FHA Book

HOPE NOW Increasing Visibility

Recently HOPE NOW has taken a number of steps to increase the program’s effectiveness. Along with an improved website and upgrades to the program, HOPE NOW is running an advertisement on television. The commercial features a young girl packing up a doll house when her mother enters the doorway, surrounded by boxes, telling her its time to go. The voice over tells viewers that the effects of foreclosures go beyond just the homeowner and gives the HOPE NOW phone number (1.888.995.HOPE). It’s good to see that more is being done to get the word out to homeowners in distress.

FHA Q & A: Facing Foreclosure

I was recently contacted by a couple asking for advice on their housing situation. Due to the recent market conditions, their house has greatly depreciated in value and their payments have become too much to handle. They are currently trying to work with their lender, but are still concerned about losing their home. What should they do?

I have a few major pieces of advice. First, contact a housing counselor immediately. Through the HOPE NOW program, housing counselors can help you figure out your options and, hopefully, avoid foreclosure. Plus, the counselors are available free of charge, so you’d be crazy not to take advantage of it. Distressed borrowers can call HOPE NOW directly at 1-888-995-HOPE (4673) to get started on the process.

Additionally, you need to stay on top of your lender. Lenders like Countrywide are already notorious for their poor customer service and are also working with many other borrowers in your exact situation. Don’t count on them to take care of things without a little pressure. Also, don’t be afraid to negotiate. When you lose your home, they lose money; so they should be willing to make concessions to keep you in your home.

Lastly, don’t count on pending legislation or litigation to save you. Although states like Illinois are pressing for restitution from Countrywide, no one should wait on a decision like that (which could take years) to be helped out with current mortgage problems.

Basically, take things into your own hands and be persistent.

Miller Addresses WSJ Articles

FHA expert Peter G. Miller offers his analysis of the WSJ’s recent features about FHA Loans. Specifically he addresses a critical aspect that the Wall Street Journal has omitted from its series:

This is great stuff but it never quite gets to an important point: There was no FHA mortgage meltdown.

Fewer FHA loans, yes — after all, how could the staid, old-fashioned FHA program compete with mortgages which required nothing down and little meaningful financial disclosure.

But an FHA meltdown? Didn’t happen.

By sticking to its standards, the FHA has been an oasis of financial sanity.

Miller’s FHA insights tend to be spot on and this is no exception. Maybe the WSJ will take note and add an article on this topic to their growing archive.

WSJ Graph Analysis on DPA Defaults

Markham Lee over at SeekingAlpha.com takes a look at the WSJ’s graphs in their article about the problems with DPAs, which I wrote about the other day. Lee is not totally opposed to DPAs but stresses that down payment assistance should only be used to support “financially stable home ownership.” His analysis:

To be clear, I’m not against the program, provided it’s putting people into a strong, stable financial situation, and if the default rates are only slightly higher than those for regular FHA loans. The key is to set higher standards and aim to help people get ahead financially, instead of having them fiscally limp into home ownership. For example: instead of providing down payment assistance for people who can barely afford to make ends meet, provide it for those who will have enough savings for 3-6 months expenses (after they buy the house) if they receive help with the down payment.

Although I’m against DPAs, I don’t think they will be completely eliminated. I do think that if the powers-that-be take Lee’s attitude towards reforming down payment assistance they could serve their intended purpose and get deserving individuals in homes.

DPA Opposition Getting Mainstream Attention

When it comes to finding FHA news articles, the Wall Street Journal seems to be becoming my new Seattle P-I or CNNMoney.com. The WSJ had another FHA article today, this time focusing specifically on the risks of putting zero down on a home. The article, which has an accompanying blog post, focuses on the reasons why eliminating DPA could be critical to the survival of FHA, and the response from the DPAs and other supporters, particularly those who are closely tied to minority and poverty issues. Others feel that the programs need to be changed, but not eliminated:

Seller-funded groups and supporters in Congress say that such programs should be regulated but not shut down, a proposal that HUD hasn’t shown much interest in in recent years. “If there’s a problem, let’s fix it,” says Rep. Gary Miller (R., Calif.), a vocal defender of the program and a former home builder and developer.

Whether or not DPAs will go away, the article concludes with a sure bet:

Rep. Frank said in an interview that he believed a compromise could be reached with the Senate that would preserve the program but with tougher lending requirements. “No one is talking about leaving it untouched,” he says.

WSJ Addresses FHA Problems

The Wall Street Journal posted an article the other day that is very critical of two FHA issues that I also happen to be very critical of:

The problems with having FHA take on risky, sub-prime loans

Down payment assistance

The dangers of zero down are assessed:

The biggest reason the FHA lost so much money was a scam called the “downpayment assistance program.” Under this program, builders or mortgage originators make a loan to low-income homebuyers, and then arrange for a third party to pay the downpayment, so the loan qualifies for FHA insurance. This means borrowers have no skin in the game, and in many cases have negative equity because the value of the homes are often inflated.

Borrowers could bet on the upside of the market at no cost to them. And thanks to the 100% FHA insurance against default, lenders were guaranteed full repayment whether or not the loan is ever repaid. Until recently, lenders even got a tax write-off for their “charitable contribution.” Everyone won – except the taxpayer. Now even the FHA finally agrees that this program invites widespread fraud and wants to end it. But Barney Frank, who heads the House Financial Services Committee, is insisting that it continue.

One lesson from the debacle is what happens with low or zero downpayment FHA loans: They go bust. The Government Accountability Office finds that default rates are about three times higher than on conventional loans. So why in the world is Congress promoting a new FHA bill to lower downpayments to 3% and in some cases even to zero?

Although I find the article to be a bit overly critical when it comes to the FHA program as a whole, I wholly agree with DPA and sub-prime issues.

Anti-Flipping Rule Suspended

On June 2, 2003 the FHA began enforcing a rule that it would not insure mortgages for houses that had been sold more than once in ninety days, effectively preventing flippers from using FHA Loans to finance their enterprises. The justification for this rule was to prevent people from using FHA Loans to finance houses that were “fixed up” in a short period of time and then selling the property for a grossly inflated price, as well as stopping genuine scam artists who would repeatedly sell the house to fake buyers. A May 7, 2003 article from the Realty Times does an excellent job describing the details.

CNNMoney.com reports today that the rule has been suspended for one year. The decision is based on the enormous number of foreclosed properties that are sitting empty and destroying market values. Hopefully honest flippers will take advantage of this suspension of the guideline and help revitalize many distressed neighborhoods.

HOPE NOW Update

An article on Inman News details new guidelines for HOPE NOW, the program for helping homeowners facing foreclosure. Two such guidelines set deadlines for how long servicers have to inform borrowers of their options:

The new HOPE NOW guidelines state that loan servicers should inform homeowners within 45 days whether their application for a workout — such as a repayment plan, loan modification or short sale — has been accepted or denied.

Servicers also agreed to re-subordinate second-lien loans if their position will not be worsened by a refinance or workout — potentially removing a major obstacle to preventing foreclosures in cases where borrowers have “piggyback” second loans. HOPE NOW servicers will also attempt to contact homeowners with subprime adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM) and other homeowners with ARMs that have a probable risk of default 120 days in advance of reset.

These new guidelines have been put in place to make HOPE NOW a more effective tool for distressed borrowers.

Problems with FHA Legislation

The more I learn about the Frank-Dodd plan, the less I like it. It focuses far too much on fixing past bad sub-prime loans and not enough on creating a plan to make FHA work for the future. Basically, they are forgiving those who made bad decisions and neglecting those who are trying to use the FHA program and practice in responsible lending and borrowing. An article by former House majority leader Dick Armey in today’s Wall Street Journal delves into these problems. There is strong opposition within FHA and some shocking facts that back up the sentiment:

On June 9, FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery told reporters that he opposes the Dodd-Frank approach, saying that the FHA “is not designed to become the federal lender of last resort, a mega-agency to subsidize bad loans.” Last week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that banks will use the program to offload their “highest-risk loans” to the taxpayer, and that a stunning 35% of all of the loans refinanced through Dodd-Frank will eventually default on the FHA.

35%!! Wow, that could literally destroy the FHA. There has to be a better solution that does not reward irresponsible corporations and punish not only lenders, but potentially the FHA itself.

The Many Benefits of FHA

Although I primarily write about the standard FHA Home Loan, the FHA has a number of programs for helping out homeowners. One that I haven’t mentioned in awhile is the Reverse Mortgage. An article in yesterday’s Seattle P-I talked about the benefits of reverse mortgages and who they benefit most. Plus, the article details new changes that may allow more seniors to take out reverse mortgages:

Pending legislation may spur more senior homeowners to consider reverse mortgages. Those who have enough equity in their homes can qualify for loans of as much as $362,790 backed by the Federal Housing Administration. A housing bill in Congress includes a proposal to raise the payout to as much as $550,000 and eliminate the current limit of 275,000 reverse mortgages that the Department of Housing and Urban Development can insure.

As with any loan product, reverse mortgages aren’t for everyone; but if the circumstances are right, an FHA Reverse Mortgage could be a great choice for many Americans.