Top 7 Things You Should Know about Financial Regulation Overhaul

July 19, 2010

With final Senate passage of the broadest overhaul of financial regulation since the Great Depression, the hard work really starts. Regulators must fill in the blanks in the legislation, and a new agency to protect consumers must be erected from scratch. The landmark legislation will bring lots of changes. Here are some answers to common questions about the changes that will come about under the overhaul of financial regulation, and how it will address some root causes of the deep financial crisis.

Question: What does the legislation do for ordinary folk?
Answer: The most significant change is the creation of a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which will be independent but housed in the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank. This new bureaucracy will have a single mission: consumer protection for credit products such as mortgages and credit cards. That responsibility had rested with multiple bank regulators, none of whom treated it as a priority.

Q: What does that mean for home buyers?
A: The law includes a number of provisions that restrict predatory lending. The question is how aggressively the new bureau oversees mortgage lending. For example, will it set ironclad limits on so-called “liar loans,” in which there was no income verification for mortgages? Will it ban adjustable-rate mortgages with low teaser rates that allowed borrowers to get into homes they couldn’t afford? The bureau is also expected to force lenders to use clear language about borrowing costs.

Another important change is tough regulation for mortgage brokers. Many borrowers erroneously assumed that these brokers had their best interests at heart, when in fact there was no fiduciary duty to borrowers. Rather, lenders rewarded many brokers for getting borrowers into ill-suited mortgages.

The new law “ends steering payments that put mortgage brokers’ interests out of sync with buyers’ interests,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. He also authored some of the tough restrictions on what banks can invest in if they’re also investing money on behalf of clients.

The new bureau is expected to be most aggressive on mortgages, after the Fed failed to use the power it’s had since 1994 to rein in reckless mortgage lending.”We can’t have that happen again. We’ve got to be very, very tough and consistent on this point,” said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.

To the ire of consumer advocates, however, the new agency will have only limited powers over auto lending.

Q: Would this legislation have prevented the financial crisis?
A: That’s hard to say for sure, but it certainly would have given regulators the power to break up large failing financial firms, and there would have been transparency about who owes what to whom. The absence of such factors amplified the crisis of September and October 2008.

Q: How does this legislation fix what went wrong?
A: Various federal regulators will sit together on a “systemic risk” council that will police threats to the entire financial system. They’ll also get so-called “resolution authority” that allows them to deconstruct a failing large financial firm in orderly fashion.

During the crisis, bankruptcy was the only option. That would have pitted creditors against shareholders and created panic. The Bush administration orchestrated the fire sale of investment bank Bear Stearns in March 2008, preventing panic. It tried to do the same with Lehman Brothers in September 2008, but when that failed, Lehman went bankrupt.

The ensuing panic nearly caused the collapse of global finance. That was prevented only by a massive government bailout program that was deeply unpopular with voters, and by the Federal Reserve’s direct intervention in financial markets.

Those dark days occurred in an environment of little transparency about complex financial instruments called “derivatives.” Investors, regulators and even CEOs of major financial firms were in the dark about some of these instruments. Absent clear information, everyone ran scared.

Q: We hear about transparency all the time. Why does it matter?
A: The lack of information about complex bets made on the probability of bond defaults was one reason the Federal Reserve stepped in and took majority ownership in insurance giant American International Group (AIG). Trillions of dollars’ worth of private two-way bets were occurring outside regulators’ view, and AIG was the biggest player. Today, taxpayers could still be on the hook for about $162.5 billion, partly due to AIG’s involvement in credit-default swaps.

Under the new law, however, deposit-taking institutions will be forbidden from significant involvement in the market for these swaps, which are bets on the chance of a bond default. Most derivatives transactions will have to occur on an exchange or central clearinghouse. There’ll be real-time information about any given trade and, more broadly, about the swaps market—data that didn’t exist when the meltdown hit in 2008.

Greed or malfeasance won’t disappear from Wall Street, but regulators and investors will have more information than ever before to combat it.

Q: How does the legislation deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
A: The Obama administration and congressional Democrats opted to leave Fannie and Freddie out of the bill, ostensibly to address them in separate legislation once the housing market recovers.

Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages originated by banks, then bundle them for sale to investors as bonds. From 2000-2006, Wall Street banks jumped aggressively into this business and out-competed Fannie and Freddie. In 2007, these Wall Street bonds backed by pools of U.S. mortgages began blowing up, and on came the financial meltdown.

Right now, Fannie and Freddie are the only mortgage-bond game in town. The private sector’s secondary market, where Wall Street banks passed on their mortgages, is frozen. When this market revives, banks and other mortgage originators will have to keep a portion of what they generate on their own balance sheets to ensure they have capital at risk. This wasn’t required during the run-up to the crisis. 

Q: Will the bill prevent financial crises?
A: Probably not. The legislation mostly fights the previous crisis, not the next one, and Wall Street always finds innovative new ways to make markets spin. Regulators are empowered with new authority to police for risk. Banks will be required to have more cash on hand to cover losses. This will limit their risk-taking capabilities, and the authorities can order big financial firms to get smaller or face government intervention.

Financial markets are highly complex and ever-innovating. A hard lesson of the financial crisis is that markets are profoundly interconnected, and in unexpected ways.

When Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, an unpleasant surprise followed days later.

Investors fled money market funds that pay 2 or 3% interest. To pay that interest, the funds take deposits or contributions and invest them in short-term debt issued by corporations called commercial paper. This sort of activity was always viewed as risk free.

However, Lehman was an issuer of commercial paper, and when it went bankrupt, panic ensued in places no one expected. Big manufacturers such as General Electric suddenly couldn’t find buyers for their short-term debt, and investors frowned on putting savings at risk for the small returns offered in the money market funds that days earlier had been considered as safe as cash.

That’s all to say that linkages are often hard to see. The best the legislation can hope to achieve is to provide regulators with an ample tool box, and it appears to do that. It will be up to the regulators to use the tools wisely.

(c) 2010, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.

Source: RISMedia

Popularity: 1% [?]

Written by djumper · Filed Under Real Estate Blog 

Foreclosures Often Carry Unforeseen Risk: Lawsuits From Lenders

June 14, 2010

Before Larry Thomas unloaded his Pompano Beach, Fla., home last fall for a fraction of what he paid, he cut a deal that will keep him from worrying about a huge debt hanging over his head.

Thomas insisted that his lender, American Home Mortgage Servicing, agree not to come after him for the estimated $174,000 he still owed on his two mortgages. “I feel incredible relief,” the restaurant manager said recently.

Others may not be as fortunate. Lenders will file a tidal wave of lawsuits against homeowners in the next few years as a way to recoup losses when home sales or foreclosure auctions don’t result in enough money to pay the mortgages in full, real estate and legal analysts say. “It will be a dramatic problem because the borrowers will not know it’s coming,” said Frank Alexander, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta.

Laws vary from state to state. In Florida, banks have five years from the date of the sale to file for so-called deficiency judgments and up to 20 years to collect. Lenders can garnish wages or make claims on borrowers’ assets.

Before the housing meltdown, few lenders filed these lawsuits. Foreclosures and short sales—selling for less than the mortgage amount—were relatively rare at the time, and many of the homeowners didn’t have sufficient assets to make it worth the banks’ time and expense.

But following the heady days of the housing boom that spawned millionaire investors seemingly overnight, it’s not uncommon for borrowers to default on mortgages while still holding lucrative investments.

As the next wave of the housing crisis plays out, those most in danger of getting slapped with lawsuits include angry homeowners who ransack properties they’re losing in foreclosure and borrowers who walk away from “underwater” mortgages. In both cases, analysts say, banks will want to discourage other people from such behavior.

More than four in 10 homeowners said they would consider abandoning properties that are underwater, or worth less than the mortgages, according to a national online survey released recently by real estate firms Trulia and RealtyTrac.

Mortgage companies typically won’t sue homeowners who negotiate in good faith or those who default on their loans because of job losses or other unforeseen circumstances, said Anthony Manno, an executive with Steelbridge Real Estate Services. The Miami-based company works with lenders on the resale of foreclosed homes. Still, borrowers shouldn’t rely on a lender’s verbal commitment, Manno said. “Get something in writing.”

Critics insist that spite will play a role in some of these lawsuits. Lenders deny it.

“We certainly would not do that,” said Russell Greene, president of Grand Bank & Trust of Florida in West Palm Beach. “It’s a business decision—not an emotional decision. It’s very time-consuming to take someone to court.”

Even if lenders don’t pursue the judgments, they could sell mortgage debt to collection agencies at deep discounts. And it will be those debt collectors that will hound borrowers, said Shari Olefson, a Fort Lauderdale real estate lawyer.

“They paid money to be able to hassle you,” she said.

Thomas, the former Pompano Beach homeowner, said he didn’t have money for a down payment but was approved for 100% financing on two loans in spring 2006. He bought a three-bedroom home for $245,000. Thomas said he soon became responsible for the entire mortgage after his roommate lost his job. That became even more difficult after Thomas took a pay cut.

So he attempted a short sale, eventually finding plenty of prospective buyers interested in a property that had plummeted nearly 70% in value. He and American Home Mortgage accepted one offer for $80,000. After closing costs, the lender netted about $71,000, said his Fort Lauderdale lawyer, Joe Kohn. But before the sale closed, Kohn had American Home Mortgage waive its right to collect on the remaining mortgage debt.

Christine Sullivan, a spokeswoman for the lender, wrote in an e-mail that she can’t discuss Thomas’ case because of privacy issues. But when homeowners seeking short sales demonstrate legitimate hardship, “we provide a full release of liability, and we do not pursue deficiency judgments.”

Some banks say they won’t file a lawsuit, though they aren’t willing to put that in writing, Kohn said. “I have no choice but to accept that,” he said. “Even when you play by the rules, banks don’t always do what we’d like.”

Under new government guidelines for short sales that took effect this spring, lenders aren’t supposed to hold homeowners responsible for any remaining mortgage debt. But not all short sales fall under the guidelines, while some lenders choose not to implement them, Kohn said.

A forgiven mortgage balance through 2012 is not considered taxable income on a primary residence as long as the debt was used to buy or improve the house. But borrowers who walk away from investment properties risk having to pay federal income taxes on the forgiven amount.

Homeowners who hand their properties back to the bank through so-called deeds in lieu of foreclosure also should make sure they won’t be on the hook for any mortgage debt.

With friends facing deficiency judgments, Thomas said he’s grateful he sought legal advice on how to avoid a lawsuit. He now rents a home west of Boca Raton, but he just found out the owner is in foreclosure. “I’ve escaped my own problem, only to inherit someone else’s,” Thomas said. “But this is nothing. It’s just a matter of picking up the pieces and moving on to the next rental.”

(c) 2010, Sun Sentinel.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Source: RISMedia

Popularity: 1% [?]

Written by djumper · Filed Under Real Estate Blog 

Understanding the New Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA)

February 15, 2010

On November 30, 2009, the Treasury Department released guidelines and forms for its new Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA), which will help homeowners who are unable to retain their home under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Under HAFA, a borrower (the current owner) may be able to avoid foreclosure by completing a short sale or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure (DIL).

HAFA is designed to simplify and streamline the use of short sales and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure by improving the process. Specifically, HAFA will:

• Complement HAMP by providing a viable alternative for borrowers (the current homeowners) who are HAMP eligible but nevertheless unable to keep their home.
• Use borrower financial and hardship information already collected in connection with consideration of a loan modification under HAMP.
• Allow borrowers to receive pre-approved short sales terms before listing the property (including the minimum acceptable net proceeds).
• Prohibit the servicers from requiring a reduction in the real estate commission agreed upon in the listing agreement (up to 6%).
• Require borrowers to be fully released from future liability for the first mortgage debt and if the subordinate lien holder receives an incentive under HAFA, that debt as well (no cash contribution, promissory note, or deficiency judgment is allowed).
• Use standard processes, documents, and timeframes/deadlines.
• Provide financial incentives: $1,500 for borrower relocation assistance; $1,000 for servicers to cover administrative and processing costs; and up to $1,000 match for investors for allowing a total of up to $3,000 in short sale proceeds to be distributed to subordinate lien holders (on a one-for-three matching basis; up to 3% of the unpaid principal balance of each subordinate loan).

HAFA is a complex program with 43 pages of guidelines and forms. To help everyone better understand the process, below are some frequently asked questions that address the basics. For more details on HAFA, visit www.realtor.org/shortsales for links to the guidance, many additional FAQs, and much more information about short sales.

What is HAFA?
Initially announced on May 14, 2009, with guidance and standard forms issued on November 30, 2009, the program will help owners (referred to below as borrowers) who are unable to retain their home under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). A borrower (the current owner) may be able to avoid a foreclosure by completing a short sale or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure (DIL) under HAFA. The guidance and forms released on November 30 do not apply to loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Those enterprises will issue their own HAFA guidance and forms.

Who is eligible for HAFA?
The borrower must meet the basic eligibility criteria for HAMP:
• Principal residence.
• First lien originated before 2009.
• Mortgage delinquent or default is reasonably foreseeable.
• Unpaid principal balance no more than $729,750 (higher limits for 2 to 4 unit dwellings).
• Borrower’s total monthly payment exceeds 31% of gross income.

How is the program being implemented?
Supplemental Directive 09-09 (November 30, 2009) gives servicers guidance for carrying out the program. All servicers participating in HAMP must also implement HAFA in accordance with their own written policy, consistent with investor guidelines. The policy may include such factors as the severity of the loss involved, local market conditions, the timing of pending foreclosure actions, and borrower motivation and cooperation.

A short sale agreement (SSA) will be sent by the servicer to the borrower after determining the borrower is interested in a short sale and the property qualifies. It informs the borrower how the program works and the conditions that apply. After the borrower contracts to sell the property, the borrower submits a “request for approval of short sale” (RASS) to the servicer within 3 business days for approval. If the borrower already has an executed sales contract and asks the servicer to approve it before an SSA is executed, the Alternative RASS is used instead. The Servicer must still consider the borrower for a loan modification.

What are the steps for evaluating a loan to see if it is a candidate for HAFA?
1. Borrower solicitation and response.
2. Assess expected recovery through foreclosure and disposition compared to a HAFA short sale or DIF.
3. Use of borrower financial information from HAMP. (May require updates or documentation.)
4. Property valuation.
5. Review of title.
6. Borrower notice if short sale or DIL not available (to borrowers that have expressed interest in HAFA).

What are the HAFA rules regarding real estate commissions?
The guidance states that a servicer may not require a reduction in the real estate commission below the amount stated in the SSA. The SSA states that the servicer will pay the commission as stated in the listing agreement, up to 6%. If the servicer has retained a vendor to assist the listing broker, the vendor must be paid a specified amount from the commission. Neither buyers not sellers may earn a commission in connection with the short sale, even if they are licensed real estate brokers or agents. They may not have any side deals to receive commission indirectly.

What else should I know?
• The deal must be “arms length.” Borrowers can’t list the property or sell it to a relative or anyone else with whom they have a close personal or business relationship.
• The amount of debt forgiven might be treated as income for tax purposes. Under a law expiring at the end of 2012, however, the tax may not apply. Forgiven debt will not be taxed if the amount of forgiven debt does not exceed the debt that was used to acquire, construct, or rehabilitate a principal residence. Check with a tax advisor.
• The servicer will report to the credit reporting agencies that the mortgage was settled for less than full payment. There will be a negative effect on credit scores.
• Buyers may not reconvey the property within 90 days after closing.

When does the program end?
Short Sale Agreements must be executed and returned to the servicer no later than December 31, 2012

Jeff Lischer is the Managing Director for Regulatory Policy, NAR. For more information, please visit www.realtor.org/shortsales.

Source: RISMedia

Popularity: 2% [?]

Written by djumper · Filed Under Real Estate Blog 

Reuters: Bernanke Says Banks Stabilized, But Lending Still Weak

December 16, 2009

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday that U.S. banks have been stabilized but lending remains too weak to support a healthy recovery.

“We have told the banks very clearly that we want them to make loans to creditworthy borrowers, where there are borrowers who can repay the loans,” Bernanke said in an interview with Time magazine.

After a “near-death experience,” banks are wary of taking on the kind of risk that led to the crisis although they have rebuilt capital, he said.

The Fed has taken steps to loosen markets through programs that allow investors to invest directly in various forms of credit, such as auto loans and credit card loans.

But further steps are needed to pull the sector out of the “convalescent stage,” he said.

“We need to have extensive reform in the private sector, in the public sector, to eliminate these risks in the future,” he said.

The Fed, along with the administration and Congress, still has a lot to do to get the economy back to stability and start creating jobs again, he said.

“Even though the recession may be technically over, in a sense that the economy is growing, it’s going to feel like a recession for some time, because unemployment remains very high, about 10 percent,” he said.

Congress and the administration needs to develop “a credible medium term interest strategy for fiscal policy,” he said.

Time magazine named Bernanke its “Person of the Year” on Wednesday, a day before a U.S. Senate committee is due to vote on his renomination for Fed chairman.

PiggyPresident Barack Obama also this week urged banks to lend more to assist the U.S. economic recovery.

Bernanke said the Fed had never proposed that it become a regulator for the entire financial system, although he argued that no other agency in Washington has its expertise.

“We have a wide range of expertise that makes us the natural supervisor for these large complex firms,” he said.

Banks have yet to broadly understand the need for more restraint on pay after they were bailed out with taxpayer money, he said.

The Fed instituted policies “which we’ll be enforcing on banks” that require them to structure pay in ways that align it with performance and discourage excessive risk taking, he said.

“We are going to be looking at that as part of our supervision of banks,” he said.

The central bank’s policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee will conclude a two-day meeting later Wednesday with a statement expected at about 2.15 p.m.

Source: Reuters

Popularity: 1% [?]

Written by djumper · Filed Under Real Estate Blog 

30-Year Fixed Mortgage Rates Stay Relatively Steady

November 4, 2009

The weekly average rate borrowers were quoted on Zillow Mortgage Marketplace for 30-year fixed mortgages decreased one basis point last week to 4.86%, down from 4.87% the week prior, according to the Zillow Mortgage Rate Monitor, compiled by real estate website Zillow.com. Rates for 15-year fixed mortgages fell one basis point to 4.31% from 4.32%, and 5-1 adjustable rate mortgages fell one basis point to 3.79%, from 3.80% the week prior.

The volume of mortgage requests last week fell 9.5% from the prior week. Of last week’s requests, 43% were for refinance loans, 54% were for purchase loans and 2% were for home equity loans. The prior week, 45% of requests were for refinance loans, 53% were for purchase loans and 2% were for home equity loans.Mortgage

Rates for 30-year fixed purchase mortgages fell, with the average rate on Zillow Mortgage Marketplace at 4.79%. Thirty-year fixed mortgage rates varied by state. Texas mortgage rates and Connecticut mortgage rates decreased the most, from 4.84% to 4.81% in Texas and from 4.96% to 4.94% in Connecticut. New York mortgage rates (5.03%) and New Jersey mortgage rates (5.06%) were the highest in the country, while Texas mortgage rates (4.81%), and California mortgage rates (4.83%) were the lowest.

For more information, visit www.Zillow.com.
Read more here.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Written by djumper · Filed Under Real Estate Blog 

Mortgage Modification Program Hits Goal Ahead of Schedule

October 12, 2009

Almost one month ahead of a November 1, 2009 benchmark set earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a new milestone of more than 500,000 trial loan modifications in progress under the Making Home Affordable program.Scale 4

The goal of 500,000 trial loan modifications by November 1 initially set in July, pushed servicers to ramp up program implementation and sustain a faster pace of modifications; trial modifications are now being issued at a faster rate than new homeowners are becoming eligible. Still, the Administration believes that more can and should be done to assist struggling homeowners and to stabilize the housing market. As part of a continued effort to improve program performance, senior Treasury and HUD officials held the next in a series of meetings with servicers recently, with discussion focused on improving servicer efficiency and responsiveness to borrowers during the modification process.

Additionally, Treasury and HUD released the next Monthly MHA Program Report, which tracks servicer performance through the month of September- ending September 30, 2009.

For more information, visit www.treas.gov.

Source: RISMedia

Popularity: 1% [?]

Written by djumper · Filed Under Real Estate Blog 

Foreclosures Move Up Market

October 12, 2009

Recently, there’s been a fair bit of anecdotal discussion around the assertion that foreclosures, once a problem just for the sub-prime segment of mortgages, have been moving up-market. That is, people are suggesting that we’re seeing more foreclosures in the mid- to high-end segments of the market.Foreclosure1

Turns out, there’s a lot of truth to this idea. In 2006, at the height of the real estate bubble, homes in the bottom one-third of home values made up almost 55% of all foreclosures. Homes in the middle one-third of home values made up almost 29% of foreclosures and homes in the top one-third represented just 16% of foreclosures. In the accompanying chart, you can see the dramatic changes in the distribution of home values among foreclosed homes. In July 2009, the bottom one-third made up 35% of foreclosures, compared to 35% and 30% for the middle and top one-thirds, respectively. Those are shocking numbers: Thirty percent of foreclosures are homes in the top tier of local home values. That means that top-tier homes make up almost twice the proportion of foreclosures as they did just three years ago.

High delinquency rates in Prime, Alt-A and Option ARM mortgage products and declining cure rates (the rate at which borrowers resolve their delinquency status) are resulting in many more foreclosures among borrowers outside of the sub-prime mortgage market (and in higher priced segments of the market). Amherst Securities Group recently provided some data showing the higher delinquency rates for these products and the strong relationship between increased negative equity and decreased probability of resolving delinquency status (see their Exhibit 9, which shows, of borrowers who are 30 days delinquent, the percentage who become 60 days delinquent by their current loan-to-value ratios, where values greater than 100 indicate negative equity). As of the end of the second quarter of this year, Zillow estimated that 23% of single-family homes with mortgages are underwater on their mortgages, so expect cure rates to stay lower than they would be otherwise.

Methodology
Looking at the distribution of foreclosures by home value can be significantly distorted by the variances in home values across the country. For example, it might appear that high-end homes as a percentage of all foreclosures is quite high nationally, but the reality is simply that areas with lots of foreclosures happen to be areas where home prices are higher. In order to better isolate the distribution of foreclosures by price segment without introducing the geographic variability of home prices, we have examined home prices while controlling for the local price level of all homes.

Specifically, from all homes in the Zillow database with valuations (~70 million), Zillow computed the ratio between the current house value and the current level of the Zillow Home Value Index for the county in which the home is located. We then computed the 33rd and 66th percentiles of this ratio and assigned all homes to three price tiers: bottom (homes where the ratio was less than the 33rd percentile), middle (homes where the ratio was between the 33rd and 66th percentiles) and top (homes where the ratio was greater than the 66th percentile). We then extracted all foreclosures since 2000 and computed, by month, the percentage of foreclosures in the month represented by homes in each price tier.

Stan Humphries is the chief economist for Zillow.com.

For more information, visit www.zillow.com.

Source: RISMedia

Popularity: 1% [?]

Written by djumper · Filed Under Real Estate Blog 

FHA Confusion Surrounds Mortgage Finance Regulation Change

October 8, 2009

As new housing finance regulations take effect and even more are set for the beginning of 2010, a number of questions have arisen on the impact to Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured loans.

A bill that calls for an increase to the down payment requirement for FHA loans from 3.5% to 5% would also prohibit borrowers from including closing costs in the principal of the mortgage.

But, is this provision actually a practice already in place?Mortgage

Many originators have told HousingWire they’ve operated for the last year under a directive from the Department and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) prohibiting the practice.

According to Department of Housing and Urban Development Mortgagee Letter 2008-23, dated Sept. 5, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 amended the National Housing Act to eliminate “down payment simplification” — the variable loan-to-value (LTV) limits that were based on the combination of the property value and the average closing costs of the state where the property is located — federal housing commissioner Brian Montgomery wrote.

“Closing costs may not be used to help meet the minimum 3.5% down payment requirement. Closing costs are not considered in the mortgage amount/down payment calculation for purchase money mortgages,” Montgomery wrote.

A spokesperson for the bill’s author, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), said the changes brought by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 prohibits certain sources of funds for closing costs (like seller-funded closing costs), not stop the financing of closing costs into FHA loans. The new bill would insert language that would codify the prohibition, the spokesperson said.

But Garrett’s bill amends language in a different subsection than the section changed by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and it is unclear how the legislation would clear up what lenders are telling HousingWire is a confusing situation.

While Garrett’s proposal is still a bill and not law, changes to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) that put restrictions on prepayment penalties and require escrow accounts on higher-priced loans, among other things, went into effect this month.

In a panel discussion on the TILA changes at the CRA & Fair Lending Colloquium in New Orleans this week, the topic of prepayment penalties came up and a panelist brought up the question that if FHA interest penalties can be considered prepayment penalties, is FHA is in violation of TILA? The panel didn’t resolve the question, further highlighting the confusion felt by the industry.

Source: HousingWire.com

Popularity: 1% [?]

Written by djumper · Filed Under Real Estate Blog 

Next Page »