Posts Tagged ‘Mortgage Industry’

Bright days for Refinance – Seekers

Monday, May 31st, 2010

Bright days for Refinance - SeekersThe European debt crisis and the turbulent stock markets are turning out to be a ‘helping-hand’ for the American families looking for a refinance. Mortgage rates are edging to a record low. The average 30-year fixed-rate loan sank to 4.78 percent this week, the lowest this year and barely above the record of 4.71 percent set in December, last year.

Individuals looking for a refinance are queuing up in large numbers at mortgage lenders, all seeking a low rate for their refinance. Applications to refinance poured this week, reaching the highest in seven months. However, many of the refinance-seekers are holding back for even lower rates, but the only way to know the bottom is when it’s missed.

Some Analysts predict that this window of opportunity may close soon. Investors, due to uncertain environment and declining stock markets, had pounced on government securities. But, once they grow more confident about the stock market it wouldn’t take long to move out of bonds and back into stocks, which will automatically make the mortgage expensive.

Coming to the conclusion – Even though the mortgage is cheap these days, people are not opting for borrows to buy new homes. The number of loans being drawn to buy homes remained at its lowest in more than 13 years. First reason: the special tax credit for homebuyers expired last month. Another reason: after a large number of borrowers fell into defaults and foreclosures, banks needed borrowers to pay a down payment of around 3.5 percent and also to maintain a good credit rating.

The mortgage rates were to rise when the government ended the security-buying program, instead they fell because of fears that Greece would default on its debt. But, it is clear that the mortgage rates would go up once the investors start investing in stock markets, but how long would it take? Will the housing market get back on the ‘good old’ track?

Reference:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052702002.html?hpid=sec-business

Fixed vs. Adjustable Mortgage Rate – Convenience or Risk

Monday, May 17th, 2010

Fixed vs. Adjustable Mortgage Rate – Convenience or RiskSecurity and affordability – Choice of fixed or an adjustable rate mortgage is substantially dependent on these two factors. Where fixed rate mortgage (FRM) offers certainty of constant monthly payments and easiness to calculate monthly cash flows, adjustable mortgage rates (ARM), on the other hand, are inexpensive but modified periodically, based on interest rates.

FRM is for individuals who are a bit reluctant to take risk. It is surely expensive but at least people are aware of exact future outgoings. A fixed interest rate that remains the same throughout the loan term is one of the major features of FRM, and the most attractive too. A list of confirmed future cash flows and stable predictability entices a lot of people to choose it. Instead of pondering over interest rate ups and downs, you get your mortgage and just forget about it. Is there anything easier?

Adjustable mortgage rates (ARM), on the other hand, seduce borrowers with its initial low rate and monthly payments. They are fixed for a specific time, after which both rate and payments are adjusted. ARM is usually inexpensive as compared to the fixed rate mortgage, because ARM is based on the short term bond market while FRM is pegged to long term bonds. The short term market normally features lower rates than the long term market.

In spite of this, FRMs fixed rate generally does not indicate that it is not as good as ARM. If interest rates in the bond market are higher, then surely the rate and payments would increase (ARM). And who would prefer a higher-than-anticipated payment? But still, statistics of people with an adjusted rate mortgage ending up in loss are really low. My question is: which payment structure would you select? What factors would you consider keeping in mind the current standing of the US economy?

Mortgage Brokers vs. Banks

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

There are two questions that always haunt home buyers: What should I go for; a mortgage broker or a bank? Let us take a look at the differences between both, their functionalities and limitations.

An individual if asked this question would always have a one-liner ready: “whoever gives me a good deal is the best”. But at the back-end there are several matters involved, other than just getting a ‘good deal’. In some cases individuals hunting for a ‘good deal’ usually end up being overcharged.

The main difference between both is that a mortgage banker, also termed as a mortgage loan officer, lends the bank’s own money to the borrowers. The loan officer takes the application and works out a home loan that suits the requirements and obligations of the borrower. The application is then forwarded to the loan officer’s employer – the bank – which after considering credit standings and repayment capabilities underwrites the loan at their rate and terms.

However, a mortgage broker doesn’t own the responsibility of the capital involved. They just act as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers, and charge a fee against it. People looking for loans usually set brokers second on their priority, except for those who are already turned down by banks due to bad credit ratings or tricky mortgage scenarios.

Here is a comparison of mortgage brokers and banks with respect to their functionality and effectiveness:

Pros of working with a bank Cons of working with a bank
More trustworthy & accountable Mortgage process is lengthy and sometimes bureaucratic
Offer better rates (some cases) Banks do not disclose the yield-spread premium
Add mortgage to existing accounts and make direct payments from there Conservative loan programs

Pros and Cons of working with a Mortgage Broker

Pros of working with a broker Cons of working with a broker
They do the legwork for you, comparing the wholesale rates of a large number of banks and lenders There is a possibility of making mistakes
Wholesale interest rates can be lower than retail (bank branch) interest rates False Promises
Handle tricky mortgage scenarios May overcharge via yield-spread premium
Easier to get in contact with, less bureaucratic May not have enough access to some of the bank programs

On basis of this comparison, which is more preferable for home loan financing in an environment where all other factors such as credit ratings and amount of loan are constant. Feel free to share your views on this. If you have a case of your own, you are most welcome to discuss it.

References:
http://www.thetruthaboutmortgage.com/mortgage-brokers-vs-banks/
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mortgages/20030925a  1.asp
http://homebuying.about.com/cs/mortgagearticles/a/home_lenders.htm
http://loan.yahoo.com/m/finance4.html
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/mortgage/brokeRbank.shtml
http://loan.yahoo.com/m/securing5.html

FHA Loans – ‘to the Rescue’ or ‘to be Rescued’

Monday, April 26th, 2010

FHA-insured Loans, originated during the great depression by the Federal Housing Administration and are meant to secure lenders against defaulting borrowers. Whereas, they are also an answer to borrowers who have a less than perfect (below 720) credit score or are unable to handle a 10% – 20% down payment. All these traits of FHA loans quickly made them popular especially in the 2008-2009 financial climate.

In the year 2008, FHA loans have accounted for about 46 percent of all mortgage applications – almost half of all mortgages. In addition, Federal Housing Administration guaranteed 186,000 mortgages in June, 2009, a record number in its 75-year history.

In these days, individuals highly prefer them over conventional loans, since it only requires a 3%-3.5% down payment, while conventional loans entail a 10%-20%. However, interest rates on FHA loans are a little bit higher than conventional loans.

Some analysts pointed out that borrowers with FHA-secured loans now have an average credit score of 690, compared to 630 two years ago. In spite of this, a large number of borrowers are turning up late in their payments or even defaulting. Delinquent FHA loans, those 90 days or more late, jumped 62.1% in the past year to 558,944, or 9.4% of FHA loans, as of the end of January, according to agency statistics.  The FHA, however, insists its finances are sound. Its loan portfolio actually performed better than most mortgage products, according to David Stevens, the agency’s commissioner.

FHA loans are still a better option for lower income individuals to purchase a home that they would not otherwise be able to afford. However, if the number of delinquencies increases with such a pace, it is possible that taxpayers will eventually have to bail out the agency. My question here is: How can the Federal Housing Administration work out a suitable strategy to reduce defaults and late payments, and maintain healthy equity/collateral ratios against lent money at the same time?

Principal Reduction Programs – Banks say ‘NO’

Monday, April 19th, 2010

The Housing Market slump in the United States is turning out to be more critical. It has left around seven million households on the verge of foreclosures. A large number of Individuals walled by loans, credit card payments & debts etc. are turning a deaf ear towards mortgage, especially when the housing prices are unfavorable. Individuals are focusing more to improve their credit ratings by paying off credit card payments.

The US government, since its inception, has tried all means to harness it.  Buying mortgage securities, lowering interest rates, setting new standards and making policies, however, the outcomes are not so satisfying.

The idea of reducing loan principals last month was another step to save the besieged homeowners. However, Banks do not look so happy with this decision. According to them, the tool would not work as it is designed to. Principal reduction on one hand could reward households for consuming more than they could afford. While, on the other hand, the cost of reducing principal will be built into future loans, resulting in less access to credit and higher costs for consumers. It might punish future homeowners by raising the cost of borrowing. These latest foreclosure prevention measures might encounter some resistance among banks, ultimately rendering them less effective than hoped.

The justifications given by banks cannot be overlooked; somehow it is unfair to benefit the current borrowers by putting a burden on the future homeowners. What do you say – how can the government tackle this problem of principal reduction in such a way that it is beneficial to banks and to mortgage borrowers at the same time? In addition, how principal reductions in equity based home loans benefit homeowners, as these loans are widely used for domestic purposes rather than paying for housing?

Reference Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/14mortgage.html?scp=4&sq=mortgage&st=cse

Housing Market – Fed lifts off the ‘helping hand’

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

The recent recession initiated in the US economy ignited a trickle-down effect on all economies of the world.  The Housing market, playing the most crucial role in US economy, turned out to be a key ingredient of the slump. Since then, the United States has thrown trillions of dollars to get the housing market out of intensive care. The Government has seized two mortgage finance giants, along with giving a tax break of more than $8,000 per housing unit in order to lure buyers.

More importantly, the Fed’s buying of more than a trillion dollars mortgage related assets drove down the borrowing costs, along with feeding the ‘almost-dead’ market with fresh capital. Mortgage rates were affordable, institutions stayed liquid and probably, it kept the depression at bay.

A recent meeting of Fed’s policy committee ended up with a decision of keeping interest rates near zero, spreading a smile on investors’ faces and causing stock markets to rise.

However, bad news also followed. The Federal Reserve is ready to wrap-up the mortgage-security buying program at the end of this month. It is expected that this $1.25 trillion buying program, once ended, would send a seismic wave far and wide because it paid out huge amounts of money that were later injected into stocks. Turning off this supply would reduce the already weakened buying power to a complete flat line.

No worries; The Fed’s said that it will carry on the buying program once they felt a downward tilt.  The question that arises here is: When? Are they going to wait for the housing market to decline further, or would another depression trigger the restart? What consequences will this buying turnoff entail?

Subprime Lenders – ‘Still’ Alive

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Subprime Lenders – ‘Still’ AliveThe financial crunch gulped down a large number of companies, leaving many out of work and unable to pay debts. Many well known banks incurred large debts and huge liabilities, so large that even the Government was unable to give them a helping hand. Chances of getting a loan with a good credit standing plummeted down to somewhere near impossible, leaving no room for those who had their figures less than 650 at the Credit Ratings Scale.

It was assumed that companies issuing loans to people with debt problems would soon succumb to the crunch. But almost a year and a half has passed and this so-called subprime lending market is safe and sound. Reason for their survival – the discontinuation of subprime-lending by big banks.

With plenty of subprime lenders in the market, the mortgage industry is still facing problems with gaining strength. Mortgage brokers say it is still hard for individuals with bad credit to get home loans. The subprime home loan market peaked in 2005. That year, nearly $625 billion were handed out to borrowers with low credit scores, generally below 650, whereas, only $4 billion were supplied to home loans in the same manner in 2009.

As more and more banks are tightening their credit standards, the subprime lenders have not only accelerated their business growth, but have also raised interest rates, since borrowers with low credit ratings have fewer options. Is there no way out for people who have low credit standings?, Why can’t larger finance corporations opt for the same strategy as subprime lenders? Comments and opinions welcome.

Reference Link:  http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1971237,00.html

Government Mortgage Plan Benefits to a Handful

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Government Mortgage Plan Benefits to a HandfulThe government’s mortgage relief plan, announced by President Barrack Obama a year ago, has helped only about 12 percent of the borrowers. Since its initiation, around 1 million homeowners started the process, but only 116,000 completed the application process and had their loan payments reduced permanently. More than 61,000 applications were rejected, either because the homeowners failed to make payments or didn’t return the necessary paperwork.

Figures clearly demonstrate its performance – a complete failure. However, treasury officials say the program is on track. They further said that the program is doing the job it was designed to do. Struggling families are receiving funds and the housing market is showing signs of stabilization.

Nearly one in every three homeowners with a mortgage owes more to the bank than their property is worth. Maybe the government could do more to encourage banks to cut borrowers’ principal balances on their primary loans. But such a move could set off a repercussion from critics who claim it is unfair to people who are still paying their mortgages on time.  How can the government alter its conditions to make this plan more beneficial to large number of borrowers? Please provide your views and ideas.