January Housing Scorecard Released by HUD, Treasury

The
Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Treasury issued the
administration’s January Housing Scorecard on Monday.  The report is essentially a summary of
data on housing and housing finance released by public and private sources over
the previous month and/or quarter.  Most
of the data such as new and existing home sales, permits and starts, mortgage
originations, and various house price evaluations have been previously covered
by MND. 

The scorecard incorporates by reference
the monthly report of the Making Home Affordable Program (MHA) through the end
of December.  This includes information
on the universe of MHA programs including the Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP), HOPE Now, and Second Lien Modifications and other initiatives. 

Since the
HAMP program began in April 2009 1,774,595 homeowners have entered into trial
loan modifications, 20,074 since the November HAMP report.  About half of these homeowners, 933,327, have
completed the trials and converted to permanent modifications; 23,374
conversions took place during the current report period.  Just over three-quarters of a million of the permanent
modifications are still active.

While the
HAMP program dates to April 2009, it underwent substantial revisions to its
policies and procedures in June 2010, and many of the measures of its
performance are benchmarked at that time. 
Eight-four percent of homeowners who entered a trial modification after
that date have received a permanent modification with an average trial period
of 3.5 months compared to 43 percent who entered a trial prior to the changes.  As of December, 21,002 of the active trials
had been underway for six months or more; in May 2010, the month before the
changes took place, 190,000 trials were six months old or more.  In December every servicer except Ocwen was
above an 80 percent conversion rate.

HAMP
modifications with the largest reduction in mortgage payments continue to
demonstrate the lowest redefault rates.  At
18 months after modification all loans have a 90+ day default rate of 23
percent.  However, loans with a 20
percent or smaller reduction in loan payment are defaulting at the rate of 36.4
percent while loans with a 50 percent payment decrease or greater have a
default rate of 13.3 percent. 

The Home
Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives program offers incentives to homeowners who
wish to exit home ownership through a short sale or deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure.  Thus far 43,368 homeowners
have been accepted into the program and 27,665 transactions have been
completed, the vast majority through a short sale.  More than half of the completed transactions
(18,350) were on loans owned by private investors; 7,711 were portfolio loans
and 1,604 were GSE loans.

There has
been an emphasis in some quarters on reducing the principal balance of
distressed loans since the last HAMP report. 
Some members of Congress have asked for justification from the GSEs as
to why they were not participating in principal reductions and the Treasury
Department recently urged them to do so as well while tripling the incentives
it is paying to other investors to reduce principal.  The HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative
(PRA) has started trial modifications for 63,203 home owners and permanent
modifications for 42,753 of which 40,374 are still active.  The median principal amount reduced in these
modifications is $67,196, a median of 31.1 percent of the principal balance.

Each month
HAMP reports on selected servicer performance metrics.   Servicers
are expected to make Right Party Contact (RPC) with eligible homeowners and
then evaluate their eligibility for HAMP.  HAMP evaluated servicer outreach to 60 days
delinquent homeowners over the previous 12 months (November 2010-December 2011)
and found most services have made RPC at least 85 percent of the time; however
there is a wide range of performance results in terms of completed the evaluations.
 

Servicers
are also expected to identify and solicit homeowners in early stages of
delinquency and, effective October 1, 2011, a higher compensation structure was
put into effect to reward servicers who complete evaluations and place
homeowners in a trial modification within 120 days of first delinquency.  The table below shows the status of major
servicers relative to their eligibility for maximum incentives.

…(read more)

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

Industrial and Multi-family Loans Drive Annual CRE Increase

The Mortgage Bankers Association
(MBA) reports that commercial and multifamily loan originations were down 7
percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to the third quarter but were 13
percent higher than originations in the fourth quarter a year earlier.  The year-over year change was driven by
originations for both industrial and multifamily properties which increased 43
percent and 31 percent respectively from Q4 2010.  On the negative side, retail loans were down
8 percent, loans for healthcare properties fell 24 percent, office properties
were down 29 percent and hotel originations decreased 44 percent.

Quarter over quarter results were
mixed.  There was a 153 percent jump in
originations for health care properties; industrial loans were up 51 percent
and multifamily properties increased 29 percent.  Originations for healthcare properties fell 52
percent, office properties were down 39 percent, and retail property loans
decreased 24 percent.

Looking at lending by investor groups,
commercial bank portfolios were up by 122 percent compared to the fourth
quarter of 2010 and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the GSEs) increased lending 17
percent.  Life insurance companies and
conduits for commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) decreased lending by
23 percent and 50 percent respectively.

 On a quarter-over-quarter basis only the GSEs
increased their loans, which rose 34 percent to an all time high.  Conduits for CMBS were down 26 percent, life
insurance companies decreased lending by 23 percent, and commercial bank
portfolios declined by 16 percent.  

“MBA’s Commercial/Multifamily
Mortgage Bankers Origination Index hit record levels for life insurance
companies in the second and third quarters of 2011,” said Jamie Woodwell,
MBA’s Vice President of Commercial Real Estate Research. “In the fourth
quarter, multifamily originations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hit a new
all-time high. While the CMBS market continued to be held back by broader
capital markets uncertainty during the past year, others – like the GSEs, life
companies and many bank portfolios – increased their appetite for commercial
and multifamily loans.”

Commercial/Multi-family
Originations by Investor Types

Investor
Type

Origination Volume Index*

% Chg

Q4-Q4

Average Loan Size ($millions)

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Conduits

42

31

-50

30.5

23.9

Commercial
Banks

169

143

122

11.8

7.8

Life
Insurance

282

216

-13

20.5

14.0

GSEs

176

236

17

13.8

14.3

Total

138

129

13

14,9

11.6

*2001 Ave. Quarter = 100

Commercial/Multi-family
Originations by Property Types

Investor
Type

Origination Volume Index*

% Chg

Q4-Q4

Average Loan Size ($millions)

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Multi-family

140

181

31

13.2

13.5

Office

91

56

-29

19.1

11.7

Retail

222

169

-8

20.9

12.3

Industrial

142

214

43

12.4

16.2

Hotel

231

110

-44

39.0

20.1

Health
Care

91

229

-24

7.2

12.4

*2001 Ave. Quarter = 100

…(read more)

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

MERS, Banks Sued by New York State; MERSCORP Responds

Three major banks and Virginia-based
MERSCORP, Inc. and its subsidiary Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems
(MERS) were sued Friday by the state of New York.  The suit, filed by the state’s Attorney
General Eric T. Schneiderman
, charges that the creation and use of a privately
national electronic registration system, MERS, “has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure
filings in New York state and federal courts, harming homeowners and
undermining the integrity of the judicial foreclosure process.”  Further, the lawsuit charges that the
employees and agents of the three banks, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase,
and Wells Fargo
, acting as “MERS certifying officers,” have
repeatedly submitted court documents containing false and misleading information
that made it appear that the foreclosing party had the authority to bring a
case when in fact it may not have.  The
suit also names additional defendants for some of the charges including loan
servicing subsidiaries of the three banks.

The
lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County levies
the following charges:   

  • MERS was created to allow financial
    institutions to evade country recording fees, avoid the need to publicly record
    mortgage transfers and facilitate the rapid sale and securitization of
    mortgages. MERS members log all of their
    transfers in a private electronic registry rather than in the local county
    clerk’s office.
     
  • MERS is a shell company with no
    economic interest in any mortgage loan.
    It is the nominal “mortgagee” of the loan in the public records and
    remains as such regardless of how often the loan is sold or transferred among
    its members.
     
  • MERS has few or no employees but
    serves as the mortgagee for tens of millions of mortgages. It has indiscriminately designated over
    20,000 MERS member employees as MERS “certifying officers” expressly
    authorizing them to assign MERS mortgages and execute paperwork to foreclose on
    properties and submit claims in bankruptcy proceedings while failing to
    adequately screen, train, or monitor their activities. Assignments were often automatically
    generated and “robo-signed” by individuals who did not review the
    underlying property ownership records, confirm the documents’ accuracy, or even
    read the documents. MERS certifying
    officers have regularly executed and submitted in court mortgage assignments
    and other legal documents on behalf of MERS without disclosing that they are
    not MERS employees, but instead are employed by other entities, such as the
    mortgage servicer filing the case or its counsel.
     
  • Use of the private database to
    record property transfers has eliminated homeowners’ and the public’s ability
    to track them through the traditional public records system. This data base is plagued with inaccuracies
    and errors which make it difficult to verify the chain of title or the current
    note-holder. In addition, as a result of these
    inaccuracies, MERS has filed mortgage satisfactions against the wrong property.
     
  • This “bizarre and complex end-around
    of the traditional recording system” has saved banks more than $2 billion in
    recording fees and allowed the banks to securitize and sell millions of loans, “often
    misrepresenting the quality and nature of the mortgages being transferred.”
     
  • The creation and use of the MERS
    System by the Defendant Servicers and other financial institutions has resulted
    in a wide range of deceptive and illegal practices, particularly with respect
    to the filing of New York foreclosure proceedings in state courts and federal
    bankruptcy proceedings.

The lawsuit estimates that MERS
members have brought over 13,000 foreclosures against New York homeowners
naming MERS as the foreclosing property when in many cases MERS lacks the
standing to foreclosure.  Even when
foreclosures were not initiated in MERS name, proceedings related to their
registered loans often included deceptive information.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that
the alleged practices violate the law, as well as injunctive relief, damages
for harmed homeowners, and civil penalties. The lawsuit also seeks a court
order requiring defendants to take all actions necessary to cure any title
defects and clear any improper liens resulting from their fraudulent and
deceptive acts and practices.

On January 24 the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 11th Judicial Court upheld an appeal from MERS that
contended a lower court had erred in finding that a homeowner had been
improperly foreclosed on by MERS on the grounds that:

1).   The assignment of the security deed was
invalid because MERS, as nominee of a defunct lender could not assign the
documents of its own volition.

2.
    The “splitting” of the mortgage and
the note rendered the mortgage null and void and therefore notices of
foreclosure were invalid as not coming from a secured creditor.

The New York suit differs slightly from
the facts in Smith V. Saxon Mortgage,
but if Schneiderman wins his case, it could be that the legitimacy of MERS will
ultimately have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

…(read more)

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

Home repairs: Which jobs come first?

Lean times call for budgetary triage. But while you should clearly opt for orthodontics before Disneyland, the choice is tougher when it comes to home maintenance.

Housing Assistance 2012: Another Herculean Task for the FHA

Beginning the 37th month of his presidency, the Obama Administration today announced a laundry list of new programs to help struggling homeowners, crack down on abusive lending practices, make mortgage documents easier to read, convert REO to rental, and other assorted initiatives.  Some require Congressional approval; others are a work in progress, and a couple can begin quickly.
 
At the heart of the announcement is a broad new refinance program with the venerable FHA stepping in (once again) to help save the mortgage market by offering current but underwater non-FHA borrowers another lifeline.
 
Concurrently, the Administration appears to be on the verge of a broad-based “REO-to-Rental” initiative by announcing a pilot project to be led by FHFA, HUD, and Treasury.  I think the Administration is smart to move this initiative forward as they certainly have the political cover through last year’s RFI process.  They asked for comments and suggestions and reportedly received thousands of responses.  They can now say we are implementing what America said they wanted.   Of course, we do not yet know exactly how it will work.
 
Lawmakers and mortgage industry professionals have previously questioned whether or not FHA can handle yet another herculean task.  Recall in 2007 when the mortgage market sputtered and into 2008 when new higher loan limits were unveiled, FHA saw its share of the mortgage market jump exponentially in a matter of months. What was a $350 billion book of business in 2005 has today mushroomed to $1 trillion with more than 7.4 million homes with FHA insurance.
 
Since presumably these would be riskier borrowers (higher LTVs and underwater) it remains to be seen:

  1. If Congress will give FHA the authority to increase its current LTV caps.
  2. How OMB will “score” the proposal thus dictating the mortgage insurance pricing?
  3. Will proposed new bank fees and presumably higher premium revenue off-set the expected “cost” to FHA?

FHA is reportedly considering placing these loans in an insurance fund separate from its current Single Family books of business, but could ultimately require the FHA to invoke its “permanent indefinite” budget authority to keep it afloat (as opposed to the self-sustaining Mutual Mortgage Insurance fund).
 
That said, the Administration indicated the cost of these programs will “not add a dime to the deficit” and will be off-set by a fee on the “Largest Financial Institutions.”  (Note: Congress might have an opinion here.)
 
Since FHA has not in recent memory refinanced borrowers with LTVs in the 120-140 range (presumably one of the groups targeted by the Administration), I think it will be difficult to estimate the performance of these loans over time and thus their impact on FHA’s actuarial foundation regardless of which fund they place them in.  While the FHA “short re-finance” program announced in 2010 allowed a 115% CLTV, it has had very little participation thus making it difficult to gauge performance relative to what could be even higher LTV participants.
 
It should be noted that the Administration is targeting borrowers who have made 12 consecutive payments so one could argue that despite the fact they are underwater they have been able to afford their mortgage payments – presumably in some cases for several years.  So does that mitigate some of the potential risk meaning that they will certainly be able to afford reduced monthly payments?  But again, given FHA’s limited experience with borrowers outside their established guidelines and requirements predicting their performance with any degree of certainty is difficult at best.
 
And assuming those previously non-FHA borrowers default on their new FHA loan, who do you think will now be at-risk with an underwater property?  Again, the Administration stated these programs “will not add a dime to the deficit” – I hope they are right.
 
FHA’s actuarial soundness has been rocked by the on-going erosion of house prices nationwide which has led to three consecutive years of declines in their capital reserve ratio.  The best medicine for FHA is house price appreciation and the positive ripple effect of increased value to their housing portfolio.  But they have been waiting three years for that to happen.
 
Welcomed news as part of this new refinance program is they would be removed from an FHA lender’s compare ratio within Neighborhood Watch (FHA’s public database of lender’s default rates compared to its peers in a given geographic region).  That said, I suspect FHA will establish a separate category of compare ratios for this book of business, as it did for Negative Equity Refinances and the Hope For Homeowner (H4H) program.
 
So while this action will remove a potential barrier to participation, lenders should be cautioned that performance will still matter and they should stand ready for increased scrutiny especially by the HUD OIG.
 
I give the Administration credit for launching another round of housing assistance as too many homeowners continue to struggle.  Putting politics aside on the surface it appears to be the right and proper thing to do, however it remains to be seen the level of participation (and degree of Congressional acceptance) and ultimately what cost, if any, to the taxpayers – most of which have grown weary of the nagging housing crisis.
 
Note: We will continue to follow this initiative with keen interest as it makes its way through Congress and will offer periodic updates as developments warrant.

…(read more)

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