First Round of Pilot Rental Initiative Completed with 2,500 Homes Sold

The first round of winners has been
selected to purchase foreclosed real estate from Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae.  The Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) announced today that 2,500 single family homes had been awarded to successful
bidders under a pilot initiative to convert real estate acquired by the two
government sponsored enterprises (GSE) through foreclosure into rental property. 

Successful candidates for purchasing properties
from the GSE’s real estate portfolio (REO) had undergone several steps in a
qualification process before being permitted to bid on the houses which they had
to agree to hold and rent for a period of time before reselling. 

The properties were offered in sale
pools which were geographically concentrated in various locations across the
United States.  The GSEs, FHFA and other federal
agencies involved, Departments of Treasury, Housing and Urban Development,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve, had several
goals
for the program.  They hoped to
relieve the GSEs of the costs and administrative burdens of managing thousands
of foreclosed properties, alleviate the blight imposed on communities by large
number of vacant and possibly deteriorating properties, increase the rental
stock, while at the same time not flooding the market with distressed
properties.

 FHFA described the response to the pilot
initiative as “robust with strong qualified bidder interest.”  Some 4,000 responses were received to the
initial “Request for Information” issued by the program sponsors last February,
however beyond announcing that the awards had been made FHFA released no
information on the names or even the numbers of successful bidders.

“FHFA
undertook this initiative to help stabilize communities and home values in
areas hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis,” said Edward J. DeMarco, Acting
Director of FHFA. “As conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we believe
this pilot program will assist us in achieving our objectives and help to
maximize the benefit to taxpayers. We are pleased with the response from the
market and look forward to closing transactions in the near future.”

…(read more)

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

David H. Stevens Staying at MBA

Slightly more than a month after it confirmed
he was leaving his post as President and CEO, the Mortgage Bankers Association
(MBA) announced that David H. Stevens would remain at the head of the trade
association.  Steven’s resignation and
appointment as president of Sun Trust Mortgage was announced by both MBA and
the parent company of his new employer, Sun Trust Bank, on May 30.  The announcement came almost simultaneous
with Steven’s first year anniversary with MBA.

In a statement released this morning MBA
said they were pleased to announce that Stevens “has agreed to stay on as
President and CEO.”  MBA Chairman Michael
W. Young said that, “Over the past several
weeks, MBA’s leadership, members and staff impressed upon Dave the important
role he was playing for the industry and his unique qualifications to lead the
association.  The importance and
significance of MBA’s voice during this critical time coupled with Dave’s
experience and talents encouraged us to do all we could to retain him.”

“The past few weeks have been extremely
difficult for me personally and professionally,” Stevens said.  “After serious thought and consideration, I
simply cannot leave the MBA at such a critical time for the industry and the
association.  Frankly, at the end of the
day, stepping away now when so much progress is being made and so much still
left to be done, did not feel right.

 “Going
through this experience left me encouraged by the tremendous opportunity that
lies within our industry and reinforced the essential component mortgage
finance will continue to play in helping our nation’s economy recover.” he
noted.  

Stevens joined MBA in May 2011 after serving as Assistant
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and Commissioner of the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA). 

Mr. Stevens was to have joined the Company on July 16, reporting to SunTrust Mortgage President and CEO Jerome Lienhard.

“We have a strong leadership team in place, and continue to execute our business plan and serve the needs of the clients of SunTrust Mortgage,” said Mr. Lienhard.

…(read more)

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

Mortgage Rates Rise But Hang On To Some Of Yesterday’s Improvement

Mortgage Rates moved slightly higher today but only erased a portion of yesterday’s improvement.  That leaves the Conventional 30yr Fixed Best-Execution rate unchanged and borrowing costs slightly higher than yesterday, but still lower than the previous day.  

(Read More:What is A Best-Execution Mortgage Rate?)

Much like yesterday, the domestic economic data regarding Consumer Sentiment, Consumer Spending, or the Chicago manufacturing data were all non-events next to bigger considerations.  Today, or overnight rather, the market’s focus turned to news that European leaders agreed to allow recapitalization of troubled European banks out of the Euro-zones permanent bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism, or ESM.  

The recapitalization isn’t something that will happen overnight, and indeed several countries said “we don’t need that now, but might some day!  Thanks!”  in not so many words.  Additionally, the European Central Bank (ECB) noted that none of this can begin until supervision of the program is established–something that should happen by year end.  Even so, it’s perceived as a small step in the right direction for a European Union that’s had a hard time getting on the same page fiscally.  Such things tend to encourage better risk-tolerance in markets, generally leading to higher stock prices and bond yields.

Although bond yields did, in fact, rise noticeably in terms of Treasuries, the Mortgage-Backed-Securities (MBS) that most directly influence mortgage rates, experienced a tamer version of the weakness.  This is what ultimately allowed mortgage rates to hold on to some of their gains from the previous session whereas Treasuries have given all of theirs back.  This “ground holding” is consistent with a bit of a shift in our analysis seen yesterday.

“we’re feeling less and less like rates are cutting this narrow, converging path because they’re ready to break quickly to one direction or another and more like rates are just really low, really sideways, and will take a lot of convincing before doing something else.”

In other words, we’re planning on “low and sideways” around current levels until something big happens to change that.  All we can do is watch and wait for such things and keep an eye out for upcoming candidates to motivate the potential movement.  

Long Term Guidance: We’d continue to advocate against trying to “get ahead” of current market movements due to the high degree of uncertainty.  While it’s a reasonably safe assumption that European concerns will generally help rates stay lower than they otherwise would be, that “otherwise would be” part is very much a moving target.  Best bet is to focus on the fact that rates are at their all time lows, and can change quickly based on events that aren’t “scheduled” or able to be forecast.  Risk vs reward for floating vs locking looks a bit larger than we’d like, but not out of the question for those who understand the risks and have an exit strategy if things don’t go their way.

Loan Originator Perspectives

Mike Owens, Partner with HorizonFinancial, Inc.

I am and will always be a lock and load fan. Floating always leaves the chance of a Titanic type event that I want no part of. Therefore lock in your 20 or 15 year loan and only consider 30 if you really need payment relief.

Ted Rood, Senior Mortgage Consultant, Wintrust Mortgage

Stock market rallies such as today’s ordinarily lead to higher mortgage rates as money flows out of bonds and into stocks. The fact that rates are essentially unchanged today is a bullish signal for bond markets, showing strength and probability of continued low rates. Said it before, will say it again, US economy is best of a bad lot, and until our fiscal time bond blows up will continue to be!

Jeff Stats, Network Funding L.P.

I am guiding my customers to lock if closing in the next 30 days. The stored energy poised to affect MBS negatively is simply too great a risk to justify the reward.

Victor Burek at Benchmark Mortgage

The EU summit has come and gone with no real solution, just more can kicking. With the surge in equities, lenders rate sheets were slightly worse this morning. That said, i favor floating all loans over the weekend, then i will continue with my strategy of advising clients to float til within 15 days of closing.

Kent Mikkola #353976, Mortgage Consultant ,  M & M Mortgage, LLC #213677

Still more to lose than gain by floating, in my opinion.

Today’s BEST-EXECUTION Rates 

  • 30YR FIXED –  3.625%
  • FHA/VA -3.5% – 3.75%
  • 15 YEAR FIXED –  3.00%
  • 5 YEAR ARMS –  2.625-3. 25% depending on the lender

Ongoing Lock/Float Considerations 

  • Rates and costs continue to operate near all time best levels
  • Current levels have experienced increasing resistance in improving much from here
  • Rates could easily move higher or lower, but given the nearness to all time lows, there’s generally more risk than reward regarding floating
  • But that will always be the case when rates operate near all-time levels, and as 2011 showed us, it doesn’t always mean they’re done improving.
  • (As always, please keep in mind that our talk of Best-Execution always pertains to a completely ideal scenario.  There can be all sorts of reasons that your quoted rate would not be the same as our average rates, and in those cases, assuming you’re following along on a day to day basis, simply use the Best-Ex levels we quote as a baseline to track potential movement in your quoted rate).

…(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.

OIG Finds FHLBanks Corrected Foreign Credit Exposure, more Supervision Needed

The Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a report this morning
that was mildly critical of the FHFA’s oversight of Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks)
granting of unsecured credit to European banks.   OIG said that extensions of unsecured credit
in general increased by the FHLBanks during the 2010-2011 period, even as the
risks for doing so were intensifying.

FHFA regulates the FHLBanks and has
critical responsibilities to ensure that they operate in a safe and sound
manner.  FHFA’s OIG initiated an
evaluation to assess the regulator’s oversight of the Banks unsecured credit
risk management practices.

Unsecured credit extensions to European
institutions
and others grew from $66 billion at the end of 2008 to more than
$120 billion by early 2011 before declining to $57 billion by the end of that
year as the European sovereign debt crisis intensified.  During this period extensions of unsecured
credit to domestic borrowers remained relatively static but extensions to
foreign financial institutions fluctuated in a pattern that mirrored the
FHLBanks’ total unsecured lending.  That
is, it more than doubled from about $48 billion at the end of 2008 to $101
billion as of April 2011 before falling by 59 percent to slightly more than $41
billion by the end of 2011.

FHFA OIG also found that certain
FHLBanks had large exposures to particular financial institutions and the
increasing credit and other risks associated with such lending.   For example, one FHLBank extended more than
$1 billion to a European bank despite the fact that the bank’s credit rating
was downgraded and it later suffered a multibillion dollar loss.

During the time period in question OIG
found there was an inverse relationship between the trends in lending to
foreign financial institutions and the Banks advances to their own members.  Since mid-2011 the extensions to foreign
institutions have declined sharply but the advances have continued their
longstanding decline.  OIG said it
appears that some FHLBanks extended the unsecured credit to foreign
institutions to offset the decline in advance demand and that they curtailed
those unsecured extensions as they began to fully appreciate the associated
risks.

At the peak of the unsecured lending,
about 70 percent of the FHLBank System’s $101 billion in unsecured credit to
foreign borrowers was made to European financial institutions and 44 percent
were to institutions within the Eurozone. 
About 8 percent of unsecured debt ($6 billion) was to institutions in
Spain, considered by S&P to be even riskier than the Eurozone as a whole.

Some banks within the FHL System had
extremely high levels of unsecured credit extended to foreign borrowers.  The Seattle Bank’s exposure to foreign
borrowers as a percentage of its regulatory capital was more than 340 percent
in March 2011; Boston was at 300 percent, and Topeka 360 percent.  All three had declined substantially by the
end of 2011 but Seattle and Topeka remained above 100 percent.

OIG said that the vast majority of the
Banks’ extensions of unsecured credit appeared to be within current regulatory
limits (although OIG said these limits may be outdated and overly permissive),
some banks did exceed the limits and OIG found the three banks (which for some
reason it treated anonymously) definitely did so and blamed that on a lack of
adequate controls of systems to ensure compliance.

OIG reviewed a variety of FHFA internal
documents during the 2010-2011 period during which it found the Agency had
expressed growing concern about the Banks’ unsecured exposures to foreign
financial institutions.  But, even though
FHFA identified the unsecured credit extensions as an increasing risk in early
2010, it did not prioritize it in its examination process due to its focus on
greater financial risks then facing the FHLBank system especially their private
label mortgage-backed securities portfolios. 
In 2011, however, FHFA initiated a range of oversight measures focusing
on and prioritizing the credit extensions in the supervisory process and
increasing the frequency with which the Banks had to report on that part of
their portfolios.

OIG believes that FHFA’s recent initiatives
contributed to the significant decline in the amount of unsecured credit being
extended by the end of 2011.

The final findings issued by OIG in its
report are:

  1. Although
    FHFA did not initially prioritize FHLBank unsecured credit risks, it has
    recently developed an increasingly proactive approach to oversight in this
    area.
  2. FHFA
    did not actively pursue evidence of potential FHLBank violations of the limits
    on unsecured exposures contained in its regulations.
  3. FHFA’s
    current regulations governing unsecured lending may be outdated and overly
    permissive.

To correct
these deficiencies, OIG recommends that the Agency:

  • Follow up on any potential evidence of violations of
    the existing regulatory limits and take action as warranted;
  • Determine the extent to which inadequate systems and
    controls may compromise the Banks’ capacity to comply with regulatory limits;
  • Strengthen the regulatory framework by establishing
    maximum exposure limits; lowering existing individual counterparty limits; and
    ensuring that the unsecured exposure limits are consistent with the System’s
    housing mission.

…(read more)

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