Search Smart Spending:

Low expectations for homeowner-help program

Posted Oct 01 2008, 09:32 PM by Karen Datko
Rating:

The federal government's new $300 billion Hope for Homeowners program opened for business today with the intent of staving off foreclosure for 400,000 homeowners in trouble. But we just have to wonder how effective it will be.

Here's a clue, from an Associated Press report: "Lenders, rather than borrowers, will decide whether to participate in the program, which requires them to take a loss on the initial loan."

With those conditions, will banks be in a rush to participate? Apparently not. Housing Wire reported: "The emerging consensus among those in the servicing trenches that spoke with HW ... has been that the program will have less impact than legislators might hope."

Patrick Duffy of The Housing Chronicles Blog wrote, "Apparently lenders are saying, 'Thanks for thinking of us, but no thanks, we'll do our own workouts. Have a nice day!'"

Hope for Homeowners is part of the massive Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 passed by Congress in July. The program works like this: People who are struggling to pay their mortgage can ask to refinance to a 30-year fixed-rate loan equal to no more than 90% of the property's current market value. The interest rate will be based on current market  rates. The deal works only if the holder of the current mortgage agrees to accept a loss.

The Federal Housing Authority, which will guarantee the new loan, will get 5% of the new loan for its trouble. The FHA -- not the lender -- also will benefit from any appreciation in the home's value if it is sold or refinanced again at a later date.

Homeowners are eligible only if they live in the house, cannot afford the payment, and spend more than 31% of their monthly gross income on their mortgage. They must also be able to demonstrate their ability to afford the new loan. (For other eligibility requirements, click here.)

Lenders have to be willing to do the deal. They also have to be able -- not always the case with mortgages that have been packaged and sold as securities, notes Credit Slip's Adam Levitin in a Wall Street Journal column. Lenders say they'd rather reduce a mortgage's interest rate than take a loss on the principal. They see Hope for Homeowners as a program of last resort.

Meanwhile, lenders haven't been rushing to work with people who are facing the loss of their homes. Far from it. The State Foreclosure Prevention Working Group, made up of state banking officials and attorneys general, recently issued several new findings, including: "Nearly eight out of 10 seriously delinquent homeowners are not on track for any loss mitigation outcome," and "One out of five loan modifications made in the past year are currently delinquent." So much for meaningful loan modifications.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who released the working group's latest report, said, "As Congress considers a $700 billion bailout package, it is our hope that wide-scale mortgage loan modifications will be a condition of any plan. A bailout that does not build in solutions to the foreclosure-driven downward value spiral will not fix the root of the problem."

Comments

 

It seems to be so simple - let a homeowner (notice I said a HOME owner - not a flipper) who is behind on their mortgage payments refinance the principal at a lower interest rate he can afford - even if it means extending the life of the loan to 35 years instead of 30 years - if the dropping the interest rate to 2% (which is what the banks are getting from the Feds) does not free up the homeowner enough so that they can make the payments again.  Yet no lender seems to want to do this as it does not bring home the BIG money.  They would rather close down I guess....and screw the stock holders once again.... and I believe the statement "Hope for Homeowners as a program of last resort"... and few lenders will try it leaving homeowners still losing their homes..

The housing and finance industries created this mess. They don't want to pay for the consequences, but prefer to blame their victims. And many were victims...fraud, forgery, deception, were at the heart of the push for homeownership at any price. These toxic loans were not invented nor pushed by home buyers. That was the industry's doing. It was also the industry that resold them, repackaged them, as 'investments.' Ratings agencies rated them highly when they should've known they were toxic. Investors bought them without doing enough research, including foreign investors. The amount of ethics, common sense, and "homework" that is expected of every consumer, apparently was too much for the educated industry to exhibit! These industry people knew what they were doing, and have no excuse. While I too am tired of buyers who got in over their heads the ones I hear screaming most for a bailout are the industry people. They're the ones lobbying DC, giving millions to congressional candidates, etc. I think Congress was surprised by how many citizens called and said Do NOT vote for this Bailout. But as usual, politicians do what their corporate cronies want. If the bailout causes trouble--and it will if it passes--I think it will be very surprising if some people who lost everything due to corporate fraud do not take the law into their own hands. They've been disappointed too many times, starting w/the law's constant statement to a ripped off consumer who files a complaint: "It's a civil matter, no laws have been broken, you'll have to sue." Where was govt when there were warnings of this catastrophe coming down the pipe? Why didn't they act quickly then? If they can act quickly now to help their corporate CEO pals, they could've acted years ago to stop these disastrous practices. If a consumer took out the economy thru fraud, they'd be in jail. Why are corporate CEO's getting a hand out?

LOOK ill be honest i knew what i was doing when i refinanced my house at a intrest only loan paid i took out cash out paid my credit cards and my car (reason) all where at a very high intrest rate my new house loan was at 6% in a 168k loan total my payment was 14k way within my needs 5 yrs later come this oct 08 it re-adjusted to 9% my house so my mortgagte jumped to close to 19k iam trying to refiance now to fix rate keep it at 6% but not looking to good proab;em my house almost worth as much as i owe call me dumb but at the time seemed like good deal who knew house values were to fall this is america land of the free and proaperty value is in the toilet you can point fingers but its all a ladder affect few people forclose or lose there house and everyone pays my neighberhood has gotten very bad nothing but empty houses and my house worthless so tell me weres the justice ?

I understand we have to do something to stop all the foreclosures, but i do not agree to giving these homeowners in trouble a better, lower mortgage rate than the present rate.  

I am a homeowner myself, who just bought last year and makes all his payments and is not in any real danger of losing my home.  But, I am really struggling to stay afloat.  I can't go on vacation, go out to dinner often, make significant repairs on my home.

If these people end up getting better rates than me, who has a great credit rating i find it not fair and would really infuriate me.

Why do people like me have to get screwed all the time.

Frankly I am tired of hearing about the poor homeowners that borrowed more then they could afford.  How about some help for the people who rent because they know they can't afford to buy and have seen their rent skyrocket in response to all the poor homeless homeowners that now have to rent.

Being financially irresponsible shouldnt guarentee you assistance from the government.

I agree w/ Mike, I pay my mortgage on time..have great credit, but struggle and do without the extras. Why do we get screwed for being responsible? We should get the lesser % rate not them!

Well how about the homeowners that bought and could afford their homes at the time then due to job losses and cut in pay finds it hard to stay afloat. I am in that situation. My husband and I both lost our good paying jobs due to cut backs. Now we are working for less and we still have the same bills as we had before.

Pigs get fat, Hogs get slaughtered. Greed turns pigs into hogs.

I'm confused. Most people who are paying the higher interest rate is due to the fact that they either had bad credit to begin with or it was a higher risk for the bank to begin with. Now we are going to give those people a break again? What about the people who have always worked hard to keep there credit good have a good rate but have been laid off due to cutt backs. or business owners who sales have dropped because nobody can afford lunch anymore due to the fact they have to fill up there gas tanks instead to get to there job so they can continue to pay bills. and now the store owners income has dropped which is making that once house payment harder to come by????? Those are the people that need help. and yes that would be me but my short term fix was I picked up a second job to help out. Wow that's a thought!

This is not only concerning those who initially got a mortgage they could not afford, but also affects those of us who were responsible in getting our mortgages, but now find, due to rising costs of energy, food and everthing else consumers purchase, there is not enough to make ends meet.  Real estate prices had risen in years past at an incredible rate, but the paychecks of average Americans stayed stagnant, or worse, declined.  Add health care into the mix and we have very toxic situations everywhere.  I live in Massachusetts, where it is the law that everyone have health insurance.  Well, I do have the insurance, but I certainly cannot afford to see my doctor because of the added fees that my insurance does not cover.  This country is heading for one big toilet and Congress is doing nothing for us really, except getting ready to flush the bowl.

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):