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

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.

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/

How to Figure the Fuzzy Math of Internet Home Values

Original Post: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577026131448329006.html?mod=WSJ_RealEstate_RIGHTTopCarousel

By ALYSSA ABKOWITZ

Jason Gonsalves worked hard to turn his 6,500-square-foot stucco-and-stone home in the suburbs of Sacramento into the ultimate grown-up party pad, complete with game room, custom wine cellar and an infinity-edge pool overlooking Folsom Lake. When interest rates fell recently, Mr. Gonsalves, who runs a lobbying firm, looked into refinancing his $750,000 mortgage. That's when he got startling news—the home had dropped more than $200,000 in value while he was renovating.

Scott Pollack

Or at least, that's what one real-estate website told him. Another valued the house at only $640,500. And these online estimates left him all the more confused when a real-life appraiser, assessing the house for the refinancing loan, pinned its value at $1.5 million. "I have no idea how those numbers could be so different," Mr. Gonsalves says.

Right or wrong, they're the numbers millions of consumers are clamoring for. After years of real-estate pros holding all the informational cards in the home-sale game, Web-driven companies like Zillow, Homes.com and Realtor.com are reshuffling the deck, giving home shoppers and owners estimates of what almost any home is worth. People have flocked to the data in startling numbers: Together, four of the biggest sites that offer home-value estimates get 100 million visits a month, with web surfers using them to determine what to ask or bid for a home, or whether to refinance.

Zillow, Trulia and other websites post estimates of home values. But as Alyssa Abkowitz explains on Lunch Break, these popular sites can be -- by their own admission -- wildly inaccurate.

But for figures that can carry such weight, critics say, the estimates can be far rougher than most people realize. Valuations that are 20% or even 50% higher or lower than a property's eventual sale price are not uncommon, as the sites themselves acknowledge. The estimates frequently change, too—sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars—as sites plug new data into their algorithms.

More

• What the Sites Get Right and Wrong

All of the competitors make it clear their numbers are guesstimates, not gospel. "A Trulia estimate is just that—an estimate," says a disclaimer on that site's new home-value tool. Zillow goes a step further, publishing precise numbers about how imprecise its estimates can be. And every major site urges home-price hunters to consult appraisers or real-estate agents to refine their results.

But despite the disclaimers, homeowners and real-estate agents say, many Web surfers put enough faith in the estimates to sway the way they shop and sell.

After Frank and Sue Parks put their manor-style house in Louisville, Ky., on the market, they watched as Zillow put a $331,000 value on the dwelling in May; by July it had climbed to $1.5 million. (Zillow says the lower estimate reflected errors in its statistical model.) The couple got potential buyer referrals from the site, but they fended off a stream of lowball offers before they sold this fall. Mrs. Parks says the estimate roller coaster "really affected our ability to move the place."

Determining a home's value has traditionally been the job of an appraiser, who gathers data on recently sold homes and compares them with the "subject property" to arrive at an estimate.

In the late 1980s, economists started developing automated valuation models, or AVMs, computer models that could analyze data about comparable sales, square footage, number of bedrooms and the like, in a matter of seconds. For years, these tools were mostly reserved for in-house analysts at lending banks.

It wasn't until 2006 that Zillow took them to the masses, with its Zestimates, which now offer values for more than 100 million homes based on the company's own algorithms. "Humans don't make these decisions," says Stan Humphries, chief economist at Zillow.

Numbers like these have become weapons in the arsenal of consumers like Simms Jenkins, an Atlanta marketing executive, who has recently relied on online estimates to help him both buy and sell homes. "I can't imagine 25 years ago, when people would just go out and spend their entire Saturday looking at homes," he says. "You don't have to do that now."

But appraisers and real-estate consultants say the online models can veer off target with alarming frequency. Most data for the models come from two sources: records from tax assessors and listing data for recent sales. Collection is a challenge, however, because not every county tracks properties the same way—some calculate home size by number of bedrooms, others by overall square footage. And automated models aren't designed to account for the unique construction details that often make or break a deal, or for intangible factors like a neighborhood's gentrification. "You cannot use a computer model in certain areas and expect the value to come out right," says John May, the former assessor of Jefferson County, Ky., which includes the state's largest city, Louisville.

For all these reasons, models that banks use often add a "confidence score" to their estimates. Consumer-oriented sites, meanwhile, rely on disclaimers, some of which are eye-opening. Zillow surfers who read the "About Zestimates" page find out that the site's overall error rate—the amount its estimates vary from a homes' actual value—is 8.5%, and that about one-fourth of the estimates are at least 20% off the eventual sale price. In some places, the numbers are far more dramatic: In Hamilton County, Ohio, which includes Cincinnati, it's 82%.

The sites argue that, over time, edits and corrections will help them perfect their numbers—with many fixes coming from their customers.

On Homes.com, anyone who knows a homeowner's surname and the year the home was last purchased, can edit the details of a property listing in ways that can eventually change the estimated value.

Zillow has accepted revisions on 25 million homes—perhaps the strongest testament to how seriously consumers take its estimates. Today, the site says its figures are accurate enough to give consumers a good sense of any home's value. In the meantime, says Mr. Humphries, its economist, "We're always tweaking the algorithm or building a new one."
—Email: editors@smartmoney.com

Beverly Hills Selling Spree

Jennifer Aniston nabs $36 million; high-end homes are moving in the wealthy enclave

By JULIET CHUNG OCTOBER 28, 2011 for WSJ.com

In August, fashion designer Vera Wang bought a midcentury modern-style home in Beverly Hills for $9 million from real-estate investor and designer Steven Hermann. He'd bought it for $5 million in 2008, then spent more than $3 million on a gut renovation.

In nearby Holmby Hills, Lions Gate Entertainment Chief Executive Jon Feltheimer and his wife, Laurie, recently sold a five-bedroom home that they had bought in 2009 for $9.8 million. A family spokesman said the Feltheimers intended to build a new home but sold after deciding the process would be too time-consuming. They got $14.4 million, from Russian soccer player Gurgen Khachatryan.

At a time when luxury homes are making up an increasingly large share of foreclosures, an unexpected number of high-end owners in and near Beverly Hills are demanding—and in some cases getting—millions more for properties they've recently bought.

Brokers say the appetite has remained remarkably healthy for prime property in this area, particularly for renovated homes. For the year to date ended Thursday, 25 homes in the greater Beverly Hills, Bel Air and Holmby Hills area had sold for $10 million or more, according to Jeff Hyland of Hilton & Hyland, a Christie's International Real Estate affiliate. That's more than the 16 and 21 sold over the same period in the hot years of 2006 and 2007.

Last summer, Jennifer Aniston sold her nearly 10,000-square-foot Beverly Hills home, which she bought in 2006 for $13.5 million, for $36 million. The actress set a local price-per-square-foot record—$3,600—with the sale. Designed by late architect Harold W. Levitt, the home recalled Bali and featured five bedrooms, extensive stonework and a bridge over a koi pond. A spokesman for Ms. Aniston didn't respond to requests for comment.

Not far from Ms. Aniston's former home is another house designed by Mr. Levitt that's been heavily renovated to include Asian influences. The house went on the market in June asking $14.9 million; it's now asking $10.9 million. Owner Tim Mulcahy says he bought the house speculatively, paying $4.6 million for it last year and spending a further $3.5 million on the renovation. Mr. Mulcahy says he's aware there's a housing downturn but calls Beverly Hills a unique market. "I don't feel I've lost money; I feel that I will have some gain," he adds.

In Beverly Hills' gated enclave of Beverly Park, a European businessman bought a 20,000-square-foot contemporary, sight unseen, for $16.5 million last fall. Now, he is asking $25 million for the house—without having done any work on it.

"We thought, 'Let's throw it up on the market and see what happens,' " says the broker, Josh Altman of Hilton & Hyland, of the home, which sits on nearly seven acres and has a dining room with a grotto and waterfall. The attempted sale makes sense, Mr. Altman says, because he was able to get his client a good price on the home and because similar super-size homes in the area are scarce.

Also testing the waters: Paramount Chairman Brad Grey, who, after buying a home in Holmby Hills in the winter for $18.5 million, put it back on the market in September for $23.5 million. Mr. Grey never intended to sell the property, says his broker, Stephen Shapiro of the Westside Estate Agency. He adds that Mr. Grey decided to sell after renovating another property he owns nearby.

Write to Juliet Chung at juliet.chung@wsj.com

Mortgage Servicers Resist But Cut Debts .

Original Post: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576226980831330892.html?mod=WSJ_RealEstate_LeftTopNews
By RUTH SIMON And NICK TIMIRAOS march 28, 2011

U.S. banks are resisting efforts by state attorneys general to force them to cut the amounts owed by some borrowers facing foreclosure. Yet mortgage companies already have reduced home-loan balances for more than 100,000 borrowers.

How much larger the number will grow is likely to be at the center of negotiations this week aimed at reaching a settlement to the nationwide investigation of mortgage-servicing practices.

Officials from Bank of America Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc.'s GMAC unit have been summoned to Washington for a Wednesday meeting with state attorneys general and at least three U.S. agencies, according to people familiar with the situation.

It will be the first faceoff since the five companies, the largest home-loan servicers in the U.S., got a 27-page "term sheet" earlier this month from state attorneys general that would require the servicers to consider more borrowers for principal write-downs.

In addition, some of the financial penalties resulting from any settlement are "very likely" to be used for reductions in loan balances for certain borrowers, said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is spearheading the 50-state investigation. Even among state officials, there are disagreements as to whether shrinking loan balances is a good idea.

The "term sheet's principal reduction proposals may actually foster an unintended 'moral hazard' that rewards those who simply choose not to pay their mortgage," the Florida, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia attorney generals wrote in a March 22 letter to Mr. Miller.

The chief executives of Bank of America and Wells Fargo have questioned the fairness of writing down loans, while claiming the costs could be enormous if widespread principal reductions are triggered by a settlement.

Speculation that "we want everybody 'underwater' to receive a principal reduction is not true," Mr. Miller said in an interview, though lopping off thousands of dollars from what a borrower owes on a mortgage "has been underutilized as a tool." An underwater borrower is one who owes more on a property than it is worth.

This month's proposal by state attorneys general would require banks to reduce loan balances for some borrowers if a modification that includes a principal reduction would provide a better long-term return than foreclosure or a loan modification that simply cuts the borrower's interest rate or extends the loan's life.

Loan balances would be trimmed over a three-year period, but only if borrowers made steady payments.

Some loan servicers under investigation by state and federal officials already are slicing loan balances on a very narrow basis. In 2009 and 2010, Wells Fargo forgave a total of $3.8 billion in principal—or an average of $51,000 per loan—for roughly 73,000 borrowers whose mortgages are owned by the San Francisco bank.

Bloomberg News

Bank of America says it had offered loan modifications to more than 127,000 borrowers as of December

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, N.C., had offered loan modifications to more than 127,000 borrowers as of December as part of its previous settlement with state attorneys general over alleged predatory lending by Countrywide Financial Corp., which it bought in 2008. An estimated 35,000 of those offers included a principal reduction.

Officials at Bank of America and Wells Fargo said the two banks are comfortable reducing loan balances for certain borrowers, but oppose broad-based cuts. One reason: Some borrowers could stop making payments to get their debt reduced.

A recent study by Columbia University economists concluded that Countrywide's relative delinquency rate "increased substantially...during the months immediately after the public announcement" of the 2008 ­settlement.

"It's certainly something to be worried about, but you can't point to this and say, 'Well, we can't do any modifications,' " said Christopher J. Mayer, one of the study's authors.

Most loan-modification programs have focused on temporarily reducing interest rates and extending loan terms.

Principal reductions have gotten more attention recently because so many borrowers owe more than their homes are worth.

At the end of 2010, nearly 11.1 million borrowers, or nearly 23.1% of those with mortgages, were underwater, according to CoreLogic Inc. The tepid nature of the housing recovery suggests many borrowers could remain underwater for years.

Supporters of principal reduction say borrowers who receive such cuts are less likely to redefault.

"Principal write-downs are much more likely to create a loan that is sustainable over the long-term," said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has made principal reductions a component of four predatory lending settlements.

A study last year by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that loan modifications with principal reductions are far more likely to succeed than those that simply reduce interest rates.

According to mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corp., 17% of its borrowers who got a principal reduction were behind on their payments again six months later, compared with 20% of those with a modification that reduced payments but not the loan balance.

Over the past year, Ocwen has cut balances on more than 16,000 loans, representing 22% of its modifications.

"We found that it's essential to include principal reduction in our modification arsenal to be able to address the negative equity problem," said Paul Koches, Ocwen executive vice president. In February, Ocwen rolled out a program that will spread principal reductions over three years and let mortgage investors share in any subsequent increase in value when a home is sold.

Some mortgage companies say principal reductions are best used when borrowers are deeply underwater. PennyMac Loan Services LLC will consider reducing principal if the borrower is likely to remain underwater even after three or four years of loan payments, said Steve Bailey, chief servicing officer for PennyMac, which has used principal reduction in 58% of its modifications.

—Dan Fitzpatrick contributed to this article.

Write to Ruth Simon at ruth.simon@wsj.com and Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com