Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Yeah, rates are lower, but...

It's just not that easy to get your hands on the banks' money these days... Great visual representation, and I can tell you, it fairly depicts the view from the front lines here...

We can still get the deals done, but nothing is as simple as it once was!

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Barney Frank on High Balance Conforming Loans

I caught a video piece of Barney Frank fielding questions the other day, in which it was painfully obvious to this mortgage planner that the legislation cannot force free markets to do as legislators intend or wish. I wish I had a link to the video, but I don't, nor do I have the time to search for it. I am sure it is out there.

In 2008, the elected representatives on Capitol Hill decided to allow for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase loans at a temporarily increased ceiling - ranging by county according to the median home values in these counties. The non-conforming loan breakpoint was 417k, we've talked about it here. Anything above 417 could not be touched by Fannie/Freddie.

The 2008 temporary limits were put into effect, and some areas were able to treat loans all the way up to 729,750 as conforming, per law. But the banks did not like the temporary nature, investors didn't look at it the same way either, and rates and terms for anything between 417 and 729k left much to be desired, and many to be refinanced at some other time, or never.

For 2009, lawmakers made the "temporary" permanent, but revised the limits, bringing the max ceiling down to 625,500 in the highest cost areas. Investors and banks were a little better to adopt these. And in many ways, borrowers with 417-625k see many of the same underwriting rules. But some of the differences are significant.

Pricing these loans is not the same, bringing much disappointment to the borrowing and lending community. Lawmakers stipulated that banks could only package a small percentage (10%) of "high balance" loans with the traditional, sub-417k loans into their bond issues for the secondary market.

There was so much pent up demand from borrowers with high balance loans to refinance, that the banks all got inundated with demand for money under these terms. It put them way off balance, and they dont have 9x the traditional conforming investments to match every dollar worth of high balance loans. So what do they do? Raise rates. So now when you have a high balance loan, your rate is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the traditional balance conforming loans.

This will ebb and flow as the banks process and liquidate their inventory. But watching Barney Frank scratch his head, saying something to the tune of "I don't understand why anybody would be treated any differently if they were borrowing the higher balance, we changed the rules to make it the same" - which is not a quote, but is precisely what he was saying - you can see why so many of the governments attempts to help the market have not worked, or only partially helped, or helped one area and introduced a new problem...

One more complication in today's market. Next to impossible to predict a given bank's pipeline composition, and therefore next to impossible to know when they will spike their rates overnight, as we are seeing them do erratically.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

There's no inflation in our economy - unless you wholesale money

What happened to inflation? 5$ gas, 6$ milk, 7$ Pabst Blue Ribbon!!! ???

Today's PPI (Producer Price Index) came in at a negative for the 5th straight month. It measures commodity prices, and other materials that producers of goods and services need to buy in order to produce their good or service. Tomorrow's CPI (Consumer Price Index - which measures the cost of goods that consumers buy) is expected to indicate the same signal - no inflation to speak of.

Meanwhile, much is being said about the efforts by the government to push down mortgage rates. But the underlying fundamentals that determine interest rates are not correlating with the rates being offered to consumers,. Or they are correlating less than is usual, presenting challenges to consumers and brokers trying to execute on their behalf.

Yes, rates are quite a bit lower. But the challenges of our "new landscape" are also new in nature, and no matter where you turn, it just gets more and more interesting. After 6 quarters of downsizing, banks were slammed in recent weeks with record applications for new loans. There was an immediate logjam. Demand is exceeding capacity. Banks do not need to lower costs to attract business. Margins are fat, 'because they can'.

Icing on the cake: Banks offer lower rates to deals on shorter term locks. But it takes twice as long for them to underwrite files today, so what's the point? You have to lock long-term, which means higher rates. Or, you float. And if you float, you get jumped in line at underwriting by all the locked-in deals. These same banks offer 7 day locks at their absolutely lowest rates... but you can never get within 7 days of closing UNLESS YOU LOCK!

If you do lock, and the period does not wind up being adequate, for ANY reason whatsoever, you can pay to extend it. But banks are doubling and tripling their extension fees as their queue grows longer and longer. Oh, and they are charging some brokers additional fees for not delivering on a loan once it is locked - even if they are too busy to underwrite it!

So lets review:
-banks have been taking it on the chin for ~6 quarters, so...

-rates are down, but not as much as they should be given the government intervention, and economic datapoints
-extension fees are skyrocketing
-processing times are skyrocketing
-lock periods are skyrocketing
-penalty for cancelling is skyrocketing

As far as I know, mortgage rate lock extension fees are not included in the PPI or CPI. Yet another area of the economy overlooked by the economic reporting data. Outrageous! Somebody call David Horowitz!

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Great perspective to a timely question

Ric Edelman fields a question from one of his radio show listeners:

Q: Do you and your wife make extra principal payments to your
interest-only loan? Or do you not want to own your home someday?

Many in the investment business suggest investing it in the stock market
- you don't keep up with inflation by putting the money into your home
or keeping the money in cash. Well, over the past decade or so, with all
of the ups and downs of the stock market, I bet the folks who kept their
money in cash or paid down their mortgages fared better than those in
the stock market. I know, I know, the market goes up and down, and over
the "long term" the stock market is supposed to outperform the other
things, but I question this advice sometimes and just wonder if you are
going to own your home someday? If not, why?

Ric: No, we don't make extra payments. We personally handle our money
the same way we advise our clients and consumers.

Why would we want to add extra money to our payment? If you believe that
real estate values rise over long periods, the home's equity will grow
all by itself, and it will do so at such a rate that any extra payments
we'd make would be pointless.

Here's an example: Say you own a $500,000 house with a $400,000
mortgage. You thus have only $100,000 in equity. If you send in an extra
$100 per month for five years, you'll have an extra $6,000 in equity.
But if the house grows just 1% per year, it will produce $25,505 in new
equity, or four times more than your effort from making extra payments!
And if the house grows 2% per year, your new equity will be more than
$50,000!

This is one reason - there are nine others in my DVD on the topic - why
making extra payments is a waste of time and effort.

Of course, I began by asking if you believe that real estate values will
rise over long periods. If you don't believe that, then you shouldn't be
a real estate owner in the first place. You should rent instead.

Also, I note that you referred to those who recommend placing into the
stock market all the money that you'd otherwise use to make extra
payments. I do not agree with that advice. Instead, you should invest
the money in a highly diversified manner. That's because, as you've
noted, it's possible to see stock prices falter for extended periods. By
owning a wide variety of assets, and not just stocks, you reduce the
risk of such underperformance.

But even if you invest solely in stocks, you're highly likely to do
fine. Remember that we're comparing the interest rate on your mortgage
to the performance of the stock market. Since your mortgage will last
for 30 years, we need to evaluate stock prices over that same period.
And in every 30-year period since 1926, according to Ibbotson
Associates, stocks have handily outperformed mortgage rates.

I realize that you're questioning the strategy because of the stock
market's recent performance, but it's precisely at such times that we
need to remind ourselves of the long-term nature of the markets.
Otherwise, you'll be tempted to do the wrong thing at the wrong time for
the wrong reason.

Find out more about Home Ownership here:
http://www.ricedelman.com/cs/education/home_ownership