Risk Factors That Will Increase Your Mortgage Rate

Fannie Mae has a matrix (PDF) that shows what risk factors will increase your mortgage interest rate and by how much. Of note to real estate investors: investment properties will add at least 1.75%. (But then, we all knew mortgages for investment properties cost more.) The matrix also shows how much your rate will increase based on your credit score. They also give the adjustments for condos, manufactured homes, 40 year loans (as opposed to the normal 30 year) and some other scenarios. Interesting reading.

Another Possible New Fee For Home Buyers And Sellers

Came across a story in the New York Times this morning about a possible new fee in the housing market. It hasn't caught on yet, and let's hope it doesn't.

Some developers are trying to attach a clause to the sales contract of new homes that says the developer will receive 1% of the sales prices of the home every time it changes hands for the next 99 years. Wow. New home buyers - this is yet another reason to understand every piece of paper you are signing at closing.

Strategic Mortgage Defaults Revisited

Back at the end of September, I wrote about strategic mortgage defaults - purposefully defaulting on your mortgage on a property that has a mortgage for more than the property is worth. A story in the L.A. Times reported that these types of defaults were on the rise.

Now, University of Arizona law professor Arizona Brent T. White has published a paper (pdf) stating, contrary to news reports, not many people are doing this - but they should. He cites people's emotional fears as the driving force preventing them from acting in their own financial best interests - the fear of the shame and guilt of foreclosure and an exaggerated sense of the consequences of foreclosure. He also argues these fears are actively encouraged by the government, lenders, and other social agents to induce borrowers to ignore what might be the wisest financial decision for them.

I found this paper very interesting, mainly because it presents almost the complete opposite picture of human behavior that Freakonomics does - namely that people will NOT act in ways which benefit them financially the most. I think the difference here is due to the amounts of money involved, as well as social pressures. The actions looked at by Freakonomics dealt with relatively small amounts of money and with actions whose consequences have fewer social repercussions.

White states:

Homeowners should be walking away in droves. But they aren’t. And it’s not because the financial costs of foreclosure outweigh the benefits. To be sure, foreclosure comes with costs, including a significant negative impact on one’s credit rating. But assuming one had otherwise good credit, and continues to meet other credit obligations, one can have a good credit rating again – meaning above 660 - within two years after a foreclosure. Additionally, in as little as three years, one can qualify for a federally-insured FHA loan to purchase another home.

While the actual financial cost of having a poor credit score for a few years may be hard to quantify, it is not likely to be significant for most individuals – especially not when compared to the savings from walking away from a seriously underwater mortgage. While a good credit score might save an average person ten of thousands of dollars over the course of a lifetime, a few years of poor credit shouldn’t cost more than few thousand dollars.

I find his arguments to be well-thought out and worth thinking about. There is a definite basis against people who walk away from their mortgages:

This is not to say that there is a grand scheme to manipulate the emotions of homeowners, or even that the government and other institutions consciously cultivate these emotional constraints on default. But, to be sure, the predominate message of political, social, and economic institutions in the United States has functioned to cultivate fear, shame, and guilt in those who might contemplate foreclosure. These emotions in turn function as a form of internalized social control – encouraging conformity to the norm of meeting one’s mortgage obligations as long as one can afford to do so

What I find particularly interesting in the concept of how the lender-borrower relationship is an example of a asymmetric relationship - one side, the lender, has all the power. The lender is free to walk away from the loan (by selling it to another company), is free to make loans based on over-inflated property values (without doing any significant research to verify those values and then expect a government bailout when their lack of due diligence catches up to them), and is free to, in effect, modify the terms of the mortgage to include more than just the property as collateral, without any legal or moral ramifications, yet the borrower has no such options. In fact, even though the mortgage document specifically states the lender's SOLE COLLATERAL for the loan is the property, the lender is able to also use the borrower's credit score and self-image as collateral as well.

One obvious response to the above discussion is that society benefits when people honor their financial obligations and behave according to social and moral norms, rather than strictly legal or market norms. This may be true if lenders behaved according to the same social and moral norms. In the case of lender-borrower behavior, however, there is a clear imbalance in placing personal responsibility on the borrower to honor their “promise to pay” in order to relieve the lender of their agreement to take back the home in lieu of payment.

Given lenders' generally superior knowledge and understanding of both mortgage instruments and valuation of real estate, it seems only fair to hold them to the benefit of their bargain. At a basic level, sound underwriting of mortgage loans requires lenders to ensure that a loan is sufficiently collateralized in the event of default... In other words, in appraising a home the lender should ensure that the loan amount, at the least, does not exceed the intrinsic market value of the home...since lenders generally arrange the appraisal (which home buyers must pay for) and home buyers rely upon the lender to ensure the home is worth the purchase price, one might argue that lender should bear much more than 50% responsibility for the bad investment of the homeowner and lender.

So what does he propose be done to help homeowners? One suggestion is to prevent lenders from reporting foreclosures to credit reporting agencies. This sounds crazy, but he makes a good case:

The suggestion that Congress should amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prevent lenders from reporting mortgage defaults is premised upon the underlying mortgage contract, in which lenders agree to hold the house alone as collateral. In the case of underwater mortgages, however, the portion of the mortgage above the home’s present value essentially becomes unsecured. Lenders compensate for this by holding the borrowers’ credit score, and thus their human worth, as collateral – thereby altering the underlining agreement that the home serves as the sole collateral. As a consequence, lenders are often able to reap the benefit, but escape the costs, of their bargain.

There are many more arguments he makes, which I don't have the space to go into here. I encourage people to read his paper with an open mind. Needless to say, the banking industry fiercely opposes his ideas.

The Next Mortage Crisis: Option ARMS

Now that the subprime loan debacle is pretty much behind us, the next threat on the horizon for the mortgage industry are Option-ARMs and Alt-A loans. Alt-A loans are loans made to people just above the sub-prime cutoff. Option-ARMs are loans that allow the borrow to choose from a variety of different payments each months, including payments that are less than the interest that has accrued during the previous month. As the graph here shows, a large wave of these loans are getting ready to reset (have their interest rate adjusted) in the next two years.

Reuters has a story about the Option-ARMs here.

Many Updates

The big news in the real estate market this weekend, of course, is the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'm not sure what to make of this, other than the fact that I think they waited too long. If they were going to do something, I think it should have been done long ago and maybe some of the damage to the housing market could have been avoided. I think we'll have to wait to see how things play out before we know if this is a good move or bad move or even if it was a good move made too late. The stock market loves the news, but that doesn't really mean anything as the market tends to focus on the short term view.

I received my second payment from Hard Money loan #3. Glad to see that the borrower is paying on time, although only two payments do not constitute a trend. But it's only a one year loan, so it's already 1/6 over.

I am expecting a monthly statement from the operations at Multi #1 any day now. This month should also include the first profit distribution.

And finally, Rental #1, the property in Tulsa that I sold for a loss recently, is still not quite wrapped up. I spoke with the property manager on the phone early last week and was told everything was paid and the remainder of my deposit was being sent to me. Last Thursday, I received an email from the PMs that included scans of all the receipts for repairs and a scan of the refund check. None of it has actually shown up in the mail yet though, so I'll wait to write about that until I actually get it. Back in May, I sent them a $3,000 deposit. Their estimate of the repair work was $1,500. Figuring that plus the $100 a month management fee they charged (although they only had it for 1 or 2 months before it was sold), I was expecting a refund of somewhere close to $1,500. The email showed the check to be just over $500, so obviously there were more expenses or they did not estimate the needed repairs very well. I'll go over it it more detail when the hard copies arrive in the mail.

Good News For Flippers!

Here is some good news for anyone flipping properties. The FHA is waiving it's anti-flipping rules and will now insure mortgages on properties that have been owned by the seller for less than 90 days. The waiver is in effect until June 2009.

Full details here.

Fear Mongering Comes To Mortgage Commercials

Mortgage companies must be hurting for business right now because I was shocked at a commercial I heard on the radio this morning. In an attempt to get people to refinance their mortgages, it used fear-mongering tactics that would have made the President proud.

The ad started off by saying that private mortgage insurance, or PMI, is required on all loans where the loan to value ratio is greater than 80%. That's true. However, the ad then went on to talk about the declining housing market and how homes may now have lost equity. Your loan, the ad warned, may now be above an 80% LTV! Don't be hit with an added PMI charge on your mortgage - refi now!

First of all, there is truth in the statement that the housing market has declined and equity may have been lost, thus pushing your LTV over 80%. But, and this is the deceptive part, I have NEVER heard of any lender that regularly appraises the houses their mortgages are based on to make sure they stay above 80% LTV! Never! If the loan is being paid on time, no one at the bank is going to ask for a new appraisal. The ONLY time a new appraisal will be obtained is if the house is sold or the loan refinanced. In short, PMI will not suddenly be added to a mortgage that does not already include it, despite what the ad implies.

When you stop to think about this ad, it doesn't even make sense. If a loan truly did rise above 80% LTV due to falling home values, and the current loan did not have PMI, then refinancing it would only serve to ADD PMI, no matter what, because a new appraisal would be obtained, thus verifying the higher LTV.