|
|
 Scott Short  Thursday, October 13th, 2011  The subject of investor overlays has been coming up a lot lately. A different angle may clear up some misunderstandings.
REALTORS® and buyers often bring up agency guidelines as if they somehow dictate lending policy.
Most people look at this backwards. They think that the agencies like FHA, VA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac set underwriting guidelines and then lenders layer additional rules on top of this. In reality it’s the opposite. Understanding the reality of this dynamic will go a long way toward understanding “investor overlays”.
None of the agencies listed above dictate lending policy to mortgage lenders. Mortgage lenders develop whatever policies they feel offer the greatest return, while best managing the risk of the loans they make. If a lender wants to do a 100% LTV mortgage for a homebuyer who is being foreclosed on right now and just completed their bankruptcy, they are allowed to do that even if that buyer doesn’t have a job and has federal tax liens. On the other end of the spectrum.If a lender decided that they are only going to do loans with a maximum loan to value of 50% to borrowers with 800 credit scores, they could also choose to do this. Lenders are free to set whatever standards and policies they choose to set, provided that they do not violate any other laws pertaining to things like discrimination.
So let’s look at the actual roles of the agencies. While lenders set their own policies regarding the level of risk in relation to the return they are looking for, they must ensure that they are meeting FHA’s minimum standards if they intend to have the loan insured by FHA. In other words, FHA does not set the underwriting guidelines, but only the minimum standards under which they’re willing to insure those loans. Lenders are free to choose to set a standard that exceeds the FHA minimum.
Continue reading: Maybe This Will Help
Scott Short Wednesday, May 25th, 2011
Automated Underwriting Systems (AUS–when the computer underwrites the loan based on specific lender overlays) are unable to determine the existence of extenuating circumstances that resulted in a bankruptcy, foreclosure, deed-in-lieu, pre-foreclosure or short sale (ie: the computer cannot read written extenuating circumstances). If a client has appropriate documentation that these events occurred, the minimum time period has elapsed, and the program does not require an AUS decision, then the loan may be manually underwritten. (If your client is applying for a conventional loan; good luck finding a lender who will take on the risk of manually underwriting a loan). The loan must meet all manual underwriting requirements, including documentation, minimum credit scores and maximum loan-to-value.
To document the existence of extenuating circumstances, the loan file must include all of the following:
- A signed, written statement from the borrower’s third-party and documentation confirming that this was an isolated occurrence that significantly reduced the borrower’s income and/or increased their expenses
- No evidence that the borrowers had unacceptable credit prior to the problems
- Evidence that the borrowers have reestablished acceptable credit with at least four references for at least two years, including one traditional credit reference (an account that would appear on a credit report), and one housing related reference (e.g. a PG&E, SMUD or Comcast bill).
Note: If the derogatory information involved tradeline credit (an account that appears on your credit report), the reestablished credit must also be for tradeline credit. If the derogatory information involved non-credit payment references, either tradelines or non-credit payment references can be used.
- Evidence on the credit report and other credit documentation that the borrower’s present credit is current
- Evidence that no new public records, no 60-day late payments, no more than two 30-day late payments and no housing lates exist for the most recent 24 months
- If the client is unable to obtain thirdparty documentation confirming the extenuating circumstances or reestablishment of credit, the derogatory or adverse credit information cannot be offset.
For a new FHA loan:
Foreclosure:
A borrower whose previous residence or other real property was foreclosed on, sold through a short sale, or was given a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure within the previous three years is generally not eligible.
If the foreclosure was greater than three years prior to the date of the application, and the risk decision (AUS) received is an accept, the loan does not need manual downgrading (manual underwrite in the eyes of FHA means that your ratios are 31% housing /43% debt-to-income) and foreclosure documentation is not required.
Remember, FHA counts from the day the mortgage insurance claim was paid to the lender, not the trustee sale date – sometimes it can take months before the claim is paid. Have your mortgage professional check with FHA to confirm the date the claim was paid.
Beth L. Peerce Friday, May 13th, 2011
 Dear C.A.R. Member,
Greetings from Washington, D.C.! This week, your Leadership Team and I are in our nation’s capital, meeting with California’s congressional delegates and representatives from leading housing industry groups, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and others.
This is a busy time of year in the legislative arena, on both the national front and in California. Last week, nearly 2,000 members of the REALTOR® Party of California were out in full force in Sacramento for the Association’s annual Legislative Day activities, which included a march to the Capitol. Many of you met face-to-face with your state legislators to discuss the issues that affect our industry — and your livelihood. I want to thank you for participating in Legislative Day because it’s more important than ever to make certain our interests are represented and that our voices are heard before elected officials craft legislation that impacts our industry.
For example, one impending issue that will significantly impact our industry is the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that purchase or guarantee mortgage-backed securities on the secondary mortgage market. Congress has been debating changes to the GSEs. Proposals for “reform” include legislation to phase out and eventually eliminate Fannie and Freddie altogether. Elimination of the GSEs, which purchased or securitized two out of every three loans written in 2010, would have grave consequences for home buyers and sellers, the real estate market, and the economy as a whole. Almost overnight, financing would dry up. Interest rates would increase, and borrowers would be forced into the exotic loan products that helped create the current financial climate. These are scenarios the struggling housing market can ill afford now.
It’s important that REALTORS® understand the potential damaging effects of phasing out Fannie and Freddie. For more details about the GSEs and their importance to real estate housing finance.
Continue reading: C.A.R. Monthly Message May 2011
Scott Short Friday, March 11th, 2011
On Friday, January 28th, HUD/FHA extended the “Less Than 90-Day” flip rule. Now trying to find a lender who will allow the seller to resell for 20%+ over what they bought it for is becoming more difficult.
Last October HUD/FHA increased the Monthly Mortgage Insurance (MMI) cost from .55% to .90% for a 30-year fixed with a minimum down payment loan. During that time, HUD/FHA also lowered the Up Front Mortgage Insurance Premium (UFMIP) they finance into the loan from 2.25% to 1%.
In a move to increase their capital reserves and encourage private money back into mortgages, HUD/FHA will once again raise the MMI cost. On April 18 MMI goes from .90% to 1.15% for 30- and 15-year fixed loans with minimum down payment. (Since April 18 is a Monday, your loan professional needs to pull the case number on Friday April 15 to avoid this increase.)
One positive outcome for homebuyers from this new change is that the HUD/FHA system will automatically cancel any uninsured case number where there has been no activity for six months since the last action except for:
- Loans where an appraisal update has been entered, and/or
- Loans where the Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium (UFMIP) has been received
Last action includes:
- Case number assigned
- Appraisal information entered
- Firm commitment issued by FHA
- Insurance application received and subsequent updates and
- Notice of Return and Resubmissions
Continue reading: The Cost of Working with FHA is Going Up Again
Beth L. Peerce Tuesday, March 8th, 2011
Dear REALTORS®,
Over the past few months, I’ve been sharing with you the many things that C.A.R. has been doing to address your concerns related to short sale transactions. We recently conducted a survey to obtain information about members’ experiences working with lenders in distressed transactions. The results of the Short Sale Lender Satisfaction Survey were released just today, and I’d like to reveal some of the findings to you. (See the full results.)
- The survey found that fewer than three in five short sales close in California, which illustrates the complexity and difficulty of navigating lenders’ and servicers’ short sale procedures.
- The most frequent problems REALTORS® cited in working with lenders and servicers during the short sale process include unresponsiveness, onerous procedures, and long processing delays – problems that many of you probably have experienced firsthand.
Overall, the survey results show that the short sales system is clearly flawed and must be standardized and streamlined to reduce the inventory of foreclosures. I want you to know that C.A.R. has been working on many fronts to make this happen. It has appointed two distinct task forces just to help address this issue. In addition to conducting the Short Sale Lender Satisfaction Survey, another of the action items the task forces have undertaken is writing an open letter to consumers focusing the spotlight on short sales.
Continue reading: C.A.R. Monthly Message March 2011
Caylyn Brown Thursday, February 24th, 2011
Newly-elected Gov. Jerry Brown released his proposed budget which extends previous tax increases and makes $12.5 billion in cuts to state programs to close the $25.4 billion state deficit over the next 18 months. Gov. Brown would like the Legislature to approve his spending cuts prior to a special election on extending tax increases. This proposed special election could happen as soon as June. The full state budget would be passed after this special election. The non-partisan Legislative Analysts Office has reviewed this proposal and reports it is a very good starting point. The plan does not use the budget gimmicks of the past several years which dug the state into its current hole of over-projecting revenue and borrowing from Program A to pay for Program B.
Among the many cuts proposed, Gov. Brown includes limiting Medi-Cal services to six prescriptions per month (excluding life saving medications), ten doctor visits per year, and setting a $5 co pay for services. Other cuts include Cal Works, welfare-to-work, and cuts to the CSU and UC.
Tax extensions in the special election include the one percent sales tax increase and the ½ percent vehicle license fee increase. These two extensions are expected to raise $5.9 billion. Brown is also asking voters to continue the ¼ percent income tax increase. These are the current tax rates California residents are paying, which were set to expire at the end of June. The increases were approved in a 2009 budget deal.
Much is still unknown about the vote count needed to pass a proposed budget. In the November 2010 election, voters passed Proposition 25, requiring only a simple majority of legislators to approve a state budget rather than the previously required two-thirds supermajority. Some of the reductions Gov. Brown has proposed, including cuts to welfare and higher education, may still require a two-thirds vote despite Prop. 25, which states that laws can be changed by a majority vote only after a complete budget plan is approved. But as proposed, the budget is passed after the changes in law are made. These details of Prop. 25 and the proposed budget are still being sorted out, and it may take several months to get a final decision.
Continue reading: Governor Brown’s Budget
Leon Williams Sunday, February 20th, 2011
 Leon Williams Taxes, taxes, taxes, we are taxed on everything. You paid a “whop” for the house, didn’t include escrows in your closing costs so you were able to come to the closing table with less money and now that $5,000 annual tax bill on that $400,000 purchase price is making you teeter on the edge of financial catastrophe, and you have no idea where the next payment is going to come from. So you ask, if my house in this market is worth half as much, why does my tax bill not follow suit? HA! Welcome to the new economy.
As I told you before, we are fighting a “War On Wealth” like never before. Money is scarce all around us. Cities, Counties, States, and our entire Country is thinking of new and creative ways to pay their bills on “YOUR BACK”! Even if you had included the taxes in your escrow, imagine what $200 of that $416.67 a month tax bill (In Sacramento County) would do going into your investment account earning 6% interest compounding annually. In 10 years you would have $16,765.97. In 15 years, $29,607.03. Continue reading: Market Down But Your Taxes Are Still High! This Is How You Can Reduce Your Real Estate Taxes
Dave Tanner Sunday, February 20th, 2011
 With the passage of Senate Bill 931, a new section was added to the California Code of Civil Procedure that should be of great benefit to many short sale sellers. The new CCP §580e provides “No judgment shall be rendered for any deficiency under a note secured by a first deed of trust or first mortgage for a dwelling of not more that four units, in any case in which the trustor or mortgagor sells the dwelling for less than the remaining amount of the indebtedness due at the time of sale with the written consent of the holder of the first deed of trust or first mortgage. Written consent of the holder of the first deed of trust or first mortgage to that sale shall obligate that holder to accept the sale proceeds as full payment and to fully discharge the remaining amount of the indebtedness on the first deed of trust or first mortgage.”
So what does that mean? The short sale seller generally does not need to worry about a deficiency judgment as long as the property being sold is a one-to-four unit residential and is only encumbered by a first deed of trust. Approval by the short sale lender discharges the remaining indebtedness. No need for the seller to negotiate a release of liability from that lender.
But I said generally, so what does that mean? The new law does not affect liability of junior lienholders. A sold out second may still be able to sue on the note. The new law does not apply to loans secured by other types of real property. The short sale seller of a fiveplex is not helped. The only relief is to short sale sellers of one-to four units.
Even if the note is covered by the new law there are still two exceptions. The first is for waste. Waste is a legal term for damage done by a person legally in possession that diminishes the value of the property. A simple example would be a short sale seller who, on the way out, takes out the built-in appliances or strips the lighting fixtures. The lender can still come after them for damages.
Continue reading: The Brave New World of Short Sales
Scott Short Thursday, February 10th, 2011
The only good thing about interest rates going up is the “fence sitting” buyers jump in to the market.
Normally December and January are relatively slow months, but not this time. We are experiencing a high volume of borrowers wanting to buy now. Some of the buyers trying to qualify for a home loan are more challenged. Along with the lenders’ tightening standards, we in the lending industry are taking longer to figure out creative solutions to help more of your clients qualify. We are seeing more credit-challenged, budgetchallenged, employment-uncertaintychallenged and house-challenged borrowers. This is the time your mortgage professional needs to know how loans were structured back in the early 1990’s.
Almost every loan will need full documentation of the following: three months of bank statements (underwriters are scrutinizing the bank statements for overdrafts and unusual deposits), explanation letters for credit (especially all inquiries), job status (state employees need a supervisor to write a letter to address the borrowers’ furlough impact now and in the foreseeable future), motivation to buy (they are not just buying a home for a displaced family member who lost their home in foreclosure) plus other scenarios that defy the imagination some days.
At the time of this writing, HUD/FHA had not issued an extension for the “less than 90-day flip rule.” My sources inform me that HUD is working on it (not sure what “it” is going to look like when it comes out). We have seen a majority of the lenders that offer the program retract from offering the program for flips where the seller re-sells for greater than 20% over their purchase price.
Continue reading: 2011 Starts off with a Bang
Beth L. Peerce Tuesday, January 11th, 2011
Dear C.A.R. Member,
A new year, and with it, new beginnings and new opportunities. I’m looking forward to meeting the challenges that invariably present themselves as the new year gets underway.
One of the challenges I know many of you have been dealing with is working with short sale transactions, and I promised last month to keep you informed on C.A.R.’s efforts to address your concerns.
First, just last week I, and other C.A.R. officers, met with officials at Bank of America to ask for their commitment in streamlining and improving their short sale process. The bank has agreed to meet with our Distressed Properties task force in the very near future to discuss ways to ensure a smoother short sales process. We’ll also be meeting with the other major lenders over the next several weeks and will share any outcome with you.
Additionally, C.A.R. recently sent letters to officials at the U.S. Treasury Dept., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency requesting immediate changes to the HAFA program and recommending solutions so the program can succeed. The letter attracted the attention of the banking trade American Banker, which ran an article last Thursday noting C.A.R.’s concerns about the dearth of HAFA short sale closures. The article is sure to be noticed by the lenders and servicers who greatly need to make immediate changes. Read the letter to industry regulators.
We will continue to remain vigilant in the area of short sales, so stay tuned for further updates.
Continue reading: C.A.R. Monthly Message January 2011
|
Register | Login
|
Recent Comments