June 21, 2017
US News and World Report quoted me in 6 Drawbacks of Reverse Mortgages. It opens,
For some seniors, reverse mortgages represent a financial lifeline. They are a way to tap into home equity and pay the bills when meager savings won’t do the job. Others view this financial product with suspicion and point to stories of seniors losing their homes because of the fine print in the paperwork.
Amy Ford, senior director of home equity initiatives and social accountability for the National Council on Aging, says regulatory changes were made in recent years to eliminate many of the horror stories associated with reverse mortgages gone wrong. Home equity conversion mortgages – as reverse mortgages through the Federal Housing Administration are known – now incorporate many consumer protections. These help seniors ensure they can afford the loan and are aware of its potential consequences.
“It’s a magic credit line,” says Jane Bryant Quinn, AARP Bulletin personal finance expert, when asked why people would want a reverse mortgage. “It increases every year at the same rate as the interest you pay.” She recommends that seniors consider taking out a HECM line of credit and then borrowing against it sparingly. That way, retirees have protection against inflation and a source of income in the event of a down market.
Despite their appealing benefits, some financial experts urge caution. “I wouldn’t say there is no place for reverse mortgages,” says Ian Atkins, financial analyst for Fit Small Business. “But that doesn’t make a reverse mortgage a good option for everyone.”
Here are six drawbacks to reverse mortgage products.
1. Not every reverse mortgage has the protections of a HECM. While HECMs are the dominant player in the reverfederally insured
se mortgage market, seniors could end up with a different product. Atkins says single purpose reverse mortgages are backed by a state or non-profit to allow seniors to tap home equity for a specific purpose, such as making home repairs or paying taxes. There are also proprietary reverse mortgages, sometimes called jumbo reverse mortgages, available to those who want a loan that exceeds the HECM limits.
These proprietary reverse mortgages make up a small portion of the market, but come with the most risk. They aren’t federally insured and don’t have the same consumer protections as a HECM.
A reverse mortgage can be a lifesaver for people with lots of home equity, but not much else.
“Another common issue with [proprietary] reverse mortgages is cross-selling,” Atkins says. “Even though it may not be legal, some companies will want to push investments, annuities, life insurance, home improvements and any other number of products on their borrowers.”
2. Other people in the house may lose their home if you move. HECMs are structured in such a way that once a borrower passes away or moves out, the balance on the loan becomes due. In the past, some reverse mortgages were taken out in one person’s name and the non-borrowing spouse’s name was removed from the title. When the borrowing spouse died or moved to a nursing home, the remaining husband or wife often needed to sell the house to pay off the loan.
“There are now some protections for those who were removed from titles,” Ford says. However, the protections extended to non-borrowing spouses do not apply to others who may be living in the house.
A disabled child, roommate or other relative could wind up without a place to live if you take out a reverse mortgage, can no longer remain in the home and don’t have cash to pay off the balance. “If it’s a tenant, you might not care,” says David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and author at REFinBlog.com. “But if it’s your nephew, you may care.”
3. Your kids might be forced to sell the family home. If you’re hoping to pass your home on to your children, a reverse mortgage can make that difficult. Unless they have cash available to pay off the loan, families may find they have no choice but to sell once you’re gone.
That isn’t necessarily a reason to rule out a reverse mortgage, but Ford encourages parents to discuss their plans with family members. Everyone with a stake in the home – either emotional or financial – should understand what happens to the property once the borrower can no longer live there.
4. The mortgage balance might be due early if you have trouble paying your property taxes, insurance or homeowners association fees. Reiss says the marketing for some reverse mortgages can make seniors feel like the product is a cure-all for money problems. “There’s this promise that reverse mortgages will take care of your finances,” he says. “What they don’t mention is that your mortgage doesn’t cover your property taxes.”
If a borrower fails to pay taxes, maintain insurance or keep current with homeowners association dues, the lender can step in. Ford says many companies will try to work with a borrower to address the situation. However, repeated missed payments could result in the loan being revoked.
Financial counseling requirements for HECMs are designed to prevent these scenarios. Quinn says some companies will take additional precautions if warranted. “If the lender thinks there’s a risk you’ll run out of cash, it will set aside part of the loan for future taxes and insurance,” she says.
5. Fees can be high. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau notes reverse mortgages are often more expensive than other home loans. “Don’t just assume that because it’s marketed to seniors without a lot of money, that it is the most cost-efficient way of solving your [financial] problem,” Reiss says. Depending on your needs, a traditional line of credit or other loan product may be a cheaper option.
- Foreclosures and the Labor Market: Evidence from Millions of Households across the United States, 2000-2014, Makridis and Ohlrogge
- Regulatory Issues and Challenges Presented by Virtual Currencies, Caytas
- LawTrust, and Development of Crowdfunding, Rau
- Import Competition and Household Debt, Barrot, Loualiche, Plosser, and Sauvagnat
- Mortgage Choice in Rural Housing, Miller and Park
June 20, 2017
The New York State Department of Financial Services issued proposed rules for title insurance last month and requested comments. I submitted the following:
I write and teach about real estate and am the Academic Director of the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship. I write in my individual capacity to comment on the rules recently proposed by the New York State Department of Financial Services (the Department) relating to title insurance.
Title insurance is unique among insurance products because it provides coverage for unknown past acts. Other insurance products provide coverage for future events. Title insurance also requires just a single premium payment whereas other insurance products generally have premiums that are paid at regular intervals to keep the insurance in effect.
Premiums for title insurance in New York State are jointly filed with the Department by the Title Insurance Rate Service Association (TIRSA) on behalf of the dominant title insurers. This joint filing ensures that title insurers do not compete on price. In states where such a procedure is not followed, title insurance rates are generally much lower.
Instead of competing on price, insurers compete on service. “Service” has been interpreted widely to include all sorts of gifts — fancy meals, hard-to-get tickets, even vacations. The real customers of title companies are the industry’s repeat players — often real estate lawyers and lenders who recommend the title company — and they get these goodies. The people paying for title insurance — owners and borrowers — ultimately pay for these “marketing” costs without getting the benefit of them. These expenses are a component of the filings that TIRSA submits to the Department to justify the premiums charged by TIRSA’s members. As a result of this rate-setting method, New York State policyholders pay among the highest premiums in the country.
The Department has proposed two new regulations for the title insurance industry. The first proposed regulation (various amendments to Title 11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York) is intended to get rid of these marketing costs (or kickbacks, if you prefer). This proposed regulation makes explicit that those costs cannot be passed on to the party ultimately paying for the title insurance. The second proposed regulation (a new Part 228 of Title 11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York (Insurance Regulation 208)) is intended to ensure that title insurance affiliates function independently from each other.
While these proposed regulations are a step in the right direction, they amount to half measures because the dominant title insurance companies are not competing on price and therefore will continue to seek to compete by other means, as described above or in ever increasingly creative ways. Proposed Part 228, for instance, will do very little to keep title insurance premiums low as it does not matter whether affiliated companies act independently, so long as all the insurers are allowed to file their joint rate schedule. No insurer will vary from that schedule whether or not they operate independently from their affiliates.
Instead of adopting these half-measures and calling it a day, the Department should undertake a more thorough review of title insurance regulation with the goal of increasing price competition. Other jurisdictions have been able to balance price competition with competing public policy concerns. New York State can do so as well.
Title insurance premiums are way higher than the amounts that title insurers pay out to satisfy claims. In recent years, total premiums have been in the range of ten billion dollars a year while payouts have been measured in the single percentage points of those total premiums. If the Department were able to find the balance between safety and soundness concerns and price competition, consumers of title insurance could see savings measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
The Department should explore the following alternative approach:
- Prohibiting insurers from filing a joint rate schedule;
- Requiring each insurer to file its own rate schedule;
- Requiring that each insurer’s rate schedule be posted online;
- Allowing insurers to discount from their filed rate schedule so that they could better compete on price;
- Promulgating conservative safety and soundness standards to protect against insurers discounting themselves into bankruptcy to the detriment of their policyholders; and
- Prohibiting insurers from providing any benefits or gifts to real estate lawyers or other parties who can steer policyholders toward particular insurers.
If these proposals were adopted, policyholders would see massive reductions in their premiums.
Some have argued that New York State’s title insurance regulatory regime promotes the safety and soundness of the title insurers to the benefit of title insurance policyholders. That may be true, but the cost in unnecessarily high premiums is not worth the trade-off.
Increased competition is not always in the public interest but it certainly is in the case of New York State’s highly concentrated title insurance industry. The Department should seek to create a regulatory regime that best balances increased price competition with adequate safety and soundness regulation. New Yorkers will greatly benefit from such reform.
- The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) released their 2016 Report to Congress. This report is mandated by federal statute and examines many mortgage and financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Additionally, the report provides guidance for each company’s regulatory rules and FHFA’s research and publications.
- The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided approximately 220 million dollars in funds this week to America’s lowest income citizens. The Housing Trust Fund, established by Congress in 2008, dispersed funds to various states in order to aid the poor and homeless.
- The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2017 (AHCIA), if approved may improve the productiveness and effectiveness of America’s low-income housing tax credit. If the the shifts are approved, more applicants will qualify for a boost. Additionally, if the proposed Act removes the cap on QCT, more than 20% of families will qualify the housing aid in designated areas.
June 19, 2017
The Hill posted my latest column, Americans Are Better off with Consumer Protection in Place. It opens,
This month, the Treasury Department issued a report to President Trump in response to his executive order on regulation of the U.S. financial system. While the report does not seek to do as much damage to consumer protection as the House’s Financial Choice Act, it proposes a dramatic weakening of the federal government’s role in the consumer financial services market. In particular, the report advocates that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s mandate be radically constrained.
Republicans have been seeking to weaken the CFPB since it was created as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. The bureau took over responsibility for consumer protection regulation from seven federal agencies. Republicans have been far more antagonistic to the bureau than many of the lenders it regulates. Lenders have seen the value in consolidating much of their regulatory compliance into one agency.
To keep reading, click here.
- A Florida Appeals Court threw out a 30 million verdict against a small Florida town. Initially, a property owner won the case based upon the town’s “taking” of their property; however, the Florida appellate court found an error in the trial’s definition of taking. As a result, the Court ordered a new trial which will consider the issue of a “partial taking.”
- Sunoco Inc. is experiencing trouble with their planned “Mariner East 2 pipeline project.” The corporation recently sought to use eminent domain to garnish the needed land in order for them to proceed with their planned project; however, the trail court determined the company lacked authority to use eminent domain for land seizures.
- Two U.S. citizens are unhappy with a U.S. Tax Court’s ruling regarding their charitable donation. The pair claimed a total of $11 million in deductions in the 2004 tax year based upon their charitable donation which partly stemmed from an easement of one of the owner’s “historic warehouse in Manhattan. The Court finds the easement was recorded later than the year claimed on their tax returns; therefore, it was not an easement in the 2004 tax year.
June 16, 2017
Law360 quoted me in Treasury’s Fair Lending Review Worries Advocates (behind a paywall). It reads, in part,
President Donald Trump’s Treasury Department said Monday that revisiting a 1977 law aimed at boosting bank lending and branches in poor neighborhoods was a “high priority,” but backers of the Community Reinvestment Act fear that any move by this administration would be aimed at weakening, not modernizing, the law.
Critics and some backers of the Community Reinvestment Act say that the law does not take into account mobile banking and the decline of branch networks among a host of other updates needed to meet the realities of banking in 2017.
While there is some agreement on policy, the politics of reworking the CRA are always difficult. Those politics will be even more difficult with the Trump administration and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who ran into problems with the CRA when he was the chairman of OneWest Bank, leading the review, said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.
“A team at Treasury led by the OneWest leadership should give consumer advocates pause,” he said.
* * *
Across the administration, from the U.S. Department of Education to the Department of Justice, civil rights enforcement has taken a back seat to other concerns. And Mnuchin is in the process of populating the Treasury Department with former colleagues from OneWest.
Trump nominated former OneWest CEO Joseph Otting to be comptroller of the currency earlier this month and is reportedly close to nominating former OneWest Vice Chairman and Chief Legal Officer Brian Brooks as deputy Treasury secretary. Brooks is currently the general counsel at Fannie Mae.
Activists who fought the CIT-OneWest merger on CRA grounds say that the placement of those former OneWest executives in positions of authority over the law should raise alarms.
“[Mnuchin’s] bank, OneWest, also had one of the worst community reinvestment records of all the banks that CRC analyzes in California, which raises questions about his motivation in ‘reforming’ the Community Reinvestment Act. Is he interested in reforming it to help communities, or to help the industry do even less?” said Paulina Gonzalez of the California Reinvestment Coalition.
The Treasury secretary has defended his bank’s foreclosure practices and others that drew fair lending advocates’ ire, saying that most of the problems at OneWest were holdovers from IndyMac, the failed subprime lender OneWest’s investors purchased after it failed.
Discussing reforms to the CRA under any administration, particularly a typical Republican administration, would be difficult on its own for lawmakers and inside regulatory agencies, Schaberg said.
“Anybody down in the middle-management tier of any of the banking agencies, they’re not going to touch this because it’s so politically charged,” he said.
The added distrust of the Trump administration and Mnuchin among fair housing advocates makes the prospect of any legislation to reshape even harder to imagine. Even without legislation, new leadership at the regulatory agencies that monitor for CRA compliance could take a lighter touch. And that has fair housing backers on edge.
“In my mind, there’s a fox-in-the-henhouse mentality,” Reiss said.