide information on the results of complaint reviews to Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac and make them available to the other parties to the Home Value Protection Program and Cooperation Agreement

This isn't independence. This is unaccountability.

An Independent Valuation Protection Institute (Institute) shall be created as approved by the parties. Subject to section IX, when the Institute is established, the lender will provide information to appraisers and borrowers regarding the availability of the Institute's services, which are expected to include: (1) a telephone hotline and email address to receive any complaints of Code of Conduct non-compliance, including complaints from appraisers, individuals, or other entities concerning the improper influencing or attempted improper influencing of appraisers or the appraisal process, which the Institute will review and report as provided in IV.B(8) and IV.C(2) of this Code of Conduct; and (2) the publication and promotion of best practices for independent valuation. The lender shall not retaliate, in any manner or method, against the person or entity that makes a complaint to the Institute.

So we can't complain about lazy worthless appraisers for anything less than an obvious violation of code - but appraisers can complain about anyone else. And we can't stop using them when they libel us. Even if the accusation is baseless. As I said above, this isn't independence. This is unaccountability.

The lender agrees that it shall quality control test, by use of retroactive or additional appraisal reports or other appropriate method, a randomly selected 10 percent (or other bona fide statistically significant percentage) of the appraisals or valuations that are used by the lender, including the results of automated valuation models, broker's price opinions, or "desktop" evaluations. The lender shall provide to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac a report of any adverse, negative, or irregular findings of such quality control testing, and any findings indicating non-compliance with any provision of this Code of Conduct, with respect to loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac respectively, and the Enterprise may enforce all applicable rights and remedies, including requiring the lender to repurchase mortgages or the Enterprise's participation interest in mortgages.

Here's the translation: Appraisers can't get in trouble for coming up with a value that's too low. Lenders don't lose money in the accounting sense when the appraisal is too low. All that happens is that they don't make money they could have made from doing that loan, an item that does not show up on financial statements. Appraisers can, however, get in trouble for coming in too high. Does anyone thing this means anything other than "They're going to come up with the lowest value they can justify?" That's where the incentives run. Result: Consumers get hosed (along with everyone else except the appraisers)

VIII. Representations and Warranties A lender shall certify, warrant, and represent that the appraisal report was obtained in a manner in compliance with this Code of Conduct. If the Enterprise determines, on its own or from a referral made by the Institute, that a lender is in breach of a material aspect of this Code of Conduct or in violation of a provision of the Code by a complaint referred from the Institute, the Enterprise will enforce all applicable rights and remedies, including suspension or termination of the lender's eligibility to sell loans to the Enterprise, if the lender fails to remediate.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? What this means is that a single appraiser making an accusation has the power to threaten a lender's ability to sell loans to Fannie and Freddie. Since those are far and away the most popular loans with the best rates, this means that lender loses most of their business - especially as VA and FHA can be expected to follow suit.

Fannie Mae put out a set of FAQ's to lenders a week or so ago

Scope of Coverage Q1. What loans are affected by the new Home Valuation Code of Conduct?

Fannie Mae has agreed to adopt the Home Valuation Code of Conduct ("the Code") for all conventional, single-family loans originated on or after May 1, 2009, that are delivered to Fannie Mae. For purposes of the Code, origination date means the date of the application. The Code will not apply to multifamily loans, or to loans insured or guaranteed by a federal agency; the Code only applies to 1- to 4-unit single-family loans sold to Fannie Mae. The Code will not apply to loans sold to Fannie Mae on or after May 1, 2009 that were originated prior to May 1, 2009.

This means every Fannie Mae loan since May 1, 2009. The same applies to Freddie Mac.

Q3. Does the Code allow an appraiser to update an appraisal for another lender?

Yes. The Code does not prevent an appraiser from performing an update of an appraisal for another lender.

That's nice. It still doesn't force a lender to release the appraisal, something that would have made a positive difference to the public. I order an appraisal and I can't perform the loan on the terms indicated, I should release it to someone else who can.

Q6. After May 1, 2009, is it permissible for Fannie Mae to purchase private label securities backed by mortgage loans that do not meet the requirement of the Code?

Yes. The Code applies only to 1- to 4-unit single-family loans sold to Fannie Mae by mortgage originators. It does not extend to Fannie Mae's investments in mortgage-related securities.

So it doesn't apply to what caused Fannie and Freddie to melt down. This whole code is a distraction from really fixing what went wrong.

Q7. Does the Code require lenders to obtain appraisals where they were under no such requirement pursuant to the Fannie Mae Selling Guide?

No, nothing in the Code requires a lender to obtain a property valuation, or to use any particular method for property valuation. Nor does the Code affect the acceptable scope of work for an appraiser in connection with a particular assignment.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, lenders are required by the Federal Reserve and SEC to use all due diligence. Every loan that goes south without a full appraisal is grounds for getting somebody fired. What do you think is going to happen? How often do you think lenders go without full appraisals now?

Q9. Does Section I.B.(9) specifically prohibit a lender from ordering a second appraisal?

No. Section I.B.(9) only prohibits a lender from ordering a second appraisal when they are attempting to influence the outcome of the first appraisal and are now "value-shopping." As a risk control measure for certain loan products, it may be common for a lender to order more than one appraisal, and this subsection does not prohibit that practice.

In other words, yes it does prohibit getting a second opinion if the first appraisal is a piece of garbage. The only exception is if the lender makes a practice of ordering a second appraisal for that particular loan product. More money for appraisers, and the second appraiser isn't accountable either.

I'm going to take these next ones together:

Q11. Does Section II of the Code require the lender to provide the appraisal free of charge?

No. The Code requires the lender to provide, free of charge, a "copy" of any appraisal report completed in association with a specific loan. The lender may require the borrower to reimburse the lender for the cost of the appraisal.

Q13. Does the Code prohibit an appraiser from collecting payment for the appraisal directly from the borrower?

Yes, for loans to be delivered to Fannie Mae. The Code requires the lender or any third party specifically authorized by the lender to select, retain, and provide for all compensation to the appraiser.

If you think this isn't going to cause problems, welcome to Earth and I hope we can be friends. This places the burden for payment upon the lender, who remember has no ability to control which appraisers they use. Paying through escrow might be a theoretical possibility, but it leaves open the possibility that the lender gets stiffed and has to pay out of their own pocket. Lenders are going to have a choice of 1) Requiring an upfront deposit for the appraisal or 2) Jacking up their margin so that clients who close pay for ones that don't. Either one of these is vile, and bad business. My company (and every other lender and loan officer out there) had to figure out which of them is the lesser of two evils. This is going to have implications for escrow accounting, as well - the number one reason that brokers and lenders lose their licenses (and 99% for completely stupid technical reasons having nothing to do with consumer benefit). From a benefit to the consumer standpoint, requiring the lender to release the appraisal to a new lender would be far superior. But that doesn't give appraisers power, see that they get paid, etcetera.

Q18. When selecting an appraiser, may lenders use a pre-approved appraiser list or panel? Yes. Lenders may use a pre-approved list or panel to select a residential appraiser, provided that (1) any employees of the lender tasked with selecting appraisers for the list are independent of the loan production staff; and (2) the loan production staff is not involved in selecting appraisers off the list for particular appraisal assignments.

Confirming and emphasizing what I said earlier. There is no way I or any other loan officer can keep from using a bad appraiser, no matter how bad they are.

Q19. May a servicer use an affiliate company to order appraisals for borrower-initiated private mortgage insurance cancellation based on current value?

Yes. The Code does not apply to appraisals for cancelling mortgage insurance based on current value. The Code is specific to "a mortgage financing transaction," and cancellation of mortgage insurance is not "a mortgage financing transaction." The Fannie Mae Servicing Guide states that "To determine the current appraised value of the property, the servicer must select an appraiser, order a new appraisal (which must be based on an inspection of both the interior and exterior of the property and be prepared in accordance with our appraisal standards for new mortgage originations)."

So feel free to value play games with the appraisal when you're trying to remove PMI. Why this would be such a straightjacket for new loans, and completely inapplicable for leaving lenders uncovered by mortgage insurance, contradicts all reason - but not politics.

In-House Appraisers Q21. May in-house appraisers prepare appraisal reports? Yes, in-house appraisers may prepare appraisal reports if the conditions of Section IVB. are met.

Q23. May a correspondent lender use in-house appraisers? Yes, a correspondent lender may use in-house appraisers if they meet the criteria in Section IV.B. of the Code.

In other words, so long as the appraisers are completely unaccountable. They can't even be fired for consistently producing bad valuations, so long as they don't go over the line into actual legal misconduct.

Appraisal Management Companies Q25. Is a lender required to use an appraisal management company for ordering appraisals?

No. A lender may order appraisals directly from an individual appraiser.

So long as it isn't any dirty filthy loan officer, anyone accountable to any loan officer, or in fact, anyone other than another appraiser doing the ordering. See above.

Q27. When a lender uses an appraisal management company, the appraisal management company is responsible for retaining and paying the appraiser. Is it likewise permissible for a mortgage broker to use an appraisal management company, since the mortgage broker does not technically retain or pay the appraiser?

No. The Code prohibits lenders from relying on an appraisal where the broker had a role in selecting, retaining, or compensating the appraiser.

Q28. May a mortgage broker provide the lender with an approved appraiser list for the lender to use when ordering appraisals for that particular broker?
No.

Q32. May a lender accept an appraisal prepared by an appraiser that was ordered by a mortgage broker?
No. The Code does not allow a lender to accept an appraisal prepared by an appraiser that was ordered by a mortgage broker as noted in Section IIIA. of the Code.

Q33. May a mortgage broker order an appraisal directly from an appraisal management company that was specifically authorized by the lender?

No. The Code prohibits brokers from ordering appraisal services.
Q34. Does the Code permit a mortgage broker to select an appraiser from the lender's list of approved appraisers, if the lender is responsible for the relationship with the appraiser, including compensation?

No. The Code prohibits lenders from relying on an appraisal where the broker had a role in selecting, retaining, or compensating the appraiser.

Once again, I'm mostly a correspondent. The restrictions on brokers don't mean that much to me, per se - just covering the fact that it applies to brokers too. This is just more emphasis that appraisers are no longer accountable in any way, shape or form. But they do seem punitive.

Portability of the Appraisal Q29. May an appraisal be transferred to a lender from a correspondent lender and, if so, under what circumstances? Yes, a lender may accept an appraisal from a correspondent lender that complies with the Code. Q30.A mortgage broker submits a loan to lender A, which orders an appraisal. The broker later decides to submit the loan to lender B because it is offering better terms, or for another reason. May the appraisal obtained by lender A be used by lender B (assuming the mortgage broker has no control over or involvement in the assignment)? Yes, a lender may accept an appraisal from a different lender that complies with the requirements of the Code and in particular Section III.A. in connection with the loan being originated. Lender A must be named as client on the appraisal report.

Note that there is still no requirement to release the appraisal - meaning the appraisers get paid again when the lender won't.

Furthermore, this means the lender's name is on the appraisal - not the broker who paid for it (if there is one), not the loan officer. You think a lender is going to release an appraisal when someone wants to take potential business away from them? I don't.

Now, my comments on the entire thing. There were abuses of the appraisal process. They need to be fixed. This is not the way to do it. This does absolutely nothing to stop collusion between an appraiser and another party, which was the largest problem that has not yet been fixed. Properties were selling for those amounts. It was not the fault of loan officers, whether lender, broker, or correspondent, that the values got so high. By far the largest root cause was the fault of the loan programs the lenders were offering, or rather, very aggressively pushing. If you offer a loan program specifically designed to make it look like someone making minimum wage can afford a $500,000 property, you can expect problems when people take you up on it. Yes, there were loan officers colluding with appraisers. There were also sellers, buyers, agents (Realtor or not), and everybody else under the sun colluding with appraisers. Collusion, problem though it was, was not the largest problem by an order of magnitude - that was loans that set the borrowers up to fail, and the lenders themselves with them. This solves neither of those problems. The largest one has already solved itself as lenders stopped lending money on a Make Believe basis. The lesser although still major problem of collusion this does nothing to stop. In fact, it explicitly states that communication between an agent and an appraiser is not prohibited, nor is communication between a buyer or seller and the appraiser, or for that matter, between a loan officer and an appraiser. It's when the appraiser takes exception that such becomes a problem - there is no new control on collusion anywhere in the process. All it does is prohibit responsiveness to the needs of the consumer.

All of the incentives in place are for appraisers to come up with a value that is too low. They no longer can lose business for bringing out appraisals so low as to constitute nonsense - they can't be pulled off the eligible list, and the lender has no power to direct future work away from them. The only real way they're going to get in trouble is by coming up with a value that's too high, and that's going to be rare, both because the system isn't set up to catch it until after the fact and because that's the only thing about an appraisal that can cause lenders lose money in a traceable, accounting sense.

I don't know how many self righteous appraisers have told me "We are the only representative for the house." This is nonsense (to be polite). The house is neither living or sentient. It's a thing. It has no interests. The legal responsibility of the appraisers is entirely to the lender, not to the consumer. Comparatively few appraisers understand how it damages a lender to have the value come in lower than it should - a loan does not get made where it should have been made, and the lender does not make money when they should have. Comparatively few appraisers care about the consequences to consumers of appraisals that are too low, who put money in the appraisers pocket only to be denied the benefit they paid that money for and that they should have gotten. What they have told me time and time again is important (by their actions, and more often than not, by their words) is putting money in their own pockets whether or not it benefits the consumer, whom they have no legal responsibility towards.

There will be no more developing a good working relationship between appraisers and anybody. I used to have a couple of appraisers I had learned to trust - they're honest enough that I don't have to worry about them returning a fraudulently high appraisal, they're responsive enough that I know when they tell me the value isn't there, it isn't. They've helped me to learn what to look for so that I know ahead of time whether the value is going to be there or not. I have never asked an appraiser to give me a higher value. All I have ever done is not used them again if they ripped off my clients, and comparatively few times at that (about 5, in over 1000 loans in every county in California, and quite a few in Florida and Nevada, so it's not like I've been limited to one or two appraisers in San Diego County). That ability to stop using problem appraisers is no longer something I'm going to have. I've had to get used to clients being ripped off, and there being absolutely nothing I can do. The only way to protect myself and my company from false accusations of manipulating the appraiser (and thereby losing the ability to do loans with Fannie and Freddie) is not to discuss anything with them verbally. I have stopped meeting appraisers, and am only communicate a bare minimum of information through things like email and facsimile, and I'm advising my clients not to be there either. I have a combo lockbox for the keys, so the appraisers can let themselves in.

So don't get mad at your loan officer. If the appraisal doesn't come in for a needed value, it won't be because of anything they could have done or not have done. Nor can we complain. Loan officers are very exposed to reprisal; the appraiser is almost completely insulated from any consequences. Appraisers can potentially kill our loan business with a single accusation - justified or not. We can't do a damned thing to them unless we can prove an actual violation - a much higher standard of action, especially as appraisal standards use a lot of words like "reasonable". In other words, judgment.

I would not presume to argue that appraisal standards did not need reform. They did, very badly. They still do, as this was not what they needed.

The appraisers organization, or actually, appraisal management companies, have somehow gotten themselves into a position like tenured college professors, and without any of the (debateable) reasons for that. But there are a lot of bad appraisers out there who waste appraisal money with absolutely no understanding of the damage they are doing. It's going to get a lot worse until public outrage puts a stop to it. Appraisers own the problem - there is absolutely no way to blame any future problems on anyone except appraisers. Unless the appraisers who have been creating all of the problems, and their organization, change their way of thinking and police their own problems, I firmly believe they're going to learn to appreciate the virtues of the old aphorism, "Be careful what you ask for. You might get it."

Like it or not, however, it's the de facto law of the land. Every loan officer has to have to live by it. The only way to stop it is for consumers to start expressing the outrage that they will soon be feeling every time an appraiser returns a garbage value that wastes their money. Express it loudly, express it repeatedly, express it to all of your congressional representatives and senators. Make them understand they have to actually fix the problem, which means taking the time to actually understand it and think, not finding one scapegoat and declaring someone else to be sainted by virtue of having obtained an appraiser's license. You don't fix problems by giving one person absolute power over a transaction with no real accountability to anyone else.

The appraisers were pushing for this, but appraisers didn't come out all that well by it. The execution is hurting them a lot precisely because they wanted to remove the ability of loan officers to choose an appraiser. This means good, ethical appraisers who earn business by doing high quality appraisals are not able to attract business any more. It's all lenders ordering from appraisal management companies, who charge as much as the market will bear and pay the appraiser as little as they can get away with. There being fewer appraisal management companies than appraisers, there is less competition and therefore prices are rising - I heard $700 for an appraisal quoted yesterday - while the appraisers are getting paid less (one company is only paying them $150. As my source said, if that's the way things shake out he will go get a job at Starbucks because he'll make more money and have health care paid too). The only real way lenders can order appraisals is through an appraisal management company, and working for an appraisal management company is the only way appraiser can get work. This bottlenecks the process, and puts appraisal management companies in a position where nobody has any choice but to deal with them. Upshot: The appraisal management companies are making money hand over fist, but everybody else loses. I strongly urge everyone with a stake in the real estate loan process (in other words, everyone who might like a loan someday) to write your congressional representatives and senators and get this abomination repealed now, before appraisal management companies become any more of an entrenched special interest.

The appraisers, for their part, have already discovered the gotcha! in what they pushed for. They already know that what they thought they were asking for is different from the reality.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

"I am married but want to refinance my house only in my name. What do I have to do?"

Most lenders policies require the property to be titled in a compatible manner to the loan. Some few do allow the spouse to be on title and not a party to the loan, in which case they will be required to sign the Trust Deed, although not the Note. Most lenders, however, will require that if you are the only one on the loan, the property be titled in your name exclusively. So your spouse will be required to sign a quitclaim to "Jenny Jones, a married woman as her sole and separate property" (Or "John Jones, a married man as his sole and separate property). If you don't like the title being this way, that's fine and don't sweat it. You can quitclaim it back to "John and Jenny Jones, husband and wife as joint tenants with rights of survivorship" as soon as the loan records. What matters is that the people agreeing to the loan, as of the moment the Trust Deed comes into effect, is reflected in the official title of the property.

For those intelligent individuals whose property is in living trusts, this is also a common feature of getting a loan on the property. The lender will usually require it be quit-claimed from "John and Jenny Jones, trustees of the Jones Family Living Trust" to either the sole individual who qualified for the loan, as in the previous paragraph, or to "John and Jenny Jones, husband and wife as joint tenants with rights of survivorship."

All of that is the easy part. Now comes the hard part. If one spouse wants to be the only one on the loan, then they must qualify on their own. Only their income may be used. However, since most debts in a marriage are in the names of both partners, typically they are going to going to be charged for most debts on their qualification sheets. This really is no big deal if that particular spouse is earning all of the money anyway, but in most cases these days, both spouses are working, and they want to buy the biggest home they can, so it can be difficult to qualify them for that home based upon the income of only one spouse. Here's a typical scenario: He makes $5600 per month, she makes $5000. They have two $400 per month car payments and $120 per month in credit card minimum payments. But he has rotten credit, so they are hoping to secure a loan on better terms. By A paper full documentation guidelines, she only qualifies for a PITI payment of $1330 ($5000 times 45%, minus $920), which might get a one bedroom condo in a not so hot area of town. So then they have to go stated income in order to qualify for the loan on the home they really want - and stated income loans are dead, at least for now. As a couple they qualify for payments of $3850 ($10,600 times 45%, minus $920), which will get a decent single family residence in an okay area of town. You, the readers, can guess which of the two properties the average couple in this situation is going to shop for. Unfortunately, if they can't use his income, they don't qualify for the property they want. This is a real issue, especially if they went and got a prequalification from someone who figured both of their incomes in the equation, so here they are with a purchase agreement and they can't qualify like they thought they could. This is one reason I've learned never to trust someone else's prequalification of a buyer, because in this situation, the only way to make it happen is to put John, with his rotten credit, on the loan. Because he makes more money than Jenny, he will be the primary borrower, and so the loan will be based upon John's bad credit history, not Jenny's above average FICO. There used to be ways to potentially get around this, but the lenders have closed pretty much all those loopholes (and then some...) and so John and Jenny often don't qualify for the loan amount they need for the property they shopped for. Better to get John's credit score up where he will qualify for a good loan beforehand, of course, but usually these folks want a loan now so they can get this home they've already signed a purchase contract on. The ability to improve credit scores in a short period of time is limited, and it's even more limited if John and Jenny are short on cash, which is usually the case.

These can all be issues with the spouse who makes less money, also. Reverse the incomes, so that John, with his bad credit, makes $5000 per month and Jenny, with her good credit, makes $5600. So at least Jenny is primary on the loan now but that doesn't help a whole lot in the A paper loan market, where both borrowers have to meet the same standards.

Now, in point of fact many borrowers these days are ones that have settled upon a property before they even considered a loan, and are determined to get that property no matter what they have to do. Alternatively, they may have talked to someone about loans who gave them a budget which was in fact accurate, but they liked this property so much that they are utterly ignoring that budget. Such people are going to end up with bad loans or, more likely today, no property and a forfeited deposit. They want more house than they can really afford, and they want it now. When first I wrote this, I could get the loan for them, any competent loan officer could have gotten the loan for them, but there would be consequences down the road, because there are still those pesky payments they have to make (or negative amortization that builds up. Or both). A loan you cannot afford is a course for disaster, and the longer you're on it, the worse the disaster gets. And the lending standards now are much more paranoid on the lenders part. The Era of Make Believe Loans is over.

Another thing that bites a fair number of people is divorce, where one ex-spouse figures that because he (or she) qualified all by themselves so they should be able to make the payments all by themselves. But the loan officer back when they originally bought used stated income without telling them, and once that other income is gone, it turns out that they can't make the payments. Not only can they not make the payments, they cannot qualify to refinance now, even as a couple. Typically, most people live in denial about this for way too long, ruining their credit to where they can no longer qualify for the loan on the lesser property they would have been able to get if they had done the smart thing and sold as soon as they figured it out in the first place.

One spouse qualifying for a loan on their own has some real issues to be aware of, and that will turn and bite you if you're not careful enough.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

It's very simple really, and this is something I have never covered in the perhaps mistaken belief that it was too simple and everybody knew this.

The Note is the loan contract that sets the terms of the loan, repayment, etcetera. This contract is the document that controls, in conjunction with state law, your loan. Term of loan, interest rate, prepayment penalty, penalties for late payments, it's all there.

The Trust Deed is the security instrument. Without the Deed of Trust, the Note still creates the indebtedness, it's just not secured by anything specific. You still owe the money, but without the Deed of Trust the lender cannot force the sale of the residence (or take possession themselves) in satisfaction of that Note. Actually, I should say that they can't do so without recourse to the courts, and they would have to stand in line with all of the other unsecured creditors. The Deed of Trust creates that security interest, and makes the debt secured by a specific asset - the land given in the Deed of Trust. The Deed of Trust, unlike the Note, is recorded with the County Recorder with an official document number, and indexed in public records to as being associated with a particular piece of land, hence the ability to find it pretty easily.

You hear talk about a Note secured by a Deed of Trust. They're talking about a Note, and telling you that it is a note secured by Deed of Trust on a particular asset. Both real estate and automobile loans are routinely secured by a Deed of Trust against that particular property or vehicle, which is how the various holders of those loans have the ability to take back the secured property administratively, without recourse to the courts, provided certain conditions are met. If these loans were not secured by the pledge of a specific asset, these creditors would have to go through the courts, and stand in line along with credit card companies, etcetera. If they did not have a greater security interest, there would be no incentive to give real estate and automobile loans better rates than credit card holders get. So think about that before you advocate making it harder for lenders to foreclose. Every little bit you restrict a lender from its valid security interest means higher rates for everybody else as well. This is basic economics.

There's was a great brouhaha a while ago about "produce the Note." People who were in over their heads are telling lenders to "produce the Note" in order to proceed with a foreclosure. They're hoping for a jackpot, and a few years ago, in the case of perhaps one to two percent of all borrowers, usually with a loan that had been sold multiple times, the lender was unable to produce the note and the person ended up with a free house instead of losing it. I shouldn't have to tell you who ends up paying for those houses and the loans associated with them, should I? Here's a hint: It's not the lender or their stockholders. If you're completely clueless, It's customers of that bank and future borrowers who end up paying. If it gets bad enough, its the US taxpayers and depositors with over the insured amount in that institution. These days, however, "produce the Note" is a delaying tactic - figure the lender is going to find it in all but a very small number of cases - on the order of winning the lottery odds. It may take them a while, but it's a safe enough bet that they will find it. It may buy you a month or two delay, that's all - perhaps only a day or less. If you can solve the problem presented by the default in that period of time, all well and good. If you can't, all you've done is delay the inevitable and perhaps make it worse (The Trust Deed is part of the public record, and trivial to find and produce - the title companies can all do it within thirty seconds).

The two legal documents (or instruments) can be combined, but generally aren't, and I don't know why. However, this can be a problem for lenders who buy the loans from other lenders. It doesn't happen much any more, but it does still happen that lenders cannot produce the Note, and it usually is something that takes a while. Without the Note, there is no evidence of debt and therefore no loan to satisfy, and so you can have your lawyer insist that the Trust Deed be reconveyed. to clear the cloud it creates upon your title. Essentially, free money. Without the Reconveyance, however, it's difficult to sell the property and this can give the lender leverage to require repayment if you're trying to sell the property right now. Any unreconveyed Deed of Trust creates a cloud on title, and you need to clear that title in order to be able to sell, quitclaim, or even conceivably, will the property to an heir or even have it pass by action of law. If court action is required to clear a title, it's called a quiet title proceeding.

I'm not a lawyer in any state, so if a lawyer tells you something different than this, take their word for it, not mine. Even if I'm right in every other state, the lawyer is going to know that yours is the exception. This is simply the understanding of a layman who has had things explained to him by lawyers, and is attempting to pass on general knowledge of the differences and relationship between two loan related legal documents.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I read with great interest you article on the internet about pre-payment penalties. I find my self in a situation involving a pre-payment penalty and would appreciate your advice on this. I currently have a loan in which the prepayment penalty is up on DELETED. I have gone to another lender for a refinance and have been approved for a loan. Since this loan process occurred before the pre-payment penalty was up, my current lender has included it in the payoff demand information. My new lender has approved funding a loan with this penalty ($12,000) included. Documents are scheduled to be signed DELETED and the loan will be funded (13 days before the penalty expires). If I try to push back the date of my loan, my interest rate will go up, and I may not even qualify for a new loan since my FICA scores have dropped. My intention is to go through with the loan and have the loan person hold onto the payoff check until DELETED, after the pre-payment penalty has expired. I will then request a refund of this amount from my current lender. Do you think this strategy is viable or can you suggest an alternative without changing the the time schedule or amount of my new loan?

Doing it that way is okay if you want to pay the penalty and are willing to pay interest and points and everything on the extra. If not, just have your loan provider get a rate lock extension. You'll pay roughly a quarter of a point in fees, but that's less than the interest - or the penalty. Have your new lender get a payoff demand valid from expiration of the pre-payment penalty forward.

Your new lender is not going to tolerate being second in line for several weeks. Until that previous trust deed is paid off, the loan to value ratio is higher than their underwriting allows, and I'll bet that debt to income ratio is as well. Suppose there's a fire during those two weeks? Is there enough money in the insurance to pay both of them? The answer is no. Until that prior loan is paid off, the value of the property is exceeded by the loans against it. This is the purpose of escrow - and there's escrow in a refinance as well as in a purchase. You don't get that check - you only get what's left over after escrow does their job, which includes paying off the prior lender.

As to your personal situation, why has your FICO dropped? Credit scores don't drop without a reason, and one credit check isn't going to make that much of a difference. Basically, it looks like your lender is trying to make more money off you, and feeding you a line of nonsense to facilitate it. By boosting the loan amount, their compensation in the form of origination and yield spread rises. Okay, so 1% of $12,000 is only $120 - but that's $120 more for basically the exact same work. Not to mention the loan is funded now and they get paid now. Loans that are finished don't fall apart. I'd bet millions to milliamps that they're intending to fund your loan before the penalty expires. If they weren't, there's no reason to have you sign loan documents that early. I wouldn't have you sign until your right of rescission runs out concurrently with your penalty.

From the information given, this is not likely to be a lender with your best interests at heart. About the only thing I can even think of where it might be in your interest is if there's a notice of default or trustee's sale looming - and then we have to consider whether paying that penalty and all of the costs of the loan is really in your best interest. And since you didn't say anything about either one of these situations, I have to question the wisdom of basically volunteering to pay 6 extra months of interest plus loan costs. In this loan environment, I just have trouble believing that the new loan is going to save you that much money over the course of the time you are likely to keep it, let alone over the two weeks early you're paying it off. Even if you're at 8% now and moving to a 4 percent thirty year fixed rate without points, you're spending $12,000 you don't need to in order to fund 2 weeks earlier. It's basically impossible to construct a realistic scenario where paying that penalty is in your best interest. And yes, rates are going up, but neither I nor any other analyst I read is expecting that much higher, that quickly - even if your rate isn't locked, and rates that aren't locked aren't real.

Rate lock extensions cost money. But sometimes they're still the smart thing to do. In your case, it's spend approximately a quarter of a percent of your loan amount (depending upon lender policy), or three to four percent for six months interest that I can't see any compelling reason for you to owe.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

This is going to be a long article and somewhat technical in places, but it needs to be covered and it's important to everyone who is thinking about getting a real estate loan.

"Fall-Out" is very simple: The number and percentage of dollars of loans that get locked that do not eventually fund. If I lock $1 million worth of loans this month, and fund $650,000 of that, I have a fall out ratio of 35%, and a "pull through" of 65% (my personal "pull through" is much higher than that, but this is an industry wide issue). The secondary loan market is putting immense pressure upon lenders to deliver a very high percentage of what gets locked. This has implications for the way loan officers need to handle loan applications, when they lock your loan, and many other things.

I got this email sent to me the other day from headquarters. It's representative of tensions going on between the interests of consumers and the interests of lenders, and has implications for what can be done to advance the interests of consumers and the direction the loan industry is likely to go in the near future. Because the email is long, I'm going to break it up and respond in pieces. I'm going to put the email text in various block quotes, while my responses will be normal text style. If I need to change some jargon in the body of the email to render it comprehensible, I'm going to change it and put the changed text into parentheses. Specifically identifiable information (personal or corporate), I am going to show as DELETED.

The question has come up many times "Is the brokerage business going to survive?"

I recently had factors explained to me that moves my answer away from just having a positive faith into a more realistic understanding of what elements will determine the outcome. Economic systems live or die on economics. Seems simple enough. If the brokerage channel is economically viable, then it will survive; if not, it won't. If companies are economical, they will survive; if not, they won't. And of course, the same is true for (loan officers).

In my discussions with that lender, I now have a better understanding of how fallout plays into the economic model and what lenders are going to do differently now to ensure their own survival. Brokerage channels are inherently more unreliable and inconsistent on fulfilling lock promises than retail banking. As such, the secondary market is paying substantially less for broker commitments than the equivalent banking commitment. When bank retail (loan officers) lock loans, they don't have the ability to move the loan for a better rate. The pull through on locks in retail channels is 10-20% higher than DELETED. The reason I bolded above is broker (loan officers) vary on pull through from 10% to 45% back to 100%. It's that inconsistency that prevents lenders from picking, say 40% fallout as the number. When you want the lock to exist, you want your cake. It's just broker LO's want both.

It shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that this is changing, driven by the secondary market. When a loan officer locks a loan, the bank turns around and orders funding from Wall Street Investors at the rates available at that time. This changes with market conditions, and that is the reason why there can be half a dozen loan repricings per day as the market waxes and wanes with events. If that money that gets ordered does not in fact get used, the bank is out the money.

This is going to have effects within the industry. Consumers are going to find it much harder to get a loan locked without paying a deposit to the lender. The only way - and only loan officers - which are going to be an exception to this are loan officers who either 1) Float the rate while telling you it's locked, or 2) Ruthlessly weed out their loan applications of anyone who is less than fully qualified and completely committed to this loan. Since one or the other of these latter conditions applies to the vast majority of everyone, the practical upshot of would be a loan officer passing upon the majority of their potential income, which just is not going to happen.

Mortgage Loan Rate Locks have always been the horns of a dilemma for loan officers. Lock now and you risk the consumer bailing out on you if the rates fall, or demanding a renegotiation. Float the rate, and you risk those rates rising to the point where the consumer is angry, starts shopping elsewhere, or even just blows off the idea of getting a loan entirely. Consumers have had this choice far too easy for the last ten years or so, free-riding upon the intense competition between lenders. In case you haven't noticed, there aren't nearly so many lenders in business today as there were a few years ago. Lenders are going to start charging for a rate lock because they are now able to do so. This may change back again in a few years, but for now you can look at it as the way things are going to be for the foreseeable future.

Lenders need to have 75% pull through in order to make money. Think about it: in order for them to sell their portfolios, roll in all the costs of their operation, roll in all the "touches" on files that close and all the files that don't close, the lost hedge fees on loans that don't close, plus all the losses that occur on buybacks - 75% is the bar they have set. When a company is below that, they lose money.

As you've seen, lenders are starting to differentiate between profitable companies and unprofitable companies. DELETED volume makes a lender's effort at rehabilitation worthwhile. That lure is always there, but if the relationship doesn't work, it doesn't work. DELETED has long talked about fallout as a major problem, but lenders and DELETED have been giving it only lip service in the past. No longer.

If the brokerage business is to survive, the broker has to make it so the lender wins. No lender, no broker. Since the lender knows the relationship is symbiotic, many lenders are creating pricing tiers to incentivize companies to figure it out. That is only the first step. Lenders are now dropping unprofitable mortgage as they try to improve their execution price with Fannie/Freddie. In other words, the brokerage business will be smaller, more focused, more partner-like than what has been in the previous "sales" model of mortgage brokering. DELETED plans to "partner" with its top lenders and assure top tier pull through in order to get the best from each company. We need to make that commitment to them which will assure our mutual survival.

A very important shift must occur to be successful. The (loan officers) must shift their thinking to make sure the lender wins 80+% of the time. The math is very, very simple: What's the dollar volume that gets locked? What is the dollar volume that closes? What's the ratio?

I would take issue with the contention that "the lender needs 75% pull-through to make money". Their own captive loan officers rarely achieve 75% pull through. Talk to me about it when lenders start firing their "in house" loan officers for less than 75% pull through. But there is a point at which it is no longer profitable to do business with a given brokerage or loan officer, and a large percentage of loan officers are below that point. The upshot is that lenders are increasingly serious about this, and are terminating relationships that don't measure up. For that matter, they are terminating their own loan officers, albeit for mostly unrelated reasons. Net result: fewer loan officers, less competition, and the balance of power shifts more towards those loan officers remaining in the business, away from consumers. Nor is this going to be an issue at brokerages only - direct lender loan officers are going to get hit by it.

This is also leading towards a dichotomy that the lenders which are more reluctant to lock a loan are going to be able to get better pricing for their loans once they do lock. The lenders are passing along the negative parts of the investor incentives to whomever is originating the loan. If you've been reading this site very long, you've heard me say upon multiple occasions that "It's not real if it's not locked." But if I lock a loan for someone who is playing games, it hurts all of my clients as well as my ability to attract future clients, so I'm going to be really careful about which loans I lock, and I am going to be very upfront about what it's going to take in order to lock a given loan. I'd rather lose one loan than the ability to compete as strongly as I do, let alone lose access to a lender with useful programs. I am still disposed against the cash deposit in order to lock, but I may have no choice in the long run. Loan officers, whether they're brokers or work directly for the bank, have to keep lenders happy or pay the consequences, which means all of their clients also pay those consequences.

This is why the backup loan is dead - even I can't do them any longer. What this means is that you have to do real due diligence ahead of time, nail down prospective loan providers by asking them all the necessary questions and insisting upon a loan quote guarantee. Alternatively, you'll probably be able to make a cash deposit - but the loan originators are going to get very hardcore about keeping it if you don't fund your loan. It won't matter why - your fault, my fault, nobody's fault. The downside of all of this is that instead of having a third option, consumers are going to be stuck with either loan A or no loan at all, giving unscrupulous originators even more of an edge than they've got already.

Here's the tough part. It doesn't matter:

* That the house didn't appraise

* That the borrower didn't qualify

* That the rates dropped significantly

* That the borrower walked

* That the borrower was related to someone who got them a better deal

* That the Lender changed their program mid stream

* Etc, Etc, Etc.!!!

If you locked, the lender lost money. Of course those are good (loan officer) reasons, but if DELETED loses our lender relationships due to those reasons, then something's got to change. The thing that has to change (and will change) is what factors must exist for the (loan officers) to lock. Ideally, after Clear to Close, lock it and doc it and get 'er done. But many (loan officers) don't work that way. Well, I am asserting that ultimately there is no home anywhere in the mortgage business for the (loan officer) who locks first and apps later. No home for the (loan officer) who locks before he's run (automated underwriting system), seen the documentation, determined value, and checked with the lender. No one will be able to lock as what will soon be referred to as "old school". All brokers will have to conform to this mode of thinking.

He's unfortunately correct - and it's going to apply to all loan officers, whether they work at a brokerage or for a direct lender. It's going to take a very sharp loan officer to be able to get away with locking before clearance to close. Loan officers who do that are going to have to know the standards cold, and still they will be taking risks. But here's the thing - you want a loan officer who is willing to lock sooner than that.

I'm not certain that any of these except "lender changing their program mid-stream" is unpreventable. At the end of January 2009, Fannie and Freddie suddenly imposed a requirement that almost half of everyone with a loan in progress fell afoul of, and that they suddenly became over-conscious of the fact that they've had a major fall-out surge is supremely ironic, because that surge was nobody's fault except their own. "House didn't appraise" did not used to be a factor if the buyer's agent knew what they were doing. This has changed because the new appraisal standards are a disaster for consumers, loan officers and appraisers, and only good for corporations in the appraisal management company business. It's a bad news/good news/horrible news situation. The bad news is that good ethical appraisers and good ethical loan officers basically can no longer develop or keep a working relationship. The good news is that the less ethical examples of each are going to start running up against the better ones on the other side of the relationship, and the good ones are going to complain. The horrible news is going to be that there is nothing that good loan officers can do about rotten appraisers. If you don't think this doesn't have consequences, let me know - I need a good laugh these days. The appraiser's professional organization has learned the hard truth about being careful what you ask for, as appraisers are making less despite appraisals being more expensive, and it's not the careful and honest appraisers who are getting the work.

When I first wrote this, "Borrower didn't qualify" was ninety nine percent preventable by going over income documentation on debt to income ratio, asset documentation and being mindful of how much cash a buyer has to play with so that you know how much you need for loan to value ratio and cash to close, and if necessary, the the buyer's agent writes the purchase offer and negotiates it with the loan in mind. It's been a long time since the necessity of buyer's agents consulting a loan officer before you make a purchase offer began, and listing agents to require that a lender's prequalification or preapproval letter must be offer-specific - tailored to this particular purchase offer on this particular property at this particular point in time. If not, you might as well use the that letter for toilet paper because it doesn't mean anything. You can't fake up a loan any longer with a 100% loan to value stated income negative amortization loan. Agents have got to learn to be clear whether a potential buyer can qualify before they write the offer - and definitely before you counsel your listing client to accept it. It's also smart to build in a bit of wiggle room in the qualification. Lender standards are cold and hard thin lines - on one side, the buyers qualify, while on the other, they don't. If buyers have stretched to the absolute limit and the tradeoff between rate and cost on loans shifts upwards just a little bit, that can put a buyer on the other side of a hard line that says "No way". For buyer's agents, the need to be able to work within a client budget, and also to persuade those clients to stay within that budget, is here to stay. There are no more Make Believe Loans.

"But what if rates drop half a percent and the lender has a bad re-lock policy?"

Don't use that lender if they have a horrible re-lock policy. The re-lock policy is a feature of the product they are selling. Don't buy from them if you don't like that feature.

"What if their rates are terrific?"

Then use them, but keep your pull through at 80% or be subject to consequences.

And that's the issue. The brokerage community has never really had to pay the consequences. Now brokers will. Therefore, brokers and (loan officers) have grown up in the industry with the mindset of the child whose parents constantly threatens and repeats, but never follows through. The shocking turnaround seems unfair. But what really is happening is a movement to align value with value. "For those that help us win, they get value. For those that don't, they're gone."

This is a fact of life for all loan officers, whether they're working for a brokerage or a direct lender. It is therefore going to be a fact of life for consumers, and it is going to have effects upon their loan choices. Consumers are going to have to decide between great rates and the ability to cancel a loan without consequences. Consumers are going to be forced to choose between locking early and not having to make a loan deposit. I despise deposits, but there it is. Consumers are going to have to learn that there are things which may not be obvious on the face of it that are important to their loan satisfaction, to do their due diligence first, and if they don't do it right, they are going to be stuck. Consumers are going to have to learn the difference between merely talking a good game, and actually delivering the loan that was talked about. Loan originators are not going to accept dual applicants (lest they lose hundreds to thousands of dollars per loan when their fall out ratio becomes unacceptably high), and while all credit reports run within fourteen days count as one, it's going to be more than fourteen days between credit reports if you've had a loan fall apart in between. And consumers are going to need to be far more in touch with the consequences of their choices, as the ability of loan officers to shelter their clients is disintegrating.

I've spoken with several small to midsize mortgage companies throughout the country. They are being cut off by lenders for several reasons: low volume, high fallout, high touches. DELETED have avoided that fate due to our volume; however, there could come a time that volume won't even help if we don't move our pull through and quality into the next era.

This is from a lender this morning that supports my point:

What does a "loan lock" mean? One top agent sent out a note to her staff. "I think as a consumer, or even a loan officer, when we lock a loan, we feel like we are simply "securing" or "holding" that rate for a client. That is only part of it. Once a lock is made, at that moment, the investor is expecting delivery of that loan at the interest rate as part of their portfolio. (In essence, the loan might not be closed, but it is already sold.) If you can't deliver, or don't close on time, or you are just simply "trying" to secure a "deal" based on rate, then the investor is going to call your lender and ask, "Where is my loan? Where is my money?" Then your lender might try to "replace" that loan with another loan, or just say to the investor, "Sorry." You are not just simply holding for you and your client an "Insurance Policy" to try to get that rate, if by some chance you get the loan, you are, in fact, impacting the investors who are trying to make money on those sold loans. It may be hard to miss that "single day" rates are awesome...but, if you are not in Contract, and you don't have an Appraisal...and you don't have a true file you can close in 30 days...then DON'T LOCK...UNTIL YOU DO! LOCK when you KNOW you are going to close it. Lock AFTER you have an approval. Don't lock at multiple Banks. A lock is a promise to deliver!"

The lenders are starting to enforce that promise to deliver, and putting loan originators who don't deliver into the penalty box if not throwing them out of the game entirely. Anywhere that loan originators go, their customers will follow. The loan originators that survive are going to be the ones who are careful about locking, and make it difficult for clients to bail out of a rate lock without an over-ridingly good reason. The ethical ones are honest about it. The less ethical ones are continuing to give you the same snowjob you've always gotten from them.

One of the practical effects of this is going to be to essentially kill online mortgage quotes as being of any actual use whatsoever to the public. I am sorry to see this happen, but that's economic reality. When loan officers can't honestly quote you a binding rate and cost without building in an an ungodly amount of slop to account for how much the market may move between quote and lock, there are going to be two kinds of quotes: High ones that the loan officer is prepared to stand behind, and low ones that are the result of lowballing, wishful thinking and just plain lying. There will be no exceptions. The originators can either quote you a rate and cost predicated upon the rate/cost tradeoffs not going up, or they can make an honest allowance for that. In the first case, if the rates go up, you're either paying the higher amount or you're not going to have a loan, as loan originators certainly aren't going to do loans which cost them money, as these would require them to do. The only alternative for this brand of loan officer is to play the "wait, delay, and hope" game in speculation of the rate/cost tradeoffs coming back down. In the second alternative, you're going to be expecting consumers to sign up for apparently high priced but real loans versus shameless lowballs that are not going to be delivered on those terms when the loan is ready to go. That hasn't been working out very well for consumers these last forty years or so - I see no reason to expect it to miraculously change now.

These developments have made a lot of changes to effectively shopping for a real estate loan. The one thing that isn't going to change is that you're going to have to have a real conversation with several loan officers, and ask each and every one of them all of the relevant questions. Just getting a quote and hanging up is going to become even more of a recipe for disaster than it already is, and those who believe otherwise are fooling only themselves.

Caveat Emptor

Origianl article here