Tag Archives: mortgage

Homebuyer’s Guide to Rate Hike

Posted on by
Day Donaldson

Fed Chair Yellen

U.S. News & World Report quoted me in A Consumer’s Guide to the Fed Interest Rate Hike. It opens,

The era of cheap money isn’t exactly over, but on Wednesday, after seven years of having near zero interest rates, the Federal Reserve voted to raise the central bank’s benchmark interest rate from a range of 0 percent to 0.25 percent to a range of 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent. Economists have largely seen this as a positive development – it means the American economy is considered strong enough to handle higher interest rates – but, of course, the all-important question on everyone’s minds is likely: What does this mean for me?

It depends, of course, on where you’re putting your money these days.

Homebuying. While it’s expected that the minor interest rate hike will result in it being more costly to borrow money to buy a home, that isn’t necessarily the case. Numerous factors influence mortgage rates, from where in the country your home is located to the state of the global economy to whether inflation is believed to be around the corner. Still, there’s a pretty fair chance that the interest rate hike will lead to higher borrowing costs.

But it’s worth remembering that even if the rates go up, it’s still cheap to buy a house compared to the recent past. According to Freddie Mac’s website, the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage currently stands at 3.94 percent. If you bought a house, say, 15 years ago, the annual average rate in 2000 was 8.05 percent.

David Reiss, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in real estate, says he wouldn’t rush out to buy a home based on the Fed’s announcement.

“I would caution strongly against letting the Fed’s actions on the interest rate influence the home-buying decision all that much, no matter what market you live in,” Reiss says. “First of all, the mortgage market has taken the Fed’s likely actions into account already, so interest rates … incorporate some of the rise in rate already.”

Bottom line, he says: “Generally, people should be buying a home when it makes sense for their lifestyle. Expect to stay put for a while? Maybe you should buy a home. Expecting kids? Maybe you should buy a home. Retiring to a warmer clime?  Maybe you should buy a home.”

Again, the interest rate climbed 0.25​ percent, and while the Fed has indicated that rates may continue to rise, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has stressed that any future hikes will be gradual.

“Small changes in interest rates do not generally make that much of a dollars-and-cents difference in the decision to buy,” Reiss says.

Monday’s Adjudication Roundup

Posted on by

Feds Financing Multifamily

Posted on by

Brett VA

The Congressional Budget Office has released The Federal Role in the Financing of Multifamily Rental Properties. The report opens,

Multifamily properties—those with five or more units— provide shelter for approximately one-third of the more than 100 million renters in the United States and account for about 14 percent of all housing units. Mortgages carrying an actual or implied federal guarantee have been an important source of financing for acquiring, developing, and rehabilitating multifamily properties, particularly after the collapse in house prices and credit availability that accompanied the 2008–2009 recession. According to the Federal Reserve, the share of outstanding multifamily mortgages carrying such a guarantee increased by 10 percentage points, from 33 percent at the beginning of 2005 to 43 percent at the end of the third quarter of 2014. (A slightly larger increase of about 16 percentage points occurred in the federal government’s market share of the much larger single-family market.) Such guarantees are made by a variety of entities, and some policymakers are looking for ways to make the federal government’s involvement more effective. Other policymakers have expressed concern about that expanded federal role and are looking at ways to reduce it. (1)

This debate is, of course, key to housing policy more generally: to what extent should the government be involved in the provision of credit in that sector?

This report does a nice job of summarizing the state of the multifamily housing sector, particularly since the financial crisis. It provides an overview of federal mortgage guarantees for multifamily projects and reviews the choices that Congress faces when it decides to determine Fannie and Freddie’s fate. That is, should we have a federal agency guarantee multifamily mortgages; take a hybrid public/private approach; authorize a federal guarantor of last resort; or take a largely private approach?

We should start by asking if there is a market failure in the housing finance sector and then ask how the government should intercede to correct that market failure. My own sense is that we intercede too much and we should move toward a federal guarantor of last resort with additional support for the low- and moderate-income subsector of the market.

 

 

 

Paid off Mortgage in Three Years

Posted on by
Sean Cooper

Sean Cooper

Realtor.com quoted me in Why the Guy Who Paid Off His Mortgage in 3 Years Isn’t as Smart as You Think.  You’ll want to read about this guy:

You’ve gotta hand it to Sean Cooper: In a mere three years, this Toronto homeowner made epic sacrifices to pay off a $255,000 mortgage on his $425,000 house. His reason: “For a lot of people, their mortgage is like a life sentence,” the 30-year-old explained to the press. “I just wanted to not have a mortgage hanging over my head.”

After his story broke in publications such as the Toronto Star and The Hamilton Spectator, thousands applauded this as a feat of frugality.

But some experts say the opposite—that Cooper made a colossal mistake.

Forget the fact that to pay off his mortgage this pension analyst took on two extra jobs (including in the meat section of a supermarket even though he’s a vegetarian) and worked over 100 hours per week. Let’s also set aside the fact that he stopped using his car and claims Kraft dinners were his “best friend” (because clearly his real friends stopped hanging out with him). No, experts argue that Cooper’s extreme mortgage-paying regimen may have actually damaged his financial health.

     *     *     *

“Having a mortgage is not really such a bad thing,” says David Reiss, research director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School. “When you think about what a mortgage is, it makes sense to pay it off over a long period of time. You use a mortgage to buy something that will last a long time—a home—so you would probably want to spread the payments for that expensive thing over the whole period you’re using it, just as you would with a car. [Cooper’s paying off his mortgage quickly] may work for him, but not for the typical person.”

So if you’re inspired to follow in Cooper’s footsteps, think twice and consider less drastic measures.

“There are less extreme ways of doing this,” Reiss says. “Some people make payments every four weeks instead of every month. This results in one extra payment every year and does not seem so painful. Others will put extra payments into their mortgage—a tax refund, a bonus, money from a consulting gig. This is also less painful because you were probably paying your regular expenses without that money already.”

Bottom line: Don’t beat yourself up for having a mortgage. Embrace the benefits, relax, and live a little. Cooper, for one, is now playing catch-up. Now that he’s debt-free, he’s moved on to his next goal: He’s looking for love. Because let’s face it, most bachelorettes aren’t into eating mac ‘n’ cheese on a date.

Wednesday’s Academic Roundup

Posted on by

Equitable Subrogation in Mortgage Refinancing

Posted on by
Freyermuth-Wilson1

Professor Freyermuth

I am speaking on Equitable Subrogation in Mortgage Refinancing and Land Purchase Transactions in an ABA Professor’s Corner webinar on Wednesday with Professor Wilson Freyermuth of the University of Missouri School of Law. If this sounds like an esoteric topic, it is!

Subrogation refers to the substitution of one party for another and equitable subrogation refers to the doctrine where a court may use its equitable powers to find an implied assignment of a mortgage in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of a party. Since the commencement of the foreclosure crisis, this doctrine has been put to the test. Wilson and I will take a look at some of the recent cases that do the testing. More info about the webinar is below:

Professors’ Corner

A FREE monthly webinar featuring a panel of law professors, addressing topics of interest to practitioners of real estate and trusts/estates. All are welcome and encouraged to register and participate.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

12:30 p.m. Eastern/11:30 a.m. Central/9:30 a.m. Pacific

Equitable Subrogation in Mortgage Refinancing and Land Purchase Transactions

Speakers:  

David Reiss, Brooklyn Law School

Wilson Freyermuth, University of Missouri School of Law

When a lender makes a mortgage loan to refinance an existing first mortgage, the lender typically expects its refinancing loan to have first priority.  If there is an intervening lien on the mortgaged property, however, a priority dispute may result in which the intervening lienholder argues that the recording statutes give it priority over the refinancing lender’s mortgage lien.

In this situation, the principle of equitable subrogation may apply to allow the refinancing lender to be subrogated to the priority of the paid-off mortgage so as to obtain priority over the intervening lien.  The Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages (1997) embraced the liberal application of equitable subrogation in this context.  While many courts have embraced the Restatement approach, not all courts have embraced the Restatement approach (including a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision rejecting the application of equitable subrogation in the refinancing context).

Our speakers will discuss a series of recent decisions (all decided in the 2015 calendar year) addressing the extent to which equitable subrogation is (or should be) available in the mortgage refinancing and land purchase context.

Register for this FREE webinar at https://ambar.org/ProfessorsCorner.

Sponsored by the ABA Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Section, Legal Education and Uniform Laws Group.

Reps and Warranties Mean What They Say

Posted on by

Derek Jensen

The New York Appellate Division, 1st Department, issued a ruling in Bank of New York Mellon v. WMC Mortgage, 654464/12 (Dec. 1, 2015) that stands for the proposition that representations and warranties regarding mortgage-backed securities mean what they say and say what they mean. The opinion opens,

This breach of warranty action arises from a residential mortgage backed securitization called the J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC4 (the Trust). The Trust was arranged and sponsored by defendant J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corporation (JPMMAC), which made certain representations and warranties as to the quality of the mortgage loans in the Trust. We find that plaintiff’s interpretation of the language of the representations and warranty at issue is the only reasonable interpretation . . ..

The Pooling and Servicing Agreement represented and warranted that

“With respect to the period from [the] Whole Loan Sale Date to and including the Closing Date, [JPMMAC] hereby makes the representations and warranties contained in paragraph (a) . . . of Schedule 4 attached hereto . . . . [that] [t]he information set forth in the Mortgage Loan Schedule and the tape delivered by [WMC] to [JPMMAC] is true, correct and complete in all material respects.”

It also stated that if “JPMMAC breached a representation or warranty it made . . . it was to cure the breach within 90 days after notification; if it failed to do so, it was to repurchase the defective mortgage loan or substitute a qualifying loan for the defective one.” This is pretty standard stuff so far.

By 2012, it appeared that more than 40% of the mortgages remaining in the pool were delinquent and that the R&Ws had been violated. The certificate holders therefor demanded that JPMMAC repurchase the mortgages that were in breach of the R&Ws, which JPMMAC refused to do.

JPMorgan argued, against the plain language of the R&Ws, that it only covered defects that arose during a short period prior to the closing date of the securitization. The Court gave short shrift to this implausible reading of the R&Ws.

This opinion does not make new law, but one wonders what effect it will have on securitization business practices. R&Ws are driven by many things — concerns about credit risk, but also tax compliance with the REMIC rules, to name a couple.  I am curious as to how MBS R&Ws have changed since the early 2000s — and whether the parties to these transactions understand how R&Ws allocate risk among them.