Option ARM loans aren't all bad
Problem was too many borrowers exploited minimum payments
By Tom Kelly, Wednesday, July 16, 2008.The memory of a no-nonsense conversation, held more than a decade ago, hit home then and is vivid today.
"This probably would not be the loan for a person who planned on making just the minimum payment every month," said the Washington Mutual senior loan consultant. "It's a great program for borrowers who really might use the flexible payments, but if you stay with the minimum, you are absolutely going to owe more than you borrow."
I thought about that meeting the other day when I read that WaMu had discontinued its option-ARM (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan program along with its Mortgage Plus loans -- and laid off 1,100 more employees. Earlier this year, the bank had closed its home loan centers, sending potential residential mortgage applicants to its retail banking outlets.
The reason WaMu pulled the mortgage programs was the national scrutiny toward any negative-amortization loans. Negative amortization occurs when the monthly loan payment is less than the principal and interest needed to pay off the loan in a specific period of time. The difference is added to the loan amount, so that the borrower owes more than the amount initially borrowed.
Why, you ask, would you ever take out a loan where you owed more than you borrowed after a few years? In a perfect world, when you had all the money you needed when you needed it, you would never subscribe to such a deal.
But think about it … Will you have to refinance the house -- or at least consider a home equity loan -- to send the kids to college? Or put mom in an assisted living facility? We did both and the option ARM was a terrific vehicle for those financial challenges.
The Mortgage Plus loans offered built-in lines of credit while the option ARM gave borrowers more choices over monthly payments each month, thus providing an opportunity to "flip-flop" payments according to household cash flow. After the initial start period, customers could select among four payments plans each month during the life of the loan. Borrowers were never locked in to one specific payment or amount, leaving open the possibilities of pulling back during a money crunch or shelling out more after an unexpected windfall.
I'm all about options and variety. The more options, the better the chances of filling an individual need. While the intent of the loans was genuine and really attempted to give borrowers a solution for the different financial times of their lives, too many consumers became comfortable in the "minimum payment option" and quickly found they owed more than they had borrowed. Had they converted to a more accelerated payment schedule the negatives would have been "washed" by payments that covered more than principal and interest.
In addition, too many loan representatives did not do a thorough job of explaining the pitfalls of "staying minimum" for a significant period of time.
Let's remember that three of the four payment options of the option ARM did not render negative amortization, yet the program got absolutely hammered because it dangled the carrot of low monthly payments to consumers. The menu:
- Minimum Payment: Very low payment that leaves you more cash during lean months. However, the payment amount was not enough to cover the interest portion of the loan. The difference would be added to your original loan amount.
- Interest-Only Payment: Payment still is low, yet you pay only the interest portion and any deferred interest that may have accrued. While you do not reduce the original loan amount, you do not "go backwards" or owe more than you borrowed.
- Regular Payment: This is a common, 30-year, fixed-rate loan payment. When you choose this option, you pay all the interest and principal needed to pay off your loan on time.
- Accelerated Payment: This schedule would pay off your loan after 15 years. The payment is higher, yet you save substantial interest dollars while gaining equity faster.
More than 15 years ago, WaMu was the first local lender to introduce a program that blended installment debt and a home mortgage secured by a first deed of trust. Like all programs, "Buyer's Choice" had pluses and minuses. The good news was that it was a genuine attempt to wrap credit-card, high-interest debt into the lower rates brought by first mortgages. The problem was that it confused not only consumers, but also the loan officers trying to explain it. It evolved into Mortgage Plus.
The option ARM was more flexible and useful. It was available for homeowners and investors, but some loan officers -- many of them loan brokers not affiliated with WaMu -- still didn't get it or want to spend the time to explain it.
That's why I was thankful for the upfront conversation about our loan more than a decade ago. I was advised of the consequences of minimum payments and steered clear of them unless absolutely necessary. Other borrowers did not make that choice, but they did have other options.
To get even more valuable advice from Tom, visit his Second Home Center.
***
What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor. To contact the writer, click the byline at the top of the story.
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 Mark Bustamonte on July 16, 2008 - 5:34am.
This loan was for a select group of people. People that were financially disciplined had a sound financial plan in place (long range) and perhaps were working in conjunction with a financial planner. Lets not forget the YSP that was paid on this types of loans along with a 3 year pre-payment penalty. Many loan officers used this loan solely for the purpose of financial gain for themselves with out concern for the homeowner. Many un-disciplined borrowers were giving this option and not made aware of the potential pit falls based on making min payments as well as the market place that they were in. This loan needed to be underwritten a lot more cautiously and was not, do purely to lender greed.
United Credit Education Services
Submitted by Pamela Mackenzie on July 16, 2008 - 6:48am.
Tom, you make some good points here. There are people who are savvy enough to understand that option-ARM loans work if you make larger-than-the-minimum payments most of the time so that in the months when you are having a bad cash flow, you can get away with the minimum.
The problem was in the marketing of these loans. Most people who got them had no idea what they were getting into. The folks in Wisconsin who successfully sued Chevy Chase Bank because they didn't understand that the option ARM they got was going to have monthly payments jump dramatically when they hit 125% negative amortization are a good case in point, but they aren't alone.
A lot of unscrupulous lenders, be they bankers or brokers, sold these loans with misinformation. I'm glad to hear your WaMu guy was more principled. I wish more lending officers were like him.
Pam MacKenzie
Real Estate Editor
The Courier News, mycentraljersey.com
Submitted by Wenceslao Fernandez Jr on July 16, 2008 - 7:02pm.
Many benefited from this loan and are probably happy with it.
However, many are also among the unhappy holders of such a mortgage (or whichever mortgage they got), and are probably sorry they ever even heard of them.
Unfortunately, the problem for those who cannot manage their finances, is that they tend to abuse their credit lines.
It doesn't matter if you overdraw a credit card, or reduce or eliminate the equity of your home by making minimum payments in an Option ARM.
There are folks who borrowed, who shouldn't have. Period.
The problem is this as I see it. When asked if people should drive less due to the high cost of gasoline during his news conference the other day, President Bush answered (I'm paraphrasing, of course), that people should not need a president to tell them that. The American people should be smart enough to figure on their own that they better cut down on travel time by car and save.
This is the same analogy I'd use for ANY loan type. There are folk out there who got a loan, and bought a house they had no business buying.
It is not the instrument (though the temptation is definitely a huge factor), it is the user, and they should not need a loan officer to tell them what to do or not do.
Like with most vice, those tempted to engage in negative behaviour should avoid altogether their exposure.
If you can't control your finances, don't buy a house. Period.
You are likely to fail, specially if you're going in without effort (the time and effort to: pay bills on time and build credit, while saving as one pays bills on time...).
Once you can master your finances...then you can graduate to homeownership. Not a moment sooner.
Yet, our lending institutions concucted these credit instruments, promoted them and underwrote them and everyone is paying for it as well.
It was just another case for "American Greed" (like the CNBC investigative show). Buyers greed drove them to apply for loans they could not afford...because they were handed the cash with easy qualifying by the very lenders who are now pretending it wasn't them either.
Perhaps the banks should have known better, even if the borrowers didn't.
One thing's for sure in my mind...the Option ARM is not a faulty instrument. It works great in certain markets (like the appreciating market we had), and with responsible borrowers or investors trying to maximize cash flow.
It was not for the faint hearted or irresponsible, unqualified for homeownership borrower.
www.MiamiRealEstateKing.com
Certified Distressed Property Expert
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Submitted by Eric Reque on September 11, 2008 - 3:34pm.
www.MyHouseIsUnderwater.com
Loan Modifications are the only way out of this mess. Short sales and REO's are killing valuations. We need to stop the bleeding.