Tag Archives: taxes

Hidden Mortgage Fees

Posted on by

photo by Tania Liu

TheStreet.com quoted me in Hidden Fees Cost Consumers Billions: Which Ones Are the Worst? It opens,

Consumers are notoriously combative over high product and sales fees, and who can blame them?

Fees for common items like mortgages, credit cards, bank accounts and online deliverables, among many others, can really add up, and do hit consumers hard in the pocketbook.

That goes double for so-called “hidden fees” – shadowy charges on goods and services that buyers usually don’t know about.

A new study by the Washington, D.C.-based National Economic Council shows that Americans lose “billions of dollars” from such hidden fees. Another study of communications firms like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast by the Consumer Federation of America pegs hidden fee costs at $60 billion annually.

Few hidden fees are favored by consumer advocates, but some are worse than others.

“My household bills look very much like those of a typical consumer – two cell phones, cable, broadband and landline telephone,” says Dr. Mark Cooper, the CFA’s Director of Research and author of the communications industry report. “Hidden fees – excluding the price of the service, taxes, and governmental fees – added about 25% to my total bill.”

The CFA’s “Hidden Fees” report documents a pervasive pattern of abuse across many industries, adds Cooper, “but hidden fees on communications services are particularly troubling because these digital services have become absolute necessities in the American household.”
Besides cable and internet service costs, which routinely stand atop the list of industry offenders, what other hidden fees continue to haunt American consumers?

Here’s a quick list:

*     *     *

Mortgage fees – Outside of the cable/telecom arena, the mortgage sector may well boast the most hidden fees. “When applying for a mortgage, a borrower can be hit with all kinds of obscure fees like processing fees, notary fees, courier fees, even fees for sending emails,” says David Reiss, a professor of law at Brooklyn Law School. ” Before paying the mortgage application fee, the borrower should ask whether any of the fees are waivable. If they are charged by the lender, as opposed to a third party like a government agency, they may very well be waivable.”

Consumers should be on the lookout for hidden fees, across the board. Some solid due diligence can keep a few more bucks in your pocket and strike a blow against companies with fee programs that operate in the shadows, time and time again.

But as of right now, those hidden fees are paying off for companies, and at U.S. consumers’ expense.

Mnuchin, When No One Is Watching

Posted on by

Alexander Hamilton

My latest column for The Hill is Hamilton Acted in Good Faith. Will Steven Mnuchin Do The Same? It reads:

UCLA’s legendary basketball coach John Wooden famously said, “The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.”

Steven Mnuchin, another leading citizen of Los Angeles, is now in the spotlight as President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Running the Treasury Department requires financial know-how, which this former Goldman Sachs banker has in spades. But it also requires character, as a large part of the Treasury secretary’s job is to embody the good faith that the American people want the rest of the world to have in us.

In Alexander Hamilton’s Report Relative to a Provision for the Support of Public Credit, written just after he became the first U.S. Treasury secretary, he notes that the government must maintain public credit “by good faith, by a punctual performance of contracts. States, like individuals, who observe their engagements, are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those, who pursue an opposite conduct.”

OneWest’s actions during Mnuchin’s tenure as chief executive officer raise questions about whether Mnuchin has demonstrated the character necessary to be a worthy successor to Hamilton.

A recently disclosed memo by lawyers at California’s Office of the Attorney General documents a pattern of bad faith toward homeowners with OneWest mortgages. The memo documents evidence of widespread wrongdoing that helped the bank and hurt the homeowners. The evidence includes the backdating of notarized and recorded documents in 99.6 percent of the examined mortgage files and unlawful credit bids and substitutions of trustees in 16.0 percent of those files.

These are not merely technical violations. They shortened the time that homeowners had to get their mortgages back in good standing and they violated a number of procedural protections for homeowners facing non-judicial foreclosures.

Non-judicial foreclosures give lenders the ability to bypass the courts so long as they strictly abide by the procedural protections set forth by statute. Non-judicial foreclosures can only maintain their legitimacy if lenders respect those procedural protections. This is because there is no judge to make sure that the procedural protections are being adhered to. Without them, a homeowner can be no more than a sheep being led to the financial slaughterhouse of an improper foreclosure.

Some bankers have argued that focusing on violations of mortgage terms is overly legalistic, and beside the point given the widespread defaults during the financial crisis. It isn’t. The violations documented in the memo benefited the bank and harmed homeowners by allowing foreclosures to occur faster than they would if the formalities were followed.

They also allowed the bank to avoid paying various taxes relating to the sale of foreclosed properties. Some of the violations documented in the memo can result in felony convictions, which shows just how seriously California views the procedural requirements relating to non-judicial foreclosures. Ultimately, California’s then-Attorney General (and now U.S. Senator) Kamala Harris, chose not to file this complex lawsuit, but the memo’s findings are disturbing nonetheless.

As Hamilton knew, acting in good faith, performing agreements as they are written and keeping promises lead to respect and trust, “while the reverse is the fate of those, who pursue an opposite conduct.” The American people deserve a leader at Treasury with those traits, one who cherishes the rule of law as the basis of a both a healthy market economy and a well-functioning democratic government.

Other nations expect that we meet this standard, too. If they see us as just another bully on the world stage, we will lose our ability to lead by example. Members of the Senate Finance Committee should ask Mnuchin whether his actions at OneWest met the standard set forth by Hamilton.

We won’t be in the rooms where important decisions happen, so we need to have confidence in how Mnuchin will act when he thinks that no one is watching.

Can Seniors Get Mortgages? Should They?

Posted on by

photo by Bill Branson

TheStreet.com quoted me in Can Seniors Get Home Mortgages? Should They? It reads, in part,

Senior citizens can and are getting approved for mortgages, and we are not talking reverse mortgages or home equity lines of credit, but – in many cases – 30-year fixed loans. Even when the borrower might be 85 and the actuarial probability of making it to the end of the loan term is nil.

The federal government is blunt: age cannot be used to discriminate against applicants for home loans. Capacity to repay is a factor – for seniors and every other borrower – but a lender cannot turn down an applicant just because he is 65…or 75…or 85. And loans are getting made.

Which raises the other question: is it wise for the borrower? Bankers can take care of themselves, but seniors need to ask: should I be borrowing a lot of money on a house at my age?

In Vancouver, Wash., Dick Kuiper – who said he is “approaching 70,” as is his wife – “just purchased a new home last year and got a 30 year mortgage at just under 3%, and we both believe this was a brilliant move.”

“We first made sure we made a large enough down payment so we would always have positive equity in the home,” Kuiper elaborates. “With that calculated, we looked at the alternatives, either pay in cash – which would naturally come out of our savings – or take out a mortgage. We looked at what we could get by putting the same amount of money into a retirement annuity with a downside guarantee. That annuity pays a minimum of 5% for life and currently is paying in the 8% to 9% range. Do the math. We’d be crazy to pay cash for the house.”

Kuiper’s right. For his wife and him, it made no sense to pay cash for a house – not when mortgage rates are breathtakingly low.

Case closed? Not at all.

Ash Toumayants, founder of financial advisors Strong Tower Associates in State College, Pa., said that in his experience few seniors ever want another mortgage in retirement after they settled up on their first one. “Most are excited when they pay it off and don’t want another one,” Toumayants says.

Another fact: to get a mortgage, a senior has to demonstrate to a lender a capacity to repay. Age cannot be used against a senior, but lack of cashflow can. And many seniors just have sizable trouble qualifying for a mortgage. “The trick is whether they have enough income to qualify or not,” said Casey Fleming, a mortgage expert in Northern California who said that he right now is working on a loan for an 85-year-old client.

Brian Koss, executive vice president of Mortgage Network, an independent mortgage lender in the eastern U.S., elaborated: “For seniors thinking about getting a mortgage, it’s all about income flow. If you have a consistent source of income, and a mortgage payment that fits that income, it makes sense. Something else to consider: if you have income, you have taxes and a need for a tax deduction. With a mortgage, you can write off the interest.”

*     *     *

But then there is an ugly issue to confront. Is the senior arriving at this purchase decision on his own steam? Brooklyn Law professor David Reiss explained why that needs to be asked. “Seniors should discuss big financial moves with someone whose judgment they trust (and who does not stand to benefit from the decision). Elder financial abuse is rampant.”

Reiss added: “What has changed in their financial profile that is leading them to do this? Is someone – a relative, a new friend – egging them on or leading them through the process?” Reiss is right in the caution, and that’s a concern that has to be satisfied.

Banned from Their Land

Posted on by

photo by MIKI Yoshihito

Realtor.com quoted me in Family Told They Can’t Live on Their Own Land (and You Won’t Believe Why). It opens,

One of the best perks of owning property—in fact, the main perk—is that you get to live on it. Or so we thought until we learned of a homeowner in Colorado who was told flat-out that her family can’t live on their own land. What’s going on?

Here’s the backstory: In June, an electrical fire left the Lafayette house of 70-year-old Marilyn Minor uninhabitable. Minor began repairs to her home so it would pass city inspections. But lacking the cash for a hotel or other accommodations, she and her home’s other residents—her son Wayne, daughter Charity, and Charity’s two kids—had nowhere to live. So they moved into their van, parked on their own land. It sounds reasonable enough, right?

Wrong.

Their living situation didn’t sit well with some neighbors, who alerted Lafayette city officials, who came back to Minor and told her that vacating her home wasn’t enough. Nope, until her place passed all inspections, the Minor family weren’t allowed to live anywhere on her property at all.

Why? That’s a question Minor is dying to get answered.

“Why can’t I live on the property that I pay taxes for and where I pay the mortgage?” she asked during an interview with Denver7. “I’ll go down fighting. This is my home.”

Although Minor anticipates her house will be fixed up in a few weeks, she’ll be dragged back into housing court next week and could face substantial fines if she remains on her property. And while some of her neighbors clearly disapprove, others are sympathetic.

“They shouldn’t have to be anywhere else,” one neighbor told Denver7. “This is their house.”

True, it’s their house, their land, their home. But according to experts we spoke to, that doesn’t mean they can live there however they please.

“Until the modern era, the common law was based on the understanding that, in many ways, every man’s home was his castle,” says David Reiss, a professor of law at Brooklyn Law School and academic program director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship.

“But for well over 100 years now, courts have acknowledged that governments have many legitimate reasons to restrict how property owners use their property. For instance, local governments regulate fire safety and sanitation issues, among other things, for the benefit of property owners themselves as well as their neighbors and the broader community.”

Risks and Rewards of Downsizing

Posted on by


photo by Lars Plougmann

The Deseret News quoted me in Why The Young and Old Are Embracing The Rewards of Downsizing. It reads, in part,

Not very long ago, living with less implied money problems or a lack of professional success.

No longer. From younger and middle-aged professionals to retirees, more people are embracing the rewards of “downsizing” — a term that can mean anything from ridding yourself of unnecessary possessions to opting for a less spacious home.

“Downsizing your home can make sense,” said artist and designer Pablo Solomon. “You can save on energy costs, insurance, taxes and upkeep.”

But don’t cart stuff out to the dumpster or plant the “for sale” sign in the front yard just yet. First, consider the varied ways that downsizing can streamline your life.

Home, sweet (downsized) home

One of the most ready targets for would-be downsizers is their home. Perhaps they’ve recently retired and want to retire extensive upkeep responsibilities as well. By contrast, younger people might embrace the greater simplicity that can come from a home that better matches their lifestyle.

But downsizing is not the remedy for other issues, Solomon said, that need a different — and sometimes less costly — approach: “Don’t downsize to be part of a trend or fad or to escape depression or make a ‘statement,’” he said.

Approach downsizing your home as you would any sort of housing decision. Consider space, amenities and any associated costs — only from a particularly budget-conscious perspective.

“Think about the long-term needs you will have for the next 20 to 30 years. Don’t select a place to live temporarily — the costs of moving are high and the cost of buying and selling homes is also high,” said Linda P. Jones, host of the “Be Wealthy & Smart” podcast. “Think before you make a decision and be sure about the move you are making so you won’t have to do it again.”

Another way to approach downsizing a home is what Jodi Holzband of the self-storage search website Sparefoot referred to as “rightsizing” — beginning with basic living requirements and, from there, thoughtfully adding on those features that are of genuine importance.

“Focus first on your needs — essential living items like your bed, clothing and toiletries,” she said. “Then focus on what you love or value — the touchstones of life such as pictures, memorabilia from home, vacation souvenirs, high school pennants and varsity jackets. Look to the space you have and limit what you take in this second category based on space.”

Lastly, don’t ignore possible tax consequences of moving into a smaller space. For instance, retirees who have owned a home for a long time may have acccumulated a great deal of equity. As David Reiss, a professor of law at Brooklyn Law School, noted, capital gains that exceed a certain amount (generally, $250,000 for one person, $500,000 for a married couple) are taxable. Check with a tax professional to gauge your situation.

Hidden Home Costs

Posted on by

Faulty Wiring

TeleMundo quoted me in 15 Hidden Home Costs When Buying a Home (the original is in Spanish: 15 gastos escondidos al comprar una casa). It reads, in part,

There are many other things to consider when buying a house, besides the fact that it looks nice. Pay attention to these details and avoid unpleasant surprises.

*     *     *

Taxes for the following year — Although you were notified about your current taxes, they could go up from one year to the next says David Reiss, Research Director of the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship (Brooklyn).

Bad electrical wiring –when purchasing a house many expenses may be hidden behind the walls and you will not realize it until the light switch stops working, adds Professor Reiss.

Thanks to Ana Puello for the translation.

Wednesday’s Academic Roundup

Posted on by