Refinancing Continues to Drive Application Volume

The
Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey
reported that mortgage applications as measured by its Market Composite Index
were down 2.9 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis during the week ended
January 27 but increased 9.0 percent from the previous week on an unadjusted
basis.

The
seasonally adjusted Purchase Index was down 1.7 percent while it increased 17.1
percent on an unadjusted basis from the week ended January 20 and was 4.3
percent lower than during the same week in 2011.  The Refinance Index decreased 3.6 percent
from the previous week.

All
of the four week moving averages were higher for the week.  The seasonally adjusted Market Index rose
4.11 percent, the seasonally adjusted Purchase Index was up 2.48 percent and
the Refinance Index increased 4.22 percent.

Applications for
refinancing represented 80.0 percent of all applications, down from 81.3
percent the previous week.  Applications
for adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) had a 5.6 percent market share compared to
5.3 percent a week earlier.

Refinancing
applications in December increased in every U.S. state according to MBA and,
despite multiple holidays only 12 states had fewer purchase applications than
in November.  In Connecticut refinancing
applications increased 80.1 percent from November and Maine saw a 30.8 percent
increase in applications for home purchase mortgages.

Purchase Index vs 30 Yr Fixed

Click Here to View the Purchase Applications Chart

Refinance Index vs 30 Yr Fixed

Click Here to View the Refinance Applications Chart

Rates fell for all
fixed rate mortgages (FRM) compared to the previous week.  The average contract interest rate for
30-year conforming FRM (balances under $417,500) decreased to 4.09 percent with
0.41 point from 4.11 with 0.47 point. Rates for jumbo mortgages (those with
balances over $417,500) decreased from 4.39 percent to 4.33 percent while
points increased from 0.40 to 0.41.  This
is the lowest rate for the 30-year jumbo mortgages since MBA started tracking
them one year ago. 

FHA backed 30-year
FRM rates decreased one basis point to 3.96 percent with points increasing to
0.61 from 0.57.  Rates for the 15-year
FRM were down from 3.40 percent with 0.40 point to 3.36 percent with 0.41
point.  The effective rate of all of the
mortgage products listed above also decreased.

The sole rate increase was for the 5/1 ARM which increased on average to 2.94 percent with 0.39 point
from 2.91 percent with 0.41 point.  The
effective rate also increased. 

Follow what drives changes in mortgage rate each day with Mortgage Rate Watch from MND.

All rates quoted
are for 80 percent loan to value loans and points include the origination fee.

Michael
Fratantoni, MBA’s Vice President of Research and Economics said of the week’s
results, “The Federal Reserve surprised the market last week by indicating
that short-term rates were likely to stay at their current low-levels until the
end of 2014.  Longer-term treasury rates dropped in response, and mortgage
rates for the week were down slightly as a result.  Although total application volume dropped on
an adjusted basis relative to last week, refinance volume remains high, with
survey participants reporting that the expanded Home Affordable Refinance
Program (HARP) contributed to roughly 10 percent of their refinance
activity.”

MBA’s weekly
survey covers over 75 percent of all U.S. retail residential mortgage
applications, and has been conducted since 1990.  Respondents include
mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts.  Base period and value for
all indexes is March 16, 1990=100.

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.

OCC Notes Fewer Banks Tightening Underwriting Standards

The Office of Comptroller of the Currency
(OCC) recently completed its 18th annual “Survey of Credit
Underwriting Practices
.” The survey seeks to identify trends in lending
standards
and credit risks for the most common types of commercial and retail
credit offered by National Banks and Federal Savings Associations (FSA).  The latter was included for the first time in
this year’s survey.

The survey covers OCC’s examiner
assessments of underwriting standards at 87 banks with assets of three billion
dollars or more.  Examiners looked at
loan products for each company where loan volume was 2% or more of its
committed loan portfolio.  The survey covers
loans totaling $4.6 trillion as of December 31, 2011, representing 91% of total
loans in the national banking and FSA systems at that time.  The large banks discussed in the report are
the 18 largest by asset size supervised by the OCC’s large bank supervision
department; the other 69 banks are supervised by OCC’s medium size and
community bank supervision department. 
Underwriting standards refer to the terms and conditions under which
banks extend or renew credit such as financial and collateral requirements,
repayment programs, maturities, pricings, and covenants.

The results showed that underwriting
standards remain largely unchanged
from last year.  OCC examiners reported that those banks that changed
standards generally did so in response to shifts in economic outlook, the
competitive environment, or the banks risk appetite including a desire for
growth.  Loan portfolios that experienced
the most easing included indirect consumer, credit cards, large corporate,
asset base lending, and leverage loans. 
Portfolios that experienced the most tightening included high
loan-to-value (HLTV) home equity, international, commercial and residential
construction, affordable housing, and residential real estate loans.

Expectations regarding future health of
the economy
differed by bank and loan products but examiners reported that
economic outlook was one of the main reasons given for easing or tightening
standards.  Others were changes in risk
appetite and product performance. Factors contributing to eased standards were changes
in the competitive environment, increased competition and desire for growth and
increased market liquidity. 

The survey indicates that 77% of
examiner responses reflected that the overall level of credit risk will remain
either unchanged or improve over the next 12 months.  In last year’s survey 64% of the responses
showed an expectation for improvement in the level of credit risk over the
coming year. Because of the significant volume of real estate related loans,
the greatest credit risk in banks was general economic weakness and its results
and impact on real estate values.   

Eighty-four of the surveyed banks (97
percent) originate residential real estate loans.  There is a slow continued trend from
tightening to unchanged standards with 65 percent of the banks reporting
unchanged residential real estate underwriting standards.  Despite the many challenges and uncertainties
presented by the housing market, none of the banks exited the residential real
estate business during the past year however examiners reported that two banks
plan to do so in the coming year.  Additionally,
examiners indicated that quantity of risk inherent in these portfolios remained
unchanged or decreased at 81% of the banks.

Similar results were noted for
conventional home equity loans with 68% of banks keeping underwriting standards
unchanged and 18% easing standards since the 2001 survey.  Of the six banks that originated high
loan-to-value home equity loans, three banks have exited the business and one
plans to do so in the coming year

Commercial real estate (CRE) products
include residential construction, commercial construction, and all other CRE
loans.  Almost all surveyed banks offered
at least one type of CRE product and these remain a primary concern of examiners
given the current economic environment and some banks’ significant
concentrations in this product relative to their capital.  A majority of banks underwriting standards
remain unchanged for CRE; tightening continued in residential construction and
commercial (21 percent and 20 percent respectively).  Examiners site cited the distressed real
estate market, poor product performance, reduced risk appetite and changing
market strategy as the main reasons for the banks net tightening.

Nineteen banks (22 percent) offered
residential construction loan products but recent performance of these loans
has been poor and many banks have either exited the product or significantly
curtailed new originations.

Of the loan products surveyed 17% were originated
to sell, mostly large corporate loans, leveraged loans, international credits,
and asset based loans.  Examiners noted
different standards for loans originated to hold vs. loans originated to sell
in only one or two of the banks offering each product.  There has been continued improvement since
2008 in reducing the differences in hold vs. sell underwriting standards and
OCC continues to monitor and assess any differences.

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.

Case-Shiller: Seven Months of Price Declines Comes to an End

For the first time in eight months the S&P/Case-Shiller
Home Price Indices rose over levels of the previous month.  Data through April 2012 showed that on
average home prices increased 1.3 percent during the month for both the 10- and
20-City Composites.

Prices are still down 2.2 percent for
the 10-City and 1.9 percent for the 20-City over figures for one year earlier
but this is an improvement over the year-over-year losses of 2.9 and 2.6
percent recorded in March.  Improvements
in the annual figures were also recorded by 18 of the 20 cities when compared
to March with only Detroit and New York faring worse.  The 10-City Composite now has an index of
148.40 and the 20-City 135.80; the base of 100 was set in January 2000.

Nineteen of the 20 cities and both
Composites posted positive monthly returns, with Detroit being the only
exception.  Phoenix continues to lead
cities with improving trends and had a 2.5 percent increase in April and the
highest annual rate of return among all 20 cities.  Atlanta, Cleveland, Detroit, and Ls Vegas
continue to have average home prices below their January 2000 levels while both
Composites have returned to levels in the early and mid 2003 period.

David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index
Committee at S&P Indices said, “With April 2012 data we finally saw some
rising home prices.  While one month does
not make a trend, particularly during seasonally strong buying months, the combination
of rising positive monthly index levels and improving annual returns is a good
sign.”

 “We
were hoping to see some improvement in April,” Blitzer said.  “First, changes in home prices are very
seasonal, with the spring and early summer being the most active buying months.  Second, while not as strong, and we believe
less reliable, the seasonally adjusted data were also largely positive, a
possible sign that the increase in prices may be due to more than just the
expected surge in spring sales. 
Additionally, the last few months have seen increased sales and housing
starts amidst a lot of talk of better housing markets, so some price gains were
anticipated.”

Atlanta posted the only double-digit
negative annual return at -17.0 percent, its 22nd consecutive month
of negative annuals returns.  Ten of the
20 cities saw positive annual returns – Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver,
Detroit, Miami, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Tampa, and Washington, DC.  There were no new city lows in April.”

Atlanta and Phoenix, two markets we
have followed closely in 2012 for their contrasting trends, have continued
along their opposite paths,” Blitzer said. 
“Atlanta continues to be the only city with double-digit negative annual
returns – 17.0 percent, whereas Phoenix fared the best in terms of annual
returns at +8.6 percent in April.”

Case-Shiller Home Prices

Click Here to View the Case Shiller Chart

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.

Think Tank Measures FHA Progress

The American Enterprise Institute’s
(AEI) FHA Watch, a monthly on-line
publication tracking operations of the housing agency, just released its sixth
edition which makes clear the agenda of the conservative think tank.

Watch starts out by
quoting a Federal Reserve estimate that about one-third of the 11.1 million
underwater mortgages in the U.S. are FHA insured, a number which would account
for nearly half of FHA’s 7.4 million outstanding loans.  The Institute concludes that, since about 72
percent of outstanding FHA loans are of post 2009 vintage, about 1.5 million
recent loans must be underwater. 

“This comes as no surprise,” Watch
says, “since the FHA continues to combine minimal down payments (average of 4
percent) with slowly amortizing thirty-year loan terms. As a result, earned
homeowner equity (the combination of down payment and scheduled loan amortization)
amounts to less than 10 percent after four years, or about enough to sell a
home at the break-even point if home prices stay steady. However, prices have
declined nationally about 7 percent since mid-2009, with lower-priced homes
declining even more. When combined with borrowers’ low FICO scores and high
debt-to-income (DTI) ratios, the result is a continuation of the FHA’s
destructive lending-lending that has resulted in 20-25 percent of recent
borrowers facing a 10 percent or greater likelihood of foreclosure.”

In addition to the opening statement, Watch spotlights the following topics:

  • Insolvency: FHA’s Position Worsened in May, with an
    Estimated Current Net Worth of $22.11 Billion and a Capital Shortfall of $41-61
    Billion.
  • Delinquency: Total Delinquency Rate Increased in May to
    16.23 Percent Because of Increase in Both Thirty- and Sixty-Day Delinquencies;
    Serious Delinquency Rate Ticked Up to 9.43 Percent.
  • Underwater
    Loans: FHA Is Responsible for 1.5
    Million New Underwater Loans.
  • Best Price Execution:
    The Government Mortgage Complex’s Ginnie Brands Demonstrate Continued
    Pricing Dominance over Fannie Mae.
  • The Road Map to FHA Reform: Specific Steps to Reform and the Status
    of Each

The last category sets forth AEI’s goals
for program reform and fiscal reform, steps for accomplishing each, and a
report card on the progress made by FHA and Congress toward the goals.  AEI’s goals for Program Reform are:

  1. Stepping back from markets that the private
    sector can serve to gradually return to a “traditional”10 percent home purchase
    market share.
  2. Stop
    knowingly lending to people who cannot repay their loans.
  3. Help
    homeowners establish meaningful equity.
  4. Concentrate
    on homebuyers who truly need help purchasing their first home.

The only recent improvement acknowledged
by AEI in this area occurred in February with a proposed rule that limits
seller concessions to the greater of 3 percent of the loan or $6,000.  More than a dozen other steps have not been
acted on by the agency.

The Institute has set the following
goals for FHA to achieve in the area of fiscal reform:

  1. Utilize generally accepted accounting
    principles and set rigorous disclosure standards;
  2. Establish and maintain loan loss and unearned
    premium reserves;
  3. Establish and maintain a minimum capital
    requirement of 4 percent of amortized risk in force;
  4. Fund a countercyclical premium reserve.

AEI found that FHA had made a small
amount of progress in this area by requiring application of SEC disclosure
standards to the FHA’s insurance programs and funds and by taking steps toward
retaining an independent third party to conduct a safety and soundness review
under generally accepted accounting standards. 
There was no acceptable progress on the six remaining steps.

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.

This is the 12th of our continuing series of energy savings tips.

This is the 12th of our continuing series of energy savings tips. HUD continues to encourage owners, agents, and developers of HUD/FHA insured and/or subsidized multifamily apartments to be energy efficient and to incorporate green construction techniques whenever possible. While some of these improvements and upgrades may entail more upfront cost, most will pay for themselves in relatively short order, and therefore make not only good common sense, but good financial sense!