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

HUD’s Donovan: Fannie, Freddie Should Embrace Loan Forgiveness

By Nick Timiraos  for WSJ.com February 16, 2012, 4:27 PM

The Obama administration would like the federal regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to begin reducing loan balances for certain troubled borrowers, a top official said Thursday.

“More and more economists across the political spectrum are recognizing [principal reduction] is a critical step,” said Shaun Donovan, secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “If a family is in their home for 10, 15 years and has no hope of being able to build equity again, they’re going to give up at some point.”

Officials have said for more than a year that they’d like to see mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie adopt principal reduction, and several steps in recent weeks have put more pressure on the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the firms’ regulator, to approve write downs.

“Clearly it’s an important piece of the puzzle that Fannie and Freddie move forward on this,” said Mr. Donovan. Last month, the White House said it would triple incentive payments under an existing loan-modification program that subsidizes the cost of loan forgiveness and that it would offer them to Fannie and Freddie.

When the principal reduction program was rolled out two years ago, those incentive payments weren’t extended to Fannie and Freddie, and their regulator has said there are less costly ways to help borrowers avoid foreclosure. The firms are being propped up with massive taxpayer infusions of their own, and the FHFA is tasked with preserving the firms’ assets.

By providing new taxpayer funds, the administration is making it harder for the FHFA to maintain its stance that principal reduction is less costly because Treasury funds will effectively subsidize some of those losses. The FHFA has said it is currently evaluating the newest proposal.

The firms are “working right now…to make a decision on whether they are going to begin principal reduction,” said Mr. Donovan. “We certainly hope that they will start to do that based on these incentives. That’s why we made them available.”

Separately, Mr. Donovan said he remained “concerned” about the prospect of taxpayers being forced to backstop losses at the Federal Housing Administration. Budget projections this week showed that the agency could deplete its reserves this year. The FHA, which doesn’t make loans but instead insures lenders, has played a critical role supporting housing markets amid a sharp pullback by the rest of the market.

The agency could announce within days its plan to increase the premiums charged to borrowers in order to build up its reserves. HUD also announced in recent days settlements with two of its biggest lenders over fraudulent loan claims that will net more than $680 million for the agency.

But Mr. Donovan warned of precipitous actions to boost reserves that limit the availability of credit and undermine fragile housing markets. “This is a delicate balancing act because if we go too far…what we’re going to be doing is stalling the momentum that we have in the housing recovery,” he said. “Frankly, that not only hurts homeowners more broadly in the housing market, it hurts FHA because the value of our existing investments goes down.”

• Fannie Mae,
• Freddie Mac,
• Obama administration

Original Post: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2012/02/16/huds-donovan-fannie-freddie-should-embrace-loan-forgiveness/

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/

Economists See Ways to Aid Housing Market

By NICK TIMIRAOS  for wsj.com

The underpinnings of a housing recovery are hiding in plain sight: sharp price declines, low mortgage rates and rising rents have made owning more affordable than renting in a growing number of markets.

Yet housing largely remains in a funk. The prospect of continued price declines—led by the oversupply of foreclosed homes—has deterred some potential buyers, while others can't qualify for loans.

Many economists, including some at the Federal Reserve, are urging President Barack Obama to do more, and the president will be "aggressive on housing" in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, his housing secretary said last week. The administration is already rebooting a refinancing initiative and putting finishing touches on programs to convert some foreclosed properties into rentals.

View Interactive

What more can be done? Economists cite three broad ideas that could advance a housing recovery.

First, local investors could play a greater role in spurring a recovery in their own communities. Some mom-and-pop investors have begun to buy up excess housing stock and rent it out.

These buyers are important to clear the large "shadow supply" of foreclosures. Banks owned around 440,000 homes at the end of October, but an additional 1.9 million loans were in some stage of foreclosure, according to Barclays Capital.

While there's no shortage of investor demand in many markets, financing remains an obstacle. In 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the main funders of mortgages, faced soaring losses from speculators and reduced to four from 10 the number of loans they would guarantee to any one owner. Fannie now backs as many as 10 loans, but some banks have kept lower limits.

"If that number were raised...to 25, you would very quickly start whittling down this very big backlog," said Lewis Ranieri, the mortgage-bond pioneer, in a speech last fall. He said loans should be made on conservative terms that include 30% or 35% down payments.

Today's investors differ from the speculators who earlier bought on the prospect of ever-rising values that inflated the real-estate bubble. In contrast, today's mostly all-cash buyers estimate values based on market rents. But economists say because they are underfunded and often the sole buyers, they are driving hard bargains that have homes selling below their replacement costs.

The mortgage-finance companies and their regulator "are ignoring the market fundamentals of who the buyers are and where the money is," said Tim Rood, a partner at the Collingwood Group, a housing-finance consultancy. "Right now, investors are treated like pariahs. You want to clear some inventory? Finance them."

For the past four years, prices of foreclosed and traditional homes fell in tandem, but in recent months, a new pattern has emerged. U.S. home prices were down 4.3% from one year ago in November. But after stripping out foreclosures and other "distressed" sales, prices were down just 0.6%, according to data firmCoreLogic.

Lawmakers also could consider eliminating capital-gains taxes on properties bought as a longer-term investment and converted to rentals as well as allowing them to accelerate the depreciation of those properties, said William Wheaton, a professor of economics and real estate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"We need to re-establish equilibrium. I don't want to see another spike in house prices, but the homeownership rate is dropping and we also don't want to see rental spikes," Prof. Wheaton said.

Second, policy makers could restore clarity to lending by finalizing a clutch of pending regulations. The government's extraordinary steps to rescue Fannie and Freddie helped prevent a cataclysmic shock but it has made no real movement to overhaul the companies and the nation's broader housing-finance machinery.

While prospects are dim for a revamp before the election, smaller steps to establish certainty around the rules for lending as well as handling soured mortgage loans could make banks less stingy with credit.

For example, Fannie and Freddie are pushing banks to repurchase any defaulted loans that they can prove ran afoul of underwriting standards, even if the loan went bad for another reason, such as job loss. The "blanket repurchase regime" has led banks "to focus only on the lowest-risk customers," said William Dudley, president of the New York Federal Reserve, in a speech this month.

Third, a growing number of economists are warning that the overhang of debt in some of the most distressed housing markets will linger for years, particularly if more borrowers default. They say mortgage investors and banks should consider reducing debt for more troubled homeowners.

Principal write-downs remain controversial and have high upfront costs. But the problem of negative equity looks unlikely to cure itself: In markets such as Las Vegas, more than six in 10 borrowers owe more than their homes are worth.

Banks are rightly worried that widespread debt forgiveness could encourage more borrowers to default, but several proposals seek to limit that moral hazard. Prof. Wheaton said investors in the loans should be given equity stakes in homes in order to deter all but the most desperate borrowers from seeking relief, and that relief should be limited to borrowers who are deeply underwater.

"This needs to be a shared responsibility," he said. "For borrowers silly enough to borrow enough at the top of the market, there was a lender stupid enough to lend."

Principal write-downs could also be done on an "earned" basis, where borrowers receive relief only if they stay current on their loans, said Daniel Alpert, managing partner at Westwood Capital, which has employed the technique when buying distressed mortgages.

Even then, write-downs will remain under-used until regulators or lawmakers simultaneously deal with the second mortgages, which are primarily held by banks, sitting behind many underwater first mortgages.

Mustering the political will to take any of these three steps wouldn't be easy. Given the state of the market, "there isn't a solution which will make everyone love you and cost no money," Mr. Ranieri says.

Indeed, no single idea will fix all of housing's problems. Many involve taking on more risk or rewarding bad behavior.

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

Original Post: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577173001251941984.html?mod=WSJ_RealEstate_LeftTopNews

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.

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

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/