Housing regulator argues for debt forgiveness

By Robin Harding and Shahien Nasiripour in Washington

It may be cheaper for state-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive some distressed mortgage debt than to postpone payments, their regulator said for the first time on Tuesday, in an important shift that could boost the struggling US housing market.
Edward DeMarco, the head of the Federal Housing Finance agency, said a ”preliminary” analysis showed that Fannie and Freddie might save $1.7bn by forgiving some principal rather than just postponing payments because of increased incentives from the US Treasury and the greater likelihood that such borrowers would repay.

“The anticipated benefit of principal forgiveness is that, by reducing foreclosures relative to other modification types, enterprise losses would be lowered and house prices would stabilise faster, thereby producing broader benefits to all market participants,” said Mr DeMarco.

About 12m borrowers, or one in five US homeowners with a mortgage, owe more than their property is worth, creating a huge drag on the housing market and the economic recovery. Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee roughly half of all outstanding home loans.

Mr DeMarco has fiercely resisted measures that would increase Fannie and Freddie’s losses for the sake of the wider economy, but his comments suggest a campaign by the Obama administration may have persuaded him that principal writedowns are now in the the agencies’ best interests.

His remarks came as the International Monetary Fund argued that the US could boost its economic recovery by writing off household debt more aggressively. In a chapter of its new World Economic Outlook the IMF said cutting household debts is a low cost way to limit the economic damage of a recession after a financial crisis.

“The need to really do something about this is still there more than three years after some of the flagship debt restructuring programmes were put in place [in the US],” said Daniel Leigh, the lead author of the IMF work.

The IMF highlighted two case studies – the US in 1933 and Iceland in the last couple of years – as successful examples of household debt restructuring.

In the wake of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt set up the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which bought and restructured one in five of all US mortgages and was wound up at a profit in 1951.

In Iceland, banks were persuaded to cut mortgages to 110 per cent of the value of a debtor’s assets and payments were reduced to reflect households’ ability to pay, spurring a recovery after a disastrous financial crisis.

Mr Leigh pointed to three flaws in the home affordable modification programme, or HAMP, the flagship US effort to write down the value of mortgages that are now worth more than the home they are secured on.

First, the programme didn’t provide large enough writedowns, so the remaining debts were still large and households defaulted anyway; second, lenders were not given enough incentives for writedowns; and third, the eligibility requirements were tight, so not many households were able to take part.
Mr Leigh welcomed the administration’s recent moves to boost writedowns and said it was important that Fannie and Freddie joined in. But Mr DeMarco noted the likelihood that some borrowers current on their payments may default to take advantage of a debt forgiveness programme and the cost of implementing such an initiative.

To avoid such “moral hazard” – the problem of households deliberately choosing to default in order to get their debts written down – the IMF said restructuring programmes should be limited to mortgages that are already in trouble on the date that relief is announced.

Under Mr DeMarco’s analysis, US taxpayers would pay Fannie and Freddie $3.8bn in leftover bailout funds from the troubled asset relief programme to write down mortgage principal, which after accounting for the $1.7bn in savings would result in a net cost to taxpayers of $2.1bn.

While a forgiveness programme would be cheaper than allowing borrowers to delay paying a portion of their property debt, an initiative targeting 691,000 borrowers still meant overall losses of roughly $54bn, according to Mr DeMarco. However, that cost does not take into account the economic benefits conferred by averted foreclosures.

“This is not about some huge difference-making programme that will rescue the housing market,” Mr DeMarco said. He will make a final decision later this month.

Original Post: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/289c1214-8318-11e1-929f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1rkO4Z7F2

What The Mortgage Relief Plan Would Do For Homeowners

 

by Deborah L. Jacobs, Forbes Staff  for Forbes.com

After more than a year of wrangling over various mortgage relief proposals, influential state leaders seem close to adopting a plan that Pres. Obama announced Feb. 1. Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman of New York and California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris have indicated they are closer to agreement than in the past.

There are two important elements of the plan and details of both have been a subject of fierce disagreement. One, which could be worth about $25 billion, relates to how much money would be allocated to benefit homeowners and the specific relief they would receive. The other involves the power states would have to investigate past practices by banks, oversee future ones and monitor compliance with the plan.

If the plan is adopted, here’s what it would do for homeowners in specific situations.

Mortgage underwater but current with payments. More than 10 million homeowners in the U.S., due to a decline in home prices, owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth. So even though interest rates have declined, they have been unable to refinance. The latest plan would enable people who have been making loan payments on time to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage by refinancing with lower-interest loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.

Mortgage underwater and behind with payments. Depending on how many states sign on to the plan, up to $17 billion would be set aside to reduce principal for homeowners who are behind on their payments and owe more than their houses are currently worth. The plan would not guarantee a minimum amount of mortgage relief by state.

Victims of foreclosure fraud. The plan would provide payments of about $1,800 apiece to approximately 750,000 families that have been the victim of an improper foreclosure practice. Since 2010, federal authorities have been investigating banks’ routine electronic notarization of documents being transferred from one financial institution to another as part of the foreclosure process–a practice known as robo-signing.

Compensation is likely to be offered to people who lost their homes between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2011. They would not be required to give up their right to sue the financial institutions. Banks, among them the five biggest mortgage providers–Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial—want to be relieved of liability for future claims involving robo-signing.

In announcing the plan on Feb. 1, the President said he was “working to turn more foreclosed homes into rental housing.” So far such a plan is not contained in the pending proposal.

Deborah L. Jacobs, a lawyer and journalist, is the author of Estate Planning Smarts: A Practical, User-Friendly, Action-Oriented Guide. You can follow her articles on Forbes by clicking the red plus sign or the blue Facebook “subscribe” button to the right of her picture above any post. She is also on Twitter.

Original Post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/02/06/what-the-mortgage-relief-plan-would-do-for-homeowners/

Dimon on Housing: ‘No One Is in Charge’

By Nick Timiraos

Bloomberg News

Jamie Dimon, chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The government and the banking industry needs to get serious about fixing the housing market’s problems, but there’s no one leading the charge, said Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., during the bank’s quarterly conference call on Friday.

“I would convene all the people involved in the business. I would close the door. I would stay there until we resolved a bunch of these issues so we could have a more healthy mortgage market,” he said. “You could fix all this if someone was in charge.”

Mr. Dimon ticked off a list of unresolved issues, including foreclosure delays, the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, conflicts of interest between owners and servicers of first mortgages and second mortgages, and pending rules from the Dodd-Frank Act that will establish new rules of the road for mortgages that are pooled into bonds.

“There is no one really in charge of all of this. It is just kind of sitting there,” he said. A “holistic” approach to tackle those issues could lead to a faster recovery in housing, he said, endorsing the sentiment behind the Federal Reserve’s call to action on housing last week with its release of a 26-page white paper.

Mr. Dimon also elaborated on his view that housing markets have neared bottom. “In half the markets in America it is now cheaper to … buy than to rent. Housing is at all-time affordability,” he said. “What you need to see is employment.”

An stronger surge in job growth would boost household formation, which coupled with positive demographics, means that “you’re going to have a turn at one point,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s three months, six months, nine months, but it’s getting closer.”

Mr. Dimon said his bank had made mistakes in handling mortgage foreclosures, and said the bank “should pay for the mistakes we made.” But he added that banks have also offered millions of mortgage modifications, and that banks “are doing it as aggressively as we can.”

He also brushed aside calls for widespread principal reductions, saying that he didn’t agree “that somehow principal forgiveness would be the end-all, the be-all.”

Follow Nick @NickTimiraos

• J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Six Questions on Foreclosure-to-Rental Programs

By Nick Timiraos for WSJ.com

Wednesday’s Journal looked at how one private-equity firm is making a bet on renting out single-family homes acquired through foreclosure. In the coming weeks, federal policy makers could roll out pilot programs to further test the concept. Here’s a look at what’s involved:

What is the government considering?

Government officials solicited more than 4,000 comments from the public last year on potential initiatives that would take foreclosed properties off the market and rent them out. The initiatives are likely to focus only on loans backed by federal entities Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration.

There are two different types of programs that officials are likely to consider. Under the first, the FHA could sell properties in bulk to investors who agree to rent them out. Bulk sales have been rare largely because investors tend to demand deep discounts that sellers haven’t been willing to accept.

A more likely option for Fannie and Freddie, if they move forward with any pilot programs, would be to set up pools of properties in which third-party investors would take a stake. Investors could be responsible for handling maintenance and day-to-day operation of the rental pool, with the mortgage-finance giants sharing in some of the returns.

How many homes are we talking about?

Fannie and Freddie held around 180,000 homes at the end of September, down from around 235,000 one year earlier. The FHA held around 35,000 homes at the end of November, down from 55,000 one year earlier.

The drop figures to be temporary because many loans backed by the FHA have fallen into foreclosure, but banks have been slow in taking back homes after they were caught fabricating documents in order to quickly repossess homes.

Why does the idea of renting out homes have appeal?

Officials like the idea for three reasons. The first is that a backlog of foreclosures estimated in the millions could roll onto housing markets in the coming years. The New York Fed estimates that banks and mortgage companies could take back 1.8 million properties in each of the next two years, up from 1.1 million in 2011 and 600,000 in 2010.

Second, there are signs that home prices of traditional homes are stabilizing in some parts of the country, even as distressed sales drag down property values. The gap between prices of traditional home sales and distressed home sales has widened in recent months. For the year ending in November, home prices were down by 4.3% as measured by real-estate firm CoreLogic. But prices were down by 0.6% when distressed sales are excluded.

Third, this is attractive because rents in many parts of the country are beginning to rise.

What parts of the country could see these types of programs?

In a white paper released by the Federal Reserve last week, officials identified 60 metro areas where federal entities have at least 250 foreclosed properties for sale — a scale that could be large enough to justify a rental program. The largest concentrations of foreclosures held by these entities were in Atlanta, with 5,000 units, followed by Chicago, Detroit, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Riverside, Calif., which each have between 2,000 and 3,000 units.

While not all of these properties are good candidates for conversion to rental, preliminary estimates from the Fed suggest that around two-fifths of Fannie’s foreclosed properties could generate yields of 8%, which could be enough to warrant renting rather than selling the property.

Why can’t the private sector do this on its own?

Certainly, private investors have been building up operations in the rent-and-hold arena, and it’s possible that these types of rental transactions could happen anyway without any government involvement.

But there are two main obstacles facing investors: financing and scale. Most foreclosure investing has been done by local investors. But these outfits have faced challenges getting financing to buy enough homes to scale up a viable rental model. Institutional investors, meanwhile, have deeper pockets but banks have largely resisted big bulk sales of homes, making it harder for them to assemble big pools of homes.

Will this program have any impact on home prices?

To do so, the program would need to be quite large, and that isn’t likely to happen for some time. Michelle Meyer, an economist at Bank of America, says the proposed programs run the risk of being too small to have much impact.

Economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that moving all foreclosed properties from the for-sale market to the rental market would increase home prices nationally by around 0.5% in the first year and 1% in the second year. Of course, no one is talking here about moving all properties from the for-sale market to the rental market, so this shows the maximum effect of such initiatives. The real effect figures to be far more modest.

Original Post: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2012/01/12/six-questions-on-foreclosure-to-rental-programs/

Mortgage Rates Keep Hitting Record Lows

December 22, 2011, 12:32 PM ET
By Mia Lamar and Nathalie Tadena

Bloomberg News

Freddie Mac says the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was at a new record low.

 

Mortgage rates in the U.S. again touched record lows over the past week, according to Freddie Mac’s weekly survey of mortgage rates.

“Rates on 30-year fixed mortgages have been at or below 4% for the last eight weeks and now are almost 0.9 percentage point below where they were at the beginning of the year, which means that today’s home buyers are paying over $1,200 less per year on a $200,000 loan,” Freddie Mac Chief Economist Frank Nothaft said.

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged a new record low at 3.91% for the week ended Thursday, down from 3.94% the previous week and 4.81% a year ago. Rates on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages matched the prior week’s record low at 3.21%. A year ago, the 15-year fixed-rate mortgage rate averaged 4.15%.

Five-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARM, averaged 2.85%, down from 2.86% last week and 3.75% a year ago. One-year Treasury-indexed ARM rates averaged 2.77%, down from 2.81% in the prior week and 3.4% last year.

To obtain the rates, 30-year and 15-year fixed-rate mortgages required an 0.7-point and 0.8-point payment, respectively. Five-year and one-year adjustable rate mortgages required an average 0.6-point payment. A point is 1% of the mortgage amount, charged as prepaid interest.

The low rates could be helping to boost sales of existing homes, although falling prices are also pulling in buyers. Home sales in November hit the second-highest level of the year, rising 4% from October.

Original Post: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/12/22/mortgage-rates-keep-hitting-record-lows/

It's Time to Buy That House

By JACK HOUGH
U.S. house prices have plunged by nearly a third since 2006, and homeownership rates are falling at the fastest pace since the Great Depression.

The good news? Two key measures now suggest it's an excellent time to buy a house, either to live in for the long term or for investment income (but not for a quick flip). First, the nation's ratio of house prices to yearly rents is nearly restored to its prebubble average. Second, when mortgage rates are taken into consideration, houses are the most affordable they have been in decades.

Two of the silliest mantras during the real-estate bubble were that a house is the best investment you will ever make and that a renter "throws money down the drain." Whether buying is a better deal than renting isn't a stagnant fact but a changing condition that depends on the relationship between prices and rents, the cost of financing and other factors.

But the math is turning in buyers' favor. Stock-oriented folks can think of a house's price/rent ratio as akin to a stock's price/earnings ratio, in that it compares the cost of an asset with the money the asset is capable of generating. For investors, a lower ratio suggests more income for the price. For prospective homeowners, a lower ratio makes owning more attractive than renting, all else equal.

Nationwide, the ratio of home prices to yearly rents is 11.3, down from 18.5 at the peak of the bubble, according to Moody's Analytics. The average from 1989 to 2003 was about 10, so valuations aren't quite back to normal.

But for most home buyers, mortgage rates are a key determinant of their total costs. Rates are so low now that houses in many markets look like bargains, even if price/rent ratios aren't hitting new lows. The 30-year mortgage rate rose to 4.12% this week from a record low of 3.94% last week, Freddie Mac said Thursday. (The rates assume 0.8% in prepaid interest, or "points.") The latest rate is still less than half the average since 1971.

As a result, house payments are more affordable than they have been in decades. The National Association of Realtors Housing Affordability Index hit 183.7 in August, near its record high in data going back to 1970. The index's historic average is roughly 120. A reading of 100 would mean that a median-income family with a 20% down payment can afford a mortgage on a median-price home. So today's buyers can afford handsome houses—but prudent ones might opt for moderate houses with skimpy payments.

For example, the median home in the greater Phoenix market, including houses, condos and co-ops, costs $121,700, according to Zillow.com. With a 20% down payment and a 4.12% mortgage rate, a buyer's monthly payment would be about $470. Rent for a comparable house would be more than $1,100 a month, according to data provided by Zillow.com.

Of course, all of this assumes mortgages are available—no given now that lending standards have tightened. But long-term data on down payments and credit scores suggest conditions are more normal than many buyers think, according to Stan Humphries, chief economist at Zillow. "If you have good credit, a job and a down payment, you can get a mortgage," Mr. Humphries says. "There's more paperwork and scrutiny than five years ago, but things are pretty much like they were in the '80s and '90s."

Not all housing markets are bargains. Mr. Humphries says Zillow has developed a new price/rent ratio that uses estimates for each individual property rather than city medians, to better reflect the choices facing typical buyers. A fresh look at the numbers suggests Detroit and Miami are plenty cheap for buyers, with price/rent ratios of 5.6 and 7.7, respectively. New York and San Francisco are more expensive, with ratios of 17.6 and 17.2, respectively. The median ratio for 169 markets is 10.7.

For investors seeking income, one back-of-the-envelope way of seeing how these numbers stack up against yields for other assets is to divide 1 by the price/rent ratio, resulting in a rent "yield." The median market's rent yield is 9.3% and Detroit's is 17.9%.

Investors would then subtract for taxes, insurance, upkeep and other expenses—costs that vary widely. But suppose total costs were 4% of the purchase price. That would still leave a 5.3% rent yield in the typical market. With the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.2% and the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index carrying a dividend yield of 2.1%, rents for residential housing in many markets look attractive.

A few caveats are in order. First, not all transactions are average ones. Even in low-priced markets, buyers should shop carefully. Second, prices could fall further. Celia Chen, a senior director at Moody's Analytics, expects prices to drop 3% before bottoming early next year and rising slowly thereafter. "If the economy slips back into recession, however, we could easily see a 10% drop," Ms. Chen says.

And property "flipping" can be dangerous even when prices are rising. That is because, absent a real-estate boom, house price gains simply aren't that exciting. Research by Yale economist Robert Shiller suggests houses more or less track the rate of inflation over long time periods.

Houses aren't the magic wealth creators they were made out to be during the bubble. But when prices are low, loans are cheap and plump investment yields are scarce, buyers should jump.
—Jack Hough is a columnist at SmartMoney.com. Email: jack.hough@dowjones.com

Rate Drop Spurs Home Refinancing

By NICK TIMIRAOS SEPTEMBER 24, 2011 for WSJ.com

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage dipped below 4%, possibly triggering a refinancing boom for many of the same borrowers who already have taken advantage of rock-bottom interest rates.

According to a survey by Credit Suisse on Thursday, lenders were offering an average rate of 3.91% on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages to borrowers who paid "points," or fees, worth 1% of the loan balance.

Wells Fargo & Co. advertised on its website Friday afternoon a 3.875% rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, with fees of 1% on the loan.

Lou Barnes, a mortgage banker in Boulder, Colo., refinanced four borrowers on Thursday into 30-year fixed-rate mortgages at 3.875%. "At this point, the only people being helped are those who need it the least," he said.

For the home-sales market, low rates will help make homes more affordable, but may not boost home buying if consumers are worried about the economy.

"Today, the buyers' concern is the falling value of homes," said Mr. Barnes. "I've had potential buyers say: 'I don't care if rates are zero if prices are going to fall again.' "

Mortgages rates fell this past week after the Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it would begin plowing payments from its portfolio of $885 billion in government-backed mortgage bonds back into mortgages. That caused a rally in the mortgage market because the Fed's move eliminates the risk that the central bank would be forced to sell its mortgage holdings as refinancing increases.

Mortgages rarely have been this cheap. A 1961 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that loans made to World War II veterans in the late 1940s were available with 4% rates.

More than 60% of borrowers with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage could reduce their mortgage rate by one percentage point, up from 42% at the beginning of August, according to Credit Suisse.

But some borrowers haven't been able to refinance rates because they can't qualify under loan standards that are much tighter than at the time of their first loan. Other borrowers don't have enough equity in their home to refinance.

Before the housing crisis, refinancing tended to jump when borrowers were able to lower their rate by 0.5 percentage point. Since 2009, mortgage applications have taken longer to process, while riskier borrowers have faced higher refinancing costs. As a result, borrowers typically now refinance when rates are 1.5 percentage points below their current rate, according to Bank of America mortgage analysts.

Donald Fraser, a 56-year old pathology assistant who shaved a full percentage point off the 4.875% mortgage he got last year, said he plans to stash most of the $2,700 a year in savings into retirement. "I don't think we'll ever see these rates in my lifetime or yours," he said.

It isn't clear how much these lower rates will help the economy, in part because a weakening economy is fueling the decline.

"We felt lucky. At the same time, we're lucky at the expense of a suffering market," said Richard Klompus, who refinanced his Glastonbury, Conn., home with a 4%, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

Mr. Klompus, 49, had a hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage that carries a 4.5% rate for the first five years before moving to a variable rate. He paid tens of thousands of dollars to pay down his loan balance to $417,000, the maximum size for loans eligible for purchase by mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

To encourage refinancing, Obama administration officials and U.S. regulators are in talks with lenders about ways to revamp an existing White House refinancing initiative designed to help borrowers with little or no equity. The program is open to borrowers whose loans are backed by Fannie and Freddie, which guarantee about half of all outstanding home loans.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, is weighing a series of changes to the program, which has been snarled by a series of technical hurdles. Just 838,000 borrowers have refinanced, short of the hoped-for four million to five million. Just 63,000 of those borrowers have loans worth more than 105% of their home value.

"It hasn't worked, to be honest," said James Parrott, a top White House housing adviser, in a speech to industry executives this week. He said the housing market is at a "critical juncture" and policy decisions over the next six months could determine whether the economic headwinds are "going to be a blip or a broader struggle."

A separate question is whether banks will be able to handle the volume of mortgage applications.

Banks recently have laid off mortgage employees in anticipation of lower loan volumes, while shifting others to the backlog of delinquent loans. The reduced ability to handle loan volumes means that banks have charged higher rates relative to their borrowing costs, muting the decline in rates.

Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com

Can Record Low Mortgage Rates Help You?

Interest rates for fixed-rate mortgages are at all-time lows. But does it make sense to refinance? MarketWatch's Andrea Coombes outlines the pros and cons, including costs, appraisals and risks.

Six Steps That Could Boost Refinancing

By Nick Timiraos

Associated Press

The Obama administration and the Federal Reserve are looking for ways to help more homeowners refinance.

Mortgage rates have dropped—again—to their lowest levels in the last 50 years. A Freddie Mac survey showed that 30-year fixed-rate mortgages averaged 4.12% this week, down from 4.22% last week.

But demand for new loans or refinancing remains muted, underscoring reasons why policy makers at the White House and Federal Reserve are thinking about new ways to help more homeowners refinance.

In Tuesday’s Outlook column, we looked at one of the great puzzles of the government’s initial response to the housing crisis: why few underwater borrowers have refinanced their loans through a White House program that was launched more than two years ago.

The Home Affordable Refinance Program allows underwater borrowers whose loans are backed by Fannie and Freddie to refinance. Under HARP, borrowers with loans worth 80% to 125% of the value of their house can refinance without putting down more cash or taking out mortgage insurance—those steps are often so costly that it no longer makes sense to refinance.

While 838,000 loans had refinanced under the program through June, fewer than 63,000 mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 105% and 125% had refinanced. Fannie and Freddie guarantee millions of loans that are underwater.

The White House could take a number of steps to revamp the program, though many of these steps would require the blessing of Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Here are six that policy makers would be likely to consider:

• Remove the eligibility date. Currently, loans that were originated after June 2009 aren’t eligible for HARP, and loans that have already refinanced once through HARP can’t be refinanced again.
• Eliminate the 125% loan-to-value cap. Nearly one in 13 loans backed by Fannie Mae can’t participate in the HARP program because they’re too far underwater. These loans weren’t eligible initially for HARP because they can’t be sold into standard pools of mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie and Freddie. Some analysts have suggested that the Federal Reserve could buy these loans as one way to facilitate the program.
• Waive risk-based fees that Fannie and Freddie charge. The firms charge lenders extra fees for riskier borrowers, which effectively raises the rate and reduces the incentive for underwater borrowers to refinance. “It wouldn’t be just a refinance boom for the pristine credits. It would open it up for middle America as well,” says Bob Walters, chief economist at Quicken Loans.
• Streamline the application process to tamp down closing costs. Eliminating appraisals, waiving title insurance requirements, and simplifying the refinance process could reduce fees that may have discouraged underwater borrowers from refinancing. (There’s much more on this in a paper by mortgage-market consultant Alan Boyce and Columbia Business School economists Glenn Hubbard and Christopher Mayer.)
• Address second mortgages and mortgage insurance. Using the HARP program for borrowers who are underwater has proven “extraordinarily difficult,” says Mr. Walters, because many borrowers have second mortgages or mortgage insurance from companies that must sign off on the new loan. Coming up with a way to gain automatic pre-approval from participating second-lien holders and mortgage insurers could accelerate underwater refinancing.
• Indemnify lenders against the potential for “put-backs.” This is a big one. Many banks have been reluctant to refinance borrowers under HARP, or are charging hefty fees, because of the concern that they’ll have to buy back the loan from Fannie and Freddie if it defaults.

Of course, any uptick in refinancing would come at the expense of bondholders, muting some of the economic boost. A working paper from the Congressional Budget Office provided some estimates around the benefits and costs of refinancing more borrowers.

Fixing one or two of these steps would help at the margins. Dealing with all of them would provide a bigger boost to refinancing. And all of them stop short of the “blanket refinance” that some analysts have proposed, where Fannie and Freddie would automatically refinance borrowers with an above-market rate, whether they ask for it or not.

“Mass refinance” programs aren’t as likely to happen because they threaten to create significant uncertainty for mortgage-bond investors. Officials may be reluctant to take steps that reward yesterday’s borrowers at the expense of tomorrow’s.

Follow Nick on Twitter: @NickTimiraos

Original Post: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/09/08/six-steps-that-could-boost-refinancing/

Million-Dollar Homes Face More Audits.

Original Post: http://blogs.smartmoney.com/tax/2011/03/25/million-dollar-homes-face-more-audits/
By Arden Dale  March 25, 2011, 3:12 PM

Some people who owe more than $1 million on their homes are coming under the microscope at the Internal Revenue Service over how much of their mortgage interest they can deduct on their tax returns.

The number of taxpayers involved could be in the tens of thousands because in some parts of the country, many homes sell for more than $1 million and even a buyer who puts down 20% or 30% may need to borrow. The amount of interest at stake is substantial, in some cases as much as $50,000 to $60,000 on a $1.1 million mortgage.

The IRS didn’t comment, but the scrutiny follows a period of confusion by taxpayers, advisers and even some IRS agents about how much interest can be deducted, based on what kind of debt the homeowner holds. Tax rules distinguish between two kinds of home debt. There is home acquisition debt, which is a loan used to acquire, construct or substantially improve a qualified home, and is secured by the home. Then there is home equity debt, which is any other kind of loan that is also secured by the home.

Some tax advisers were telling clients it was acceptable to deduct all interest on a single mortgage of up to $1.1 million. Others contended that the limit for mortgages was $1 million, but they could also deduct interest on another $100,000 in a home equity loan, according to Melissa Labant, tax technical manager at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

IRS guidance last June helped set the rules straight. The agency said acquisition loans over $1 million may also qualify as home equity indebtedness. Now, says Labant, it is clear the taxpayer can deduct interest on the full $1.1 million, even if he has only one loan. The development, she adds, is “good news for taxpayers.”

The rules can get “particularly complex for a mere mortal” when various refinancings get thrown into the mix, and the taxpayer owns several homes, say a house in upstate New York and a condominium in New York, according to David A. Lifson, a certified public accountant at Crowe Horwath LLP in New York, who has clients caught up in these mini-audits. In past six months, he says, the Internal Revenue Service has notified many people that it is looking at their mortgage interest write-offs.

Tax rules generally allow deductions on a first and second home, but not a third or more.

Readers, have you been confused by how much of a deduction you can take?