More details have emerged regarding this particular piece of the stimulus package. I felt that some of the details were worth a correction on my part.
The affordable refinance program is only available to borrowers who have loans that are owned/securitized by Fannie and Freddie. This reduces the number available to utilize the program, in particular among minorities and low income households. Studies have found that minorities were much more likely to receive a sub prime loan, even if their credit qualified them for a prime one, than other groups. If the loan was such that is cannot be conforming, then it will not be purchased by Fannie or Freddie. As such a higher proportion of low income and minority borrowers will be excluded from the program. Indirectly the program states it will not work with any nonconforming loan, (since they are not purchased by Fannie and Freddie).
The loan modification program comes right out and says that nonconforming loans do not qualify....well...it says it in the Q&A for housing counselors (how many regular joes are going to dig that deep?). This means once again that a higher percentage of minority and low income borrowers will be excluded from utilizing the program due to higher incidents of nonconforming loans. This is a real shame, since the loan modification program targets loans before they go bad, a proactive move I approve of.
Not all of the news is bad news. One of my criticisms of the program hinged on the high dollar figure, Roughly three quarters of a million, that qualifying homes could have. By requiring qualified loans to be conforming this automatically adjusts by area, since conforming loans have a maximum limit set by FHA that varies from area to area. So, someone in Cache Valley with a $700,000 or even $400,000 home will not qualify. Their loan is above the limits, and is considered a "jumbo loan", therefore nonconforming and ineligible for either of the programs listed above. To see what the limits are for where you live look here.
So what do you think? Does the conforming limitation unfairly impact minorities and low income families who should have qualified for a prime loan but were sold a different product by their lender?
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Foreclosure: What families really pay
We all know what the F word means...it means someone is losing their home. A family that has a foreclosure loses what is usually their largest financial asset, but what happens after that? I want to take a minute to explore the real impact of foreclosures on families.
1: First things first. Any equity in the home is lost. Depending on how long they have been in the home this may or may not be that big of a deal. For some, like the family from the Washington Post article a couple of blogs back, it was to the tune of $300,000 . It is hard enough for me to imaging having that kind of money, let alone losing it ;).
2: Deficiency. Whether the home is sold in a short sale, returned via a deed in lieu, or foreclosed upon a lender can seek a deficiency judgment against the borrower for losses. If you owed $200,000 on the mortgage and the lender can only sell it for $150,000 they can come after the original borrower for the difference by taking them to court. The lender will add those pesky court fees to this amount (as they should)as well. Once a deficiency judgment is in place the borrower may find their future wages garnished, liens placed against other property, and may even have financial assets seized. Sometimes the lender won't come after you to pay the money, that sounds good, right? Well, except for the fact they will tell the IRS the money was forgiven.....which means the family has to claim it on their taxes as income! With deficiencies in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in some areas you can imagine what that could do to a tax return......Maybe you could cover it with you $7,500 tax "credit" :) A family who cant pay may turn to....
3. Bankruptcy. Bankruptcy and foreclosure often go hand in hand. The loss of the home may have been precipitated by the loss of a job or major medical problem that will take time to resolve. Just because the home goes away doesn't mean these other problem do as well. Often families in trouble are missing payments on credit cars, cars, student loans, and other obligations as well. Throw a deficiency judgment or increased taxes on top and the elaborate mess is complete. While this may be good news to some, it certainly isn't for the families.
4. Finding a new "home". If you don't have the money to pay your mortgage, how much are you going to have to pay the deposit on your new apartment? Will a change in where you live affect basic expenses, such as travel to work, school, and to purchase goods? Will your children need to change schools? Will the time taken to secure housing impact work schedules while they try to move? How will family and friends be impacted if they crash with them until they get back on their feet or procure new housing? What kind of choices for housing will they have when they now have bad.....
5. Credit. Potential landlords can, and do, check your credit history. When they see a family just lost their home what kind of message does that send to the landlord about their capacity to make payments? For many families that mean they may not be able to obtain reputable housing, accepting landlords who are less scrupulous because they cannot find a place anywhere else. They are unlikely to report bad landlords if they feel that is their only housing option.
Our credit problems don't stop with housing though. Families with poor credit pay more for everything, from credit cards to vehicle loans and even insurance rates. With the family already down on their luck the last thing they want to see is higher insurance rates for their car and credit card rates jump to 29%, yet that is exactly what happens. If they have problems with an overdraft account or auto loan they may find difficulty using that bank again in the future. A family may not even be able to secure a checking account, requiring them to use check cashing services that come with a price.
6. Hard to measure impacts. Money is the easy problem to track. What about lost time? How can depression and stress from financial situations impact parents at work or children at school? Foreclosures are linked to higher levels of deviant behavior including domestic abuse, drinking, suicide, and risk taking behaviors like gambling. While we are busy bailing out banks who will foot the bill, or even more importantly provide the counseling/supports for families after they lose their homes? (Not every one lost it because they overextended their credit or obtained a stupid loan). High density foreclosure areas often have higher levels of crime and unoccupied buildings can serve as safe havens for illegal activities and contribute to neighborhood/price decline. Yet with our economy struggling social service agencies and police departments who need extra help to cope are finding their budgets cut instead.
The real irony here is this does not even look at the impact it has on banks, investors, and neighborhoods as a whole. The cost is truly staggering.
The foreclosure is a hard pill to swallow, but its the after taste that has me worried.
So where do we go from here? Like it or not, keeping families in their home is usually the best option. That means we need loan servicers, and more importantly the investors they represent, to be willing to work with borrowers who can reasonably afford to pay for their homes. This may require some kind of loan modification to ensure the solution is a long term one.
Perhaps its time we supported building smaller homes? If the homes were smaller, and more affordable in the first place, would we still have this problem?
We need to look for supports to families who need assistance procuring safe affordable housing and dealing with stresses on the family stemming from the foreclosures. We need more money headed towards social services, not tax breaks for race track owners and rum exports from Puerto Rico. Perhaps the main thing that needs to be cut from government spending is the paychecks and benefits of lawmakers who waste our time and money.
1: First things first. Any equity in the home is lost. Depending on how long they have been in the home this may or may not be that big of a deal. For some, like the family from the Washington Post article a couple of blogs back, it was to the tune of $300,000 . It is hard enough for me to imaging having that kind of money, let alone losing it ;).
2: Deficiency. Whether the home is sold in a short sale, returned via a deed in lieu, or foreclosed upon a lender can seek a deficiency judgment against the borrower for losses. If you owed $200,000 on the mortgage and the lender can only sell it for $150,000 they can come after the original borrower for the difference by taking them to court. The lender will add those pesky court fees to this amount (as they should)as well. Once a deficiency judgment is in place the borrower may find their future wages garnished, liens placed against other property, and may even have financial assets seized. Sometimes the lender won't come after you to pay the money, that sounds good, right? Well, except for the fact they will tell the IRS the money was forgiven.....which means the family has to claim it on their taxes as income! With deficiencies in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in some areas you can imagine what that could do to a tax return......Maybe you could cover it with you $7,500 tax "credit" :) A family who cant pay may turn to....
3. Bankruptcy. Bankruptcy and foreclosure often go hand in hand. The loss of the home may have been precipitated by the loss of a job or major medical problem that will take time to resolve. Just because the home goes away doesn't mean these other problem do as well. Often families in trouble are missing payments on credit cars, cars, student loans, and other obligations as well. Throw a deficiency judgment or increased taxes on top and the elaborate mess is complete. While this may be good news to some, it certainly isn't for the families.
4. Finding a new "home". If you don't have the money to pay your mortgage, how much are you going to have to pay the deposit on your new apartment? Will a change in where you live affect basic expenses, such as travel to work, school, and to purchase goods? Will your children need to change schools? Will the time taken to secure housing impact work schedules while they try to move? How will family and friends be impacted if they crash with them until they get back on their feet or procure new housing? What kind of choices for housing will they have when they now have bad.....
5. Credit. Potential landlords can, and do, check your credit history. When they see a family just lost their home what kind of message does that send to the landlord about their capacity to make payments? For many families that mean they may not be able to obtain reputable housing, accepting landlords who are less scrupulous because they cannot find a place anywhere else. They are unlikely to report bad landlords if they feel that is their only housing option. Our credit problems don't stop with housing though. Families with poor credit pay more for everything, from credit cards to vehicle loans and even insurance rates. With the family already down on their luck the last thing they want to see is higher insurance rates for their car and credit card rates jump to 29%, yet that is exactly what happens. If they have problems with an overdraft account or auto loan they may find difficulty using that bank again in the future. A family may not even be able to secure a checking account, requiring them to use check cashing services that come with a price.
6. Hard to measure impacts. Money is the easy problem to track. What about lost time? How can depression and stress from financial situations impact parents at work or children at school? Foreclosures are linked to higher levels of deviant behavior including domestic abuse, drinking, suicide, and risk taking behaviors like gambling. While we are busy bailing out banks who will foot the bill, or even more importantly provide the counseling/supports for families after they lose their homes? (Not every one lost it because they overextended their credit or obtained a stupid loan). High density foreclosure areas often have higher levels of crime and unoccupied buildings can serve as safe havens for illegal activities and contribute to neighborhood/price decline. Yet with our economy struggling social service agencies and police departments who need extra help to cope are finding their budgets cut instead.The real irony here is this does not even look at the impact it has on banks, investors, and neighborhoods as a whole. The cost is truly staggering.
The foreclosure is a hard pill to swallow, but its the after taste that has me worried.
So where do we go from here? Like it or not, keeping families in their home is usually the best option. That means we need loan servicers, and more importantly the investors they represent, to be willing to work with borrowers who can reasonably afford to pay for their homes. This may require some kind of loan modification to ensure the solution is a long term one.
Perhaps its time we supported building smaller homes? If the homes were smaller, and more affordable in the first place, would we still have this problem?
We need to look for supports to families who need assistance procuring safe affordable housing and dealing with stresses on the family stemming from the foreclosures. We need more money headed towards social services, not tax breaks for race track owners and rum exports from Puerto Rico. Perhaps the main thing that needs to be cut from government spending is the paychecks and benefits of lawmakers who waste our time and money.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Riding the waves till they break
As mentioned in my last post the Washington Post presented an excellent article highlighting some of the difficulties faced by families in the current market.
The article shares the story of Robin Bohnen, who purchased a 1.16 million dollar home in Riverside County, CA. The home came with a $6,400 monthly payment (thats right, she was paying $76,800 annually!), and Robin's income came primarily from her furniture store which rode the boom selling to new homeowners. With climbing equity in her home and great sales what could go wrong?
Now her sales have dried up and her family can no longer afford to make payments on the home. She can't sell it either though, since falling prices mean the mortgage loan is higher than the value of the home. When the wave broke on the housing market Robin and her family found themselves first swamped, and now thoroughly under water.
The article noted that one family in five is now upside down on their loan. Considering that our home ownership rate is in the high 60's percentage wise, that is a great many families who may have to find other accommodations.
It is important to point out that she was not a subprime borrower, but she certainly should never have obtained the loan she did. Robin and her husband opted for an interest only loan for the first five years and used a Stated Income (meaning they did not have to prove what they actually made) loan (known as as Alt A mortgage). While they had a hefty down payment (more than 200K, money pulled from their first home that never sold and is now also in foreclosure) with the loss of Robins furniture income and fewer sales commissions from her husbands job the payment became unaffordable. Now that the property has lost value as well, they cant sell it without taking 200K in losses.
In the meantime they have maxed out their credit cards trying to make ends meet and in Robin's county unemployment has soared to 10%, hampering her ability to obtain employment that will save her home.
The article pointed out that beginning in last October more prime loans were in default then subprime.
This doesn't mean that the prime loans were good, many families acquired regular loans that were unsustainable, but many of the loans we will see in default over the next year and a half will be Alt A, Interest only, and prime ARMs. The Washington Post was quick to point out that many of the loans issued were only appropriate for high asset high credit borrowers and were instead issued to mediocre credit asset poor borrowers in an effort to keep sales high. Robin and her husband acquired an
The article gave a couple more great examples of other families who got in over their heads and indicated that some opt for keeping their car over their home, thinking they can take a ding on their credit and buy again a few years later.
What do we do about it? Is if fair to force mortgage companies to refinance existing loans for the current value of the home (forcing them to take a huge loss)? Forget about fair, do we really think the banks can afford to do that?
Is it the governments responsibility to tell families what they can and cannot afford?
Take a look at the last couple of paragraphs in the article that share an exchange of views between Robin and Shane (her husband). What kind of impact are we seeing on the family? Should the government be looking into an increase in funding to family counseling agencies/providers or do you think these problems will go away when the hard times are over?
How do we help those who may have lost their home, maxed all of their lines of credit, lost their job (or have truncated employment), and now can't even afford a deposit on an apartment?
The article shares the story of Robin Bohnen, who purchased a 1.16 million dollar home in Riverside County, CA. The home came with a $6,400 monthly payment (thats right, she was paying $76,800 annually!), and Robin's income came primarily from her furniture store which rode the boom selling to new homeowners. With climbing equity in her home and great sales what could go wrong?
Now her sales have dried up and her family can no longer afford to make payments on the home. She can't sell it either though, since falling prices mean the mortgage loan is higher than the value of the home. When the wave broke on the housing market Robin and her family found themselves first swamped, and now thoroughly under water.
The article noted that one family in five is now upside down on their loan. Considering that our home ownership rate is in the high 60's percentage wise, that is a great many families who may have to find other accommodations.
It is important to point out that she was not a subprime borrower, but she certainly should never have obtained the loan she did. Robin and her husband opted for an interest only loan for the first five years and used a Stated Income (meaning they did not have to prove what they actually made) loan (known as as Alt A mortgage). While they had a hefty down payment (more than 200K, money pulled from their first home that never sold and is now also in foreclosure) with the loss of Robins furniture income and fewer sales commissions from her husbands job the payment became unaffordable. Now that the property has lost value as well, they cant sell it without taking 200K in losses.
In the meantime they have maxed out their credit cards trying to make ends meet and in Robin's county unemployment has soared to 10%, hampering her ability to obtain employment that will save her home.
The article pointed out that beginning in last October more prime loans were in default then subprime.
This doesn't mean that the prime loans were good, many families acquired regular loans that were unsustainable, but many of the loans we will see in default over the next year and a half will be Alt A, Interest only, and prime ARMs. The Washington Post was quick to point out that many of the loans issued were only appropriate for high asset high credit borrowers and were instead issued to mediocre credit asset poor borrowers in an effort to keep sales high. Robin and her husband acquired an
The article gave a couple more great examples of other families who got in over their heads and indicated that some opt for keeping their car over their home, thinking they can take a ding on their credit and buy again a few years later.
What do we do about it? Is if fair to force mortgage companies to refinance existing loans for the current value of the home (forcing them to take a huge loss)? Forget about fair, do we really think the banks can afford to do that?
Is it the governments responsibility to tell families what they can and cannot afford?
Take a look at the last couple of paragraphs in the article that share an exchange of views between Robin and Shane (her husband). What kind of impact are we seeing on the family? Should the government be looking into an increase in funding to family counseling agencies/providers or do you think these problems will go away when the hard times are over?
How do we help those who may have lost their home, maxed all of their lines of credit, lost their job (or have truncated employment), and now can't even afford a deposit on an apartment?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Home sweet home
It used to be that the American Dream meant being able to come to
What does it mean for homeowners now? How have families used their homes (besides for shelter) during the time that lead up to the current crisis? Demos has provided some insight on what is happening with homeowners and why we should be concerned in:
A House of Cards: Refinancing the American Dream. Borrowing to Make Ends Meet
I want to look at a couple of the highlights and share why I think there may be some concerns.
From 1973 to 2004 homeowner equity fell from 68.3% to 55%. The number of people in homes was up, but they owned less as a whole. The real scary thing is the market had not bottomed out yet. Where is our equity at now?
Where did the equity go when times were good? From 2001 to 2005 alone households cashed out $715 billion dollars in home equity. 51% of who pulled money used some/all of it to pay for other debts, and 25% used it to pay for consumer purchases.
So what? People pulled money out of their homes to pay off credit card debt or buy a car. Thats a good thing, right? They pay less in interest on a home equity loan than they would with a credit card or car loan, so what is the big deal?
Well, its not just falling equity.....from 1998 to 2004 the average credit card debt held by households increased from $2,768 to $5,129. Our savings rate decreased, to near nothing, and is at the lowest it has been since the great depression.
Surely these numbers reflect young people who bought into home when they couldn't really afford it and had to put money on a credit card to make ends meet. But the older generation, those getting ready to retire or already retired, they are not in the same boat. Right? Well, on average people over 65 only have $4,906 in credit card debt, a bit below our overall average noted above. The real concern? While the overall average increased roughly 85%, the average for elderly increased 194% over the same time frame.
Dropping property values may be a boon to elderly trying to pay rising taxes, but it certainly does them no favors if they were hoping to use a reverse mortgage to make ends meet. Higher health care costs, more debt (as evidenced by rising credit balances), and likely depleted retirement funds from the tanking market may be placing our elderly at greater risks to make ends meet.
The elderly to be are at risk as well. Baby boomers lead the pack in refinancing their homes and undercutting their equity. As they near retirement not only will they face high health care costs and depleted retirement accounts, they will probably still have a house payment. If they truly retire, and their income goes down accordingly, how exactly do they plan to make ends meet?
While the government discusses bailing companies out and dithers over what to do with homes in foreclosure there is little discussion over the only slightly more distant future. Give the economy a couple of years to recover (and time for Alt A, interest only, and ARM loans to default) and they seem to think we will see the silver lining on the clouds. Maybe. If we don't prepare households to utilize their homes wisely and manage their debt payments we may find storm still going strong.
Demos isn't quiet about what they think should be done. I am not saying I completely agree with all of their suggestions, but here is the gist:
Enact a Borrower’s Security Act: limiting interest rates and fees on credit cards. (Still very relevant, could have a big impact on struggling families)
Maintain Existing Bankruptcy Laws: They were up for review. The new legislation is a bit tighter, and better (in my opinion). Demos would have liked to have seen it remain the same.
Address Real Estate Practices: Fight appraisal fraud (Better late than never, though two years ago would have been a good start)
It will be interesting to see what the new administration does. Hopefully Obama will at least consider some of these issues. Whether we help families now, or let them default/declare bankruptcy later, one thing is for sure: taxpayers will continue to foot the bill. Stronger polices for families in financial distress may be the order of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
