Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Bethany McLean: Exposing the Fig Leaf

Best-selling author and Vanity Fair contributor Bethany McLean deconstructs the shared responsibility behind America's financial crisis and the misguided attacks on home ownership.
The title of your book, All the Devils Are Here (Portfolio Hardcover, 2010), written with Joe Nocera, suggests there were many culpable players in the recent financial collapse. Can you single out who was in the best position to prevent the debacle?

Between banks, politicians, regulators, and Wall Street, there was a lot of blame to go around. No one group was responsible, as much as Americans would like there to be. But if I had to point a finger, I’d say Congress and the federal regulators bear the most blame because they could have done something. Consumer advocates as far back as the 1990s were testifying about the dangers of the subprime market. People were taking out loans they couldn’t afford to pay back, and the Federal Reserve led by Alan Greenspan was in a position to address that. But nothing was done.


You say that the growing use of subprime mortgages during the boom years was not about spurring home ownership. Explain that.

Home ownership was the fig leaf for the rise in subprime lending. But that was really about cash-out refinancings, not buying homes. As much as three-quarters of the subprime business during the boom times was for loan refinancing, for people who wanted to take the equity out of their homes with the assumption that home prices would continue to go up. These loans were much more about financing consumer spending than contributing to home ownership.


What is your take on the pushback against home ownership in the media and in government?

The financial crisis has become a giant referendum on home ownership. But the crisis in no way proves that home ownership is the problem. People were living beyond their means and had more credit than they could handle.


Do you think the government should continue to support home ownership through programs like the mortgage interest deduction?

I don’t have a point of view on this. These tax policies were in place long before the crisis, and the crisis didn’t prove they were bad policies. What the crisis proved is that it’s bad policy to lend people more money than they can afford to pay back. However, I do think that, as a country, we need to have a wide-ranging discussion on home ownership. Fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in isolation, without looking at the big picture, would be short-sighted. Maybe it would make sense to have the deduction just for [purchase-money mortgages] and not refinancings, which is just about people ­taking on more debt.


Do you believe the leading players involved in the mess learned a moral lesson from this?

No, I don’t think the politicians or the banks have learned anything. But I hope the American consumer has learned something. What’s good for the financial industry probably isn’t good for you.


Could a crisis like this happen again?

Something will go wrong in the financial system again. It just won’t be exactly the same thing as this. We need the regulators to do their job, but to try to prevent it by enacting such tight regulations that we’d never have any innovation again would be a big mistake.


But haven’t lenders pulled too much in the other direction lately, become too restricted in their lending practices?

Yes, they are relying far too much on a single FICO score to make decisions about a borrower. They need to look at the whole financial picture of an individual, including their length of employment and credit history. The FICO system is totally flawed.


Do banks still have a long way to go in restoring the confidence of the American people?

I think the rage against Wall Street goes too far if it allows people to deny their own personal responsibility in the crisis. But banks continue to prove they have no respect for consumers. Just look at the way some tried to dismiss the sloppy foreclosure processing. Banks should treat home owners with at least as much respect as the prison system treats criminals. By comparison, prisoners receive more due process when they file suits about procedures being improperly filed than some of these home owners received.

Bethany McLean: Exposing the Fig Leaf: Last Word: REALTOR® Magazine

Bethany McLean: Exposing the Fig Leaf: Last Word: REALTOR® Magazine

Friday, May 13, 2011

Loan Pre-Approval and Turning Yourself Into a “Cash Buyer”

 
Being pre-approved for a loan puts you in a great position when buying a home. It puts you on equal footing with an all-cash buyer, in essence turning yourself into a cash buyer.With a real pre-approval, the buyer is the next-best-thing to being a “cash buyer” because the seller can rest assured that the buyer will qualify for a loan. 
 
A truly “all-cash buyer” does not have to worry about lender approvals, but will typically still be concerned with a property appraisal and an acceptable title report.  Being pre-approved for a loan puts a buyer in a better position with the seller of the property. It allows the buyer to understand the costs associated with the purchase as well as the monthly costs associated with the ongoing ownership.

The Pre-Approval Process
The pre-approval process simply means that a buyer is getting approved for a loan prior to reaching an agreement with a seller of a property. The buyer will provide the lender with current income, asset and credit documents and the lender will determine the loan amount for which the buyer will be able to borrower.
The pre-approval process can take anywhere from 2 – 10 days, depending on the variables surrounding the possible transaction (credit worthiness, location of assets, calculation of income, etc).

Once a loan amount and purchase price have been determined by the lender, the final approval will usually be subject to an acceptable purchase contract, property appraisal, title report and final interest rates.
While it will vary from borrower to borrower based in the individual characteristics, a lender will typically be able to pre-approve a buyer within 5 days of receiving all of the applicable income, asset and credit documents.

Lower Loan Limits Coming October 2011

Lower Loan Limits Coming October 2011

 
At the beginning of the mortgage meltdown a couple of years ago, Congress enacted emergency legislation raising the limits on High Balance Conforming Loans.  These loans are designated “conforming,” meaning lower interest rates and typically a slightly easier transaction to get approved and closed when compared to Jumbo (or non-conforming) financing.  The High Balance variety is only available in designated high cost areas, like the San Francisco Bay Area.
 
Currently the “temporary” limit on these loans is $729,750.  This means that if you put 20% down on a $900,000 home, you can get a conforming loan in the amount of $720,000.  Effective October 1, 2011 the emergency legislation expires and is not expected to be extended.  This lowers this High Balance Conforming Loan to $625,500.

So, what does that mean to you? 

If you buy the same $900,000 home and put 20% down, your loan will now be considered a Jumbo loan.  Rates on Jumbo loans are typically 1-1.5% higher, so if today you could get that loan for, say, 5% your payment would be $3865.12.  The same loan amount using the Jumbo rates would be 6-6.5%, bringing your payment to $4550.89.  Over 30 years, that totals over $246,000!  The other option would be to put a larger down payment on the property, to the tune of nearly $100,000.

The important thing to note is that if you are looking for a loan to purchase a home, or refinance the one you already have, now is the time to move forward. The limit will remain at the higher point until the first of October, giving home buyers the spring and summer seasons to purchase a property before the high limits are gone.

To find out what the current loan limit is in your area, you can access the Fannie Mae website to see a county-by-county spreadsheet.

The Complicated World of Credit Scores

 
Lenders use different credit scores for different purchases.  If you have successfully navigated a website that offers to sell you your credit score, you may think you have all the information you need in order to apply for a loan or new credit card.  Not necessarily. The score you received could be quite different from what a lender receives. Different scores are offered for mortgages, car loans, insurance and more.
 
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act that took effect January 1, lenders must either tell those who apply for credit what score was used, or tell them how it was used if the applicant doesn’t receive the best terms available.  Here are some reasons why a credit score (a number between 300 and 850) still won’t tell you how a lender evaluates of you:

* Some lenders give the best rates to people with a score of 740, others may use 760 or higher. Some give credit to people with scores in the high 500s, but others require 620 or more.

* Credit scores don’t reflect whether you are making good financial decisions or poor ones.  If you refinance your home at a lower interest rate, inquiries could show up on your report.  Inquiries can lower a score.

* Late payments show up on your score for a couple of years, but paying down a high balance has an immediately beneficial impact.

* If you pay your credit card bill in full every month, you don’t get a zero balance on your credit report. The report shows the balance at the end of the billing period, before the payment.

* Rather than checking your score frequently, you are better off making sure the information on your report is correct. Make your payments on time and reduce monthly balances for a month or two before applying for a loan or mortgage.