Comments on: Will The FHASecure Program Really Help Those Facing Foreclosure?

By: Tom Potter

Tom Potter — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:28:26 +0000

Sub prime loans were helpful to millions of Americans during their infancy (1985-2003). It’s the combination of boutique loans; (interest only, Option ARMS) and the degradation of underwriting standards in name of volume that caused massive defaults. Anytime a borrower with a 580 middle credit score can buy a house with a loan or combination of loans that equal 100%, a 6% seller contribution and pay no interest for the first 5 years of the loan or worse yet, add interest to the balance, you’re going to have issues.
Unfortunately, the new American way was “Either you give me what I want, and give it to me now (because I’m entitled to it),or someone else will.” Face it, we’re reaping what was sown.

By: nardi

nardi — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:42:27 +0000

I am currently buying out my ex from our marital residence. However, due to him not paying the mortgage my credit has suffered badly. we have a separation agremnt that he agreed to be responsible for the paymnts. Can I still qualify for the fha secure loan? we had to refinance due to the two yr interest only arm that we had on our hse, which made our paymnt increased from $1500 to $2100.

By: Kat Korac

Kat Korac — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:12:14 +0000

My home that is in danger of foreclosure due to an adjusted ARM that just happened raising my payment 218.00 more per month. The home is a rental property in Ohio, and I live in TN now. Can I get help with an FHA Secure on a rented property.

Kat

By: Jen Jones

Jen Jones — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:58:23 +0000

Mr. Miller, so many of these homeowners in trouble bought their homes with 0 down and refinanced over and over cashing out all of their equity year after year. Will they be eligible for the FHA Secure program or any other bail-out assistance? Unfortunately this scenario applies to such a huge number of these people in trouble. If you purchased your home 10 years ago for $80k and you now owe $300k it’s important to note that you made a profit of approximately $220k that you spent the way you saw fit. I don’t think you can be considered a “victim” of the subprime lending industry. Sub-prime lenders made alot of money, true……but so did the borrowers who cashed out over and over and over.

It’s also important to note that every one of these borrowers did, in fact have a choice of an adjustable or a fixed rate loan. The difference was the rate and how much house they could “afford”. 5.5% was the adjustable or 7.25% fixed. The majority of these borrowers wanted a conforming rate even though they were non-conforming borrowers. The got that rate but had to sacrifice their better judgement to get it.

By: Peter G. Miller

Peter G. Miller — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:26:00 +0000

Hi –

A mortgage vet would surely know that notification standards for HOEPA do not apply to most loans, much less toxic financing. As the FTC says, HOEPA “rules do not cover loans to buy or build your home, reverse mortgages or home equity lines of credit.” This lack of regulatory oversight is, of course, the heart of the problem.

A mortgage vet would also know that under HOEPA’s Section 129(I), the Federal Reserve has expansive powers to deal with unfair and deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) regarding ALL loans. As Michael Calhoun, President of the Center for Responsible Lending, says, “the Board has not used this authority.”

No one says all “affordability” products are bad, merely that they are a woeful idea for very large numbers of borrowers, lenders and investors. Combine toxic loans with the lack of a fiduciary obligation on the part of loan officers to get the best possible terms for borrowers and you wind up with lots of foreclosures and lender losses.

By: Mortgage vet

Mortgage vet — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:45:19 +0000

“We would not have this mess had federal regulators moved several years ago to stop lenders from issuing option ARMs, interest-only loans and stated income loan applications. The Fed had such power under HOEPA and did not use it.”

This is typical of the drive-by journalistic mentality of the uniformed writer. To say that all of these affordability products are bad and should have been stopped or eliminated is naive at best and probably better defined as ignorant.

And just so you know, HOEPA does not restrict these products from being offered.

By: Tammy

Tammy — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:08:03 +0000

In response to jbudet — Keep your eye on the announcements coming out of FHA/HUD in the next few weeks, I have a hunch that the loan limits in California will be going up for FHA loans. IF this happens, it means that many more people who live in California (and other high-cost-places) will be eligible for the FHA Secure program.

By: Peter G. Miller

Peter G. Miller — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:08:18 +0000

You’re right that the new FHASecure program will not help all troubled borrowers.

The program uses the general FHA loans limits. This means many borrowers in high-cost areas such as California, Boston, New York and Washington will not be able to finance big loans. However, not all borrowers in these areas have huge mortgages so the program will surely help some with toxic mortgages.

The income ratio under the program will be 31/43 — the general FHA standard.

By: jbudet

jbudet — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:28:19 +0000

Are the loan limits on the new FHASecure the same as existing FHA loans? If this is the case most California borrowers will not qualify. Is there going to be an income cap, or loan cap?

By: Peter G. Miller

Peter G. Miller — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 06:19:56 +0000

The FHA should be out with loan guidelines immediately (I expected them yesterday, September 4th).

The loan should be available from any lender that handles FHA financing, which means most lenders. Shop around for rates — the product is the same no matter which lender you use.