New Short Sale Program for Bof A, Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac Loans

Coming soon these three organizations will be announcing new programs for short sale sellers. This program will be designed to encourage sellers to short sale using financial incentives and will reintroduce the "deed-in-lieu" of foreclosure method of exchange. I will provide more details later.

Mortgage Lenders Pursue Homeowners even after Foreclosure.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mortgage-lenders-pursue-cnnm-3107909798.html?x=0

I have posted on Trulia and elsewhere that attorney will be buying up the banks bad debt contracts and looking for situation where they can pressure formely foreclosed owners into settlements. Buy and bail homeowners from early in this correction will find it difficult and expensive to fight these collection attorneys.

Maybe it’s time to let Bankruptcy Courts deal with Neg-Am Mortgages.

This blog should fall into the arena of gossip for some more educated source to follow up and provide better and more firm facts.


Someone I trust was talking to a banker and they started to discuss the problems with the banking system. After covering all the numerous talking points about who was to blame and pointing the usual fingers; the Community Investment Act, Fannie and Freddie Mac acting as irresponsible investor on bad loans, and the removal of the restriction preventing Investment Banks from engaging in real estate (Glass-Stegal). In other words the usual complaints. They then started to discuss possible solutions to the debacle, this is where I became interested.

Most real estate agents, and others who have attempted a loan modification, know what kind of a byzantine nightmare the process can be. Many calls, lost paperwork, and low level staff manning the phones that have no authority other than the right to tell you 'NO' and 'declined'.
They talked about the system. Once a bank receives the modification or short sale request, it has to go to its files and pull the loan documents, submit all the paperwork to an underwriter who was given a set of policies drafted by the banks attorney's who may also eventually research the loan. At the same time, if there is a second loan, a concurrent negotiation occurs with an institution that has their own phalanx of underwriters, attorneys, and guidelines.

Part of the bank's research is to determine if there was mortgage insurance and if there was an investor on the loan. Once it is discovered that these entities exist, there are yet another set of guidelines to deal with from corporations who have yet another series of underwriters, guidelines, and attorneys.

So lets review, under the ideal situation in any short sale or loan modification with one loan there
could be as few one and many as three institutions involved; the bank then additionally one insurer and/or one investor. If there are two mortgages, then there are two to six institutions.

Now let's complicate the matter, like the reality for most. No bank has one investor, nor do they use one insurer. So as the pool of loans grows and the number of vendors grows, and the process gets more and more complicated. Other complications arise when you consider the myriad of state laws and the fact that many of the investors are overseas. but then it gets really tricky.
Somewhere along the line, investment banks created these "so-called" risk hedges called the collateralized mortgage obligation or collateralized debt obligation (CMO's or CDO's). This was a new form of investment designed to reduce losses on bad mortgages. So the banks take their pool of assets backed by debt and people's incomes and they divide these obligations into investment vehicles, using another set of contracts (drafted by attorneys) and start trading them on Wall Street to institutional investors (who have their own attorneys).


So at the peak of the bubble we had we had little or no oversight from the Republicans, We had Democrats pushing banks to underwrite bad loans that were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Investment Banks poured money into the mortgage market. Banks wrote loans, sold some to investors, and insured others, all while packaging bundles of investments and selling them to insurance companies, other banks, foreign governments and hedge funds.


So now the banker gets to the end of his discussion. "Event's didn't work out so well." he says. "Real Estate agents are working the short sales and individuals are trying to perform loan modifications." He continued, "The reason most loan mod's and short sales do not get approved is because it is just cheaper to foreclose than to deal with all the various companies and their attorneys. Every bank can't come up with one set of guidleines to deal with all the different situations all these contracts and attorneys have created." Once the foreclosure occurs then it wipes the slate clean for the bank holding the loan at the core of this complex system of contracts. The homeowner is treated like one of the investors and gets wiped out with the foreclosure.


This is why it's so hard to do a short sale or loan mod.

Home Modification Trial Period

http://www.contracostatimes.com/business/ci_12520979?nclick_check=1



This newpaper article was printed on June 8th, 2009 Contra Costa Times. It is a detailed explanation, in Q and A form, about the governments Home Affordable Mortgage Modification program.

Stuck between a Mortgage Rock and a Hard Place?

You are not alone.





http://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-owners-tale-of-mortgage-modification-hell?pagenumber=1







Another Short Post.

Good Intentions

This was a post was copied with the poster's permission from Trulia.com advice.

(A) church orchestrated a purchase of a single family home to be used by the senior pastor. About three years ago the church’s Board of decided to purchase a single family home adjacent to the church. At the time since the church was financially burdened, they decided to purchase the property under a junior pastor’s name. During the no-down payment and no income verification era, a junior pastor who only makes $1,000/month was approved and was able to purchase a $680K home now worth $550K, which he handed over to the senior pastor. For the last three years, the church has been paying the mortgage payment of around $1,700 (option-arm loan.) The church is still paying the payment and is willing to continue making the payment. Now the junior pastor is saying that the Board tricked him into this and wants out. How can the church be able to assume the loan w/o paying the negative equity? What should we ask the lender to do? Isn't the bank better off transferring the loan?



When I initially read this post, thoughts raced thought my head. The poster was in Oakland about 20 minutes from where I do business. Close enough to know what is going on there but far enough away to not be involved. In the heyday when Walnut Creek values were high theirs were out of sight. When we were seeing 10 offers on homes they had 30 offers. Prices were through the roof. It was a sign of the times, good times for the agents but not so much for the buyers.

As the peak neared innocent people started pulling together to find innovative solutions to their individual housing problem. Like this example, they worked together, discovered a solution, and solved the problem. Like life, everything goes well until it doesn’t go well anymore. The irony here, of course, is the innocents are member of the church, who pulled together to help the senior pastor.

Some variation of the proverb “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” was coined by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153). I am sure he wasn’t talking about a real estate transaction but I would suggest he may have been the first church attorney. Let’s examine how these innocents stepped over the line.

Everyone for noble reasons allowed the innocent's to purchase a property without the income to support a loan. This business was a common practice; everyone was doing this sort of business. The innocents put one of their own up to get a loan. A loan broker sold (now this is really ironic) them a liar loan of some kind. Some mortgage bank underwrote the loan. Some agent sold them the property. Some seller made some cash.

Then the chips came falling. Prices fell. Accusations are flying. The loan is no good.

Now they are now caught between the law and the bank. The freely admit to finding a (unqualified) buyer to purchase a property on behalf of a financially burdened entity. This process is called finding a straw buyer. The practice as it is commonly known has to be handled carefully in order to avoid falling into the category of unethical or even illegal. In order for the transaction to function properly, all parties need to be made aware the buyer of record is an intermediary, the intermediary buyer has to be qualified to purchase the property, and paperwork has be in order. At best the church is on the hook for the full amount of the loan, at worst its fraud.

The innocents now need help and are looking for ways to reduce the basis of the property. I advised them to seek counsel.

The point of this post is not really to demonstrate how easy it was to step over the ethical and legal lines. It’s that the characterizations of important people and talking heads do not reflect the reality of the last few years of the real estate boom. These people were permitted by a unregulated and broken system to take a risk; a risk that offered a reasonable upside but returned a whole lot of trouble. They were innocents that had a need, who found a solution, and became a statistic.