'Home Affordable' loan mods offer hope
Part 3: Will Obama's mortgage plan work?
By Jack Guttentag, Monday, April 20, 2009.
Editor's note: This is Part 3 of a three-part series. Read Part 1 and Part 2.
My previous articles in this series criticized the Obama administration's new "Making Home Affordable" (MHA) program because it ignored negative equity -- which is the major factor underlying the currently horrendous foreclosure rate -- and because it offered refinance relief only to borrowers lucky enough to have their mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. This article is about the loan contract modification part of the program, which covers loans owned by any investor.
Like the refinance program, the loan modification part of MHA ignores negative equity and offers help only to owner-occupants. Investors are not eligible. Those negatives aside, the modification program is well designed. Its architects have taken note of a number of problems that have bedeviled existing modification programs, and have fashioned sensible remedies to deal with them.
Shortages of Trained Staff: The shortage of qualified staff by servicers, as well as the high cost of modifying loans, has resulted in many needless foreclosures that timely modifications could have prevented. The MHA remedy is to provide financial incentives to servicers to do more modifications.
Under the program, servicers are paid $1,000 for each eligible loan they modify, provided that the modified loan remains current through a trial period of at least 90 days. In addition, the servicer collects $1,000 a year for three years if the borrower stays current for that period.
High Incidence of Re-default: In the past, many borrowers with modified loans have subsequently defaulted. Many early modifications, however, did not reduce the borrower's payment, and in some cases the payment increased.
Under MHA, the interest rate is reduced to a level where payments for principal, interest, taxes and insurance comprise no more than 31 percent of the borrower's gross income. In addition, a borrower who stays current will receive $1,000 a year for up to five years in the form of balance reductions.
Restriction to Borrowers in Default: For the most part, servicers have limited modifications to borrowers who are two or more payments behind. This rule assured compliance with investor requirements that modifications were allowed only to avoid more costly foreclosures, and it also helped servicers allocate their limited staff to the most urgent situations. But it had the unfortunate effect of encouraging borrowers to default so they could get help.
The new program attempts to remedy this by establishing a "hardship" criteria for eligibility that does not require the borrower to be in default in order to qualify for a modification. In addition, bonuses of $1,500 to the investor and $500 to the servicer are offered for each modification that is executed while the borrower facing hardship is still in good standing. ...CONTINUED
All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.


You must login or register to post a comment.
Submitted by Robert A. Hulme on April 20, 2009 - 4:04am.
The new "hardship" criteria will certainly find more borrowers who are in need of the loan modification programs, but I believe we need to concentrate more on jobs if we are going to be successful in any of our attempts to limit foreclosures.
Robert A. Hulme
Realtor, GRI, e-PRO
Prudential Utah Real Estate
Loan Officer
Mortgage Xpress
www.utahhomeloans.us
www.ampxpress.com
Submitted by William Metzker on April 20, 2009 - 7:56am.
In the 1990's, I owned a financial services company who took over servicing for a Southern California mortgage company. Nearly every loan was in workout, with the lenders voluntarily writing down the principal balances. It's great to see the current administration realizing that loan balances have to be forced down, even as it's troubling that these assets have to be devalued on the lenders' balance sheets.
But that's tough bananas, in my view. Anyone who originated some of these absurd programs such as the "Pick-a-payment" and "NINA" (No Income No Assets) loans should not be protected from the consequences of their choices.
Submitted by Oliver Wright on April 20, 2009 - 8:17am.
Second liens tend not to be as much of a problem in this negative equity climate; they're effectively unsecured and have nothing to gain by foreclosing.
Submitted by Tim Johnson on April 20, 2009 - 9:41am.
It will be interesting to see how many second mortgages get extinguished in the modification problem, and the reaction of the American public to that -- while most people can understand and sympathize with people who got into trouble on their first mortgage, they will have a tougher time with people who get relief from a second mortgage that probably had nothing to do with providing basic shelter and instead was just equity extraction for non-housing needs.