- Separate and Unequal: The American Dream, Peter C. LaGreca, 16 Rutgers Race & L. Rev. 183 (2015).
- Reverse Mortgage Loans: A Quantitative Analysis, Makoto Nakajima & Irina Telyukova, FRB of Philadelphia Working Paper No. 14-27.
- Reverse Mortgages: What Homeowners (Don’t) Know and How it Matters, Thomas Davidoff, Patrick Gerhard & Thomas Post.
- Housing Price Volatility and the Housing Ladder, James W. Banks, Richard W. Blundell, Zoé Oldfield & James P. Smith, NBER Working Paper No. w21255.
- The Financial Rewards of Sustainability: A Global Performance Study of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Franz Fuerst.
- A New Look at the U.S. Foreclosure Crisis: Panel Data Evidence of Prime and Subprime Borrowers from 1997 to 2012, Fernando V. Ferreira & Joseph Gyourko, NBER Working Paper No. w21261.
Tag Archives: foreclosure
CFPB Mortgage Highlights
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its most recent Supervisory Highlights. The CFPB is “committed to transparency in its supervisory program by sharing key findings in order to help industry limit risks to consumers and comply with Federal consumer financial law.” (3)
There were a lot of interesting highlights relating to mortgage origination and servicing, including,
- one or more instances of failure to ensure that the HUD-1 settlement statement accurately reflects the actual settlement charges paid by the borrower.
- at least one servicer sent borrowers loss mitigation acknowledgment notices requesting documents, sometimes dozens in number, inapplicable to their circumstances and which it did not need to evaluate the borrower for loss mitigation.
- one or more servicers failed to send any loss mitigation acknowledgment notices. At least one servicer did not send notices after a loss mitigation processing platform malfunctioned repeatedly over a significant period of time. . . . the breakdown caused delays in converting trial modifications to permanent modifications, resulting in harm to borrowers, and may have caused other harm.
- At least one other servicer did not send loss mitigation acknowledgment notices to borrowers who had requested payment relief on their mortgage payments. One or more servicers treated certain requests as requests for short-term payment relief instead of requests for loss mitigation under Regulation X.
- At least one servicer sent notices of intent to foreclose to borrowers already approved for a trial modification and before the trial modification’s first payment was due without verifying whether borrowers had a pending loss mitigation plan before sending its notice. As the notice could deter borrowers from carrying out trial modifications, it likely causes substantial injury . . .
- at least one servicer sent notices warning borrowers who were current on their loans that foreclosure would be imminent. (14-18, emphasis added)
All of these highlights are interesting because they reflect the types of problems the CFPB is finding and it thus helps the industry comply with federal law. But from a public policy perspective, the CFPB’s approach is lacking. By repeating that each failure was found at “one or more” company, a reader of these Highlights cannot determine how widespread these problems are throughout the industry. And because the Highlights do not say how many borrowers were affected by each company’s failure, it is hard to say whether these problems are isolated and technical or endemic and intentional.
Future Supervisory Highlights should include more information about the number of institutions and the number of consumers who were affected by these violations.
What Is To Be Done with Mortgage Servicers?
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has found that EverBank; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Santander Bank, National Association; U.S. Bank National Association; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. have not met all of the requirements of consent orders they had entered into because of deficiencies in how they dealt with foreclosure servicing. The details of these deficiencies are pretty bad.
The OCC recently issued amended consent orders with these banks. The amended orders restrict certain business activities that they conduct. The restrictions include limitations on:
- acquisition of residential mortgage servicing or residential mortgage servicing rights (does not apply to servicing associated with new originations or refinancings by the banks or contracts for new originations by the banks);
- new contracts for the bank to perform residential mortgage servicing for other parties;
- outsourcing or sub-servicing of new residential mortgage servicing activities to other parties;
- off-shoring new residential mortgage servicing activities; and
- new appointments of senior officers responsible for residential mortgage servicing or residential mortgage servicing risk management and compliance.
HSBC had the most deficiencies of the six: it did not make 45 of the 98 changes it had agreed to over the last few years. I was particularly interested in the portion of the consent orders that relate to MERS. The HSBC consent order states:
(1) The Bank shall implement its Revised Action Plan and ensure appropriate controls and oversight of the Bank’s activities with respect to the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) and compliance with MERSCORPS’s membership rules, terms, and conditions (“MERS Requirements”), include, at a minimum:
(a) processes to ensure that all mortgage assignments and endorsements with respect to mortgage loans serviced or owned by the Bank out of MERS’ name are executed only by a certifying officer authorized by MERS and approved by the Bank;
(b) processes to ensure that all other actions that may be taken by MERS certifying officers (with respect to mortgage loans serviced or owned by the Bank) are executed by a certifying officer authorized by MERS and approved by the Bank;
(c) processes to ensure that the Bank maintains up-to-date corporate resolutions from MERS for all Bank employees and third-parties who are certifying officers authorized by MERS, and up-to-date lists of MERS certifying officers;
(d) processes to ensure compliance with all MERS Requirements and with the requirements of the MERS Corporate Resolution Management System (“CRMS”);
(e) processes to ensure the accuracy and reliability of data reported to MERSCORP and MERS, including monthly system-to-system reconciliations for all MERS mandatory reporting fields, and daily capture of all rejects/warnings reports associated with registrations, transfers, and status updates on open-item aging reports. Unresolved items must be maintained on open-item aging reports and tracked until resolution. The Bank shall determine and report whether the foreclosures for loans serviced by the Bank that are currently pending in MERS’ name are accurate and how many are listed in error, and describe how and by when the data on the MERSCORP system will be corrected; and
(f) an appropriate MERS quality assurance workplan, which clearly describes all tests, test frequency, sampling methods, responsible parties, and the expected process for open- item follow-up, and includes an annual independent test of the control structure of the system-to- system reconciliation process, the reject/warning error correction process, and adherence to the Bank’s MERS Plan.
(2) The Bank shall include MERS and MERSCORP in its third-party vendor management process, which shall include a detailed analysis of potential vulnerabilities, including information security, business continuity, and vendor viability assessments.
These should all be easy enough for a financial institution to achieve as they relate to basic corporate practices (e.g., properly certifying officers); basic data management practices (e.g., system-to-system reconciliations); and basic third-party vendor practices (e.g., analyzing potential vulnerabilities of vendors).
It is hard to imagine why these well-funded and well-staffed enterprises are having such a hard time fixing their servicing operations. We often talk about governments as being too poorly run to handle reform of complex operations, but it appears that large banks face the same kinds of problems.
I am not sure what the takeaway is in terms of reform, but it does seem that homeowners need protection from companies that can’t reform themselves while they are under stringent consent orders with their primary regulator for years and years.
Going It Alone on Your Mortgage
WiseBread quoted me in When It Makes Sense to Apply for a Mortgage Loan Without Your Spouse. It opens,
You and your spouse or partner are ready to apply for a mortgage loan. It makes sense to apply for the loan jointly, right? That way, your lender can use your combined incomes when determining how much mortgage money it can lend you.
Surprisingly, this isn’t always the right approach.
If the three-digit credit score of your spouse or partner is too low, it might make sense to apply for a mortgage loan on your own — as long as your income alone is high enough to let you qualify.
That’s because it doesn’t matter how high your credit score is if your spouse’s is low. Your lender will look at your spouse’s score, and not yours, when deciding if you and your partner qualify for a home loan.
“If one spouse has a low credit score, and that credit score is so low that the couple will either have to pay a higher interest rate or might not qualify for every loan product out there, then it might be time to consider dropping that spouse from the loan application,” says Eric Rotner, vice president of mortgage banking at the Scottsdale, Arizona office of Commerce Home Mortgage. “If a score is below a certain point, it can really limit your options.”
How Credit Scores Work
Lenders rely heavily on credit scores today, using them to determine the interest rates they charge borrowers and whether they’ll even approve their clients for a mortgage loan. Lenders consider a FICO score of 740 or higher to be a strong one, and will usually reserve their lowest interest rates for borrowers with such scores.
Borrowers whose scores are too low — say under 640 on the FICO scale — will struggle to qualify for mortgage loans without having to pay higher interest rates. They might not be able to qualify for any loan at all, depending on how low their score is.
Which Score Counts?
When couples apply for a mortgage loan together, lenders don’t consider all scores. Instead, they focus on the borrower who has the lowest credit score.
Every borrower has three FICO credit scores — one each compiled by the three national credit bureaus, TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. Each of these scores can be slightly different. When couples apply for a mortgage loan, lenders will only consider the lowest middle credit score between the applicants.
Say you have credit scores of 740, 780, and 760 from the three credit bureaus. Your spouse has scores of 640, 620, and 610. Your lender will use that 620 score only when determining how likely you are to make your loan payments on time. Many lenders will consider a score of 620 to be too risky, and won’t approve your loan application. Others will approve you, but only at a high interest rate.
In such a case, it might make sense to drop a spouse from the loan application.
But there are other factors to consider.
“If you are the sole breadwinner, and your spouse’s credit score is low, it usually makes sense to apply in your name only for the mortgage loan,” said Mike Kinane, senior vice president of consumer lending at the Hamilton, New Jersey office of TD Bank. “But your income will need to be enough to support the mortgage you are looking for.”
That’s the tricky part: If you drop a spouse from a loan application, you won’t be penalized for that spouse’s weak credit score. But you also can’t use that spouse’s income. You might need to apply for a smaller mortgage loan, which usually means buying a smaller home, too.
Other Times to Drop a Spouse
There are other times when it makes sense for one spouse to sit out the loan application process.
If one spouse has too much debt and not enough income, it can be smart to leave that spouse out of the loan process. Lenders typically want your total monthly debts — including your estimated new monthly mortgage payment — to equal no more than 43% of your gross monthly income. If your spouse’s debt is high enough to throw this ratio out of whack, applying alone might be the wise choice.
Spouses or partners with past foreclosures, bankruptcies, or short sales on their credit reports might stay away from the loan application, too. Those negative judgments could make it more difficult to qualify for a loan.
Again, it comes down to simple math: Does the benefit of skipping your partner’s low credit score, high debt levels, and negative judgments outweigh the negative of not being able to use that spouse’s income?
“The $64,000 question is whether the spouse with the bad credit score is the breadwinner for the couple,” says David Reiss, professor of law with Brooklyn Law School in Brooklyn, New York. “The best case scenario would be a couple where the breadwinner is also the one with the good credit score. Dropping the other spouse from the application is likely a no-brainer in that circumstance. And of course, there will be a gray area for a couple where both spouses bring in a significant share of the income. In that case, the couple should definitely shop around for lenders that can work with them.”
HAMP-ered Foreclosure Prevention
The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) released a report, Treasury’s Opportunity to Increase HAMP’s Effectiveness by Reaching More Homeowners in States Underserved by HAMP. The Introduction opens,
TARP’s signature foreclosure prevention program, the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), has struggled to reach the expected number of homeowners Treasury envisioned for the program. According to Treasury, TARP’s housing support programs were intended to “help bring relief to responsible homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments, while preventing neighborhoods and communities from suffering the negative spillover effects of foreclosure.” Treasury announced that HAMP itself aimed “to help as many as three to four million financially struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to a level that is affordable for borrowers now and sustainable over the long term,.” The only long-term sustainable help provided through HAMP is a permanent mortgage modification, which become effective after the homeowner successfully completes a trial period plan. Through December 31, 2014, according to Treasury data, 1,514,687 homeowners have been able to get into a more affordable permanent HAMP modification (of which, 452,322 homeowners, or 29%, subsequently redefaulted on their HAMP modifications), while there have been 6,165,544 foreclosures nationwide over the same period based on CoreLogic data.” (1, footnotes omitted)
There is a lot of soul searching in this report about why HAMP has been so ineffective and the report offers tweaks to the program to improve it. But perhaps the problem is structural — a program like HAMP was never really in a position to make a bigger impact on the foreclosure crisis.
When compared to the federal government’s intervention during the Great Depression, HAMP seems too modest. President Roosevelt’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation bought out mortgages from banks in bulk and then refinanced them on more attractive terms than the private sector offered. HAMP, on the other hand, has trouble getting homeowners to apply to the program in the first place.
Bottom line: HAMP is too retail and what we needed and need is something that could be done wholesale.
Monday’s Adjudication Roundup
- The United States Supreme Court holds that debtors do not have an absolute right to appeal a denial of a proposed bankruptcy plan (mentioned in April 6 post).
- Maryland federal judge approves settlement between CFPB and Genuine Title and participants for illegal mortgage-kickback scheme (mentioned in May 4 post).
- CFPB settles with Florida law firm for nearly $12 million for collecting over $5 million in illegal fees. The firm enlisted homeowners to bring “mass-joinder” suits against mortgage lenders.
- Lead plaintiff in class action against Bank of America asks the Third Circuit to rehear case alleging violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act decided last month. The Third Circuit held that the FDCPA covers foreclosure complaints (mentioned in April 13 post).
- The Clearing House Association LLC, the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce support Bank of America in its Second Circuit appeal of $1.3 billion fine for allegedly defrauding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through its mortgage program, “Hustle.”
- In stipulation, Massachusetts Federal District Court voluntarily dismisses claims against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other institutions in $5.9 billion MBS suit brought by Bank of Boston.
Friday’s Government Reports Roundup
- CFPB releases its 2014 Fair Lending Report, discussing its fair lending acts over the past year. It shows that the CFPB required institutions to provide over $224 million in remediation in 2014.
- A S. Census Bureau paper examines the effects of foreclosures on families during the financial crisis and in the years following.
- The Center for Housing Policy released a report “Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health: A Research Summary,” which discusses how Affordable Housing is correlated to better health than unaffordable, unstable and poor quality housing.
- The National Housing Conference released report: “Broadband Connectivity in Affordable Housing,” which highlights the need for internet access in affordable housing.
- HUD released the “2015 Worst Case Housing Needs” report.
