Monday November 9, 2009 1:35 AM ET
SmartMoney
Published April 10, 2008  |  A A A
Consumer Action by Aleksandra Todorova (Author Archive)

White House's Expanded Plan Won't Help Many Homeowners

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION announced yet another housing rescue plan Wednesday, saying it will extend the Federal Housing Authority's assistance to subprime borrowers who are behind on mortgage payments. But, as housing advocates contend, the plan is just window dressing on a crisis that will require much more aggressive involvement by the government.

The expansion of the government's FHASecure program, which goes into effect later this month, is aimed at helping homeowners with subprime adjustable-rate mortgages to refinance into government-insured loans with lower, fixed rates. Since its launch last September, the FHASecure program has been criticized for its stringent qualification standards, including one that requires homeowners to be current on their loans for at least six months before they reset to a different rate. In response, the government is now easing up on those requirements, opening the program up to borrowers who have had two or three late payments in the last 12 months.

The Federal Housing Administration, which insures these loans, estimates the expanded program can help an additional 100,000 homeowners. (Since the launch of FHASecure, 150,000 homeowners have refinanced into FHA loans, but only 3,000 of them had been delinquent at the time of refinancing, according to the FHA.)

But much like the government's previous housing rescue efforts, including its plan to freeze interest rates on certain mortgages for five years and its "Project Lifeline" plan, which gives severely delinquent homeowners a 30-day reprieve on foreclosure proceedings housing advocates took the new effort with a grain of salt.

"We did not really work our way through the details [of this plan] because when you're dealing with such an insignificant response to such a major problem, it just doesn't command the attention to try to figure out if it'll work," says Jim Karr, chief operating officer of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a consumer advocacy group. "Helping 100,000 households in the context of two million foreclosures about to take place over the next 18 months — if not sooner — is inconsequential."

Even mortgage industry professionals who view the program's expansion as a step in the right direction are skeptical. Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication for the mortgage servicing industry, points to provisions that will limit the program's effectiveness, including the fact that it relies on the goodwill of lenders to swallow losses when refinancing homes that are now under water, or worth less than the outstanding mortgage balance.

Here's an outline of the program, along with some of the finer points that homeowners should consider before signing on.

FHA loans, which target first-time and low-income home buyers but are available to anyone regardless of income, were considered the ugly stepchildren of the mortgage industry during the housing boom. Much more restrictive than the then-readily-available subprime loans, they required buyers to present proper documentation with proof of income, for example, and involved more detailed property appraisals. In addition, limits on the amounts that could be borrowed precluded buyers in high-price markets like California and New York from even considering these loans. (The limits were recently increased to as much as $729,750 from $362,790 in high-cost areas, effective through the end of the year. Click here for area specifics.)

But now that lenders are tightening their requirements for privately-insured mortgages, the FHA program is coming back in vogue. (All mortgage loans borrowed with less than 20% down require private mortgage insurance.) In the first quarter of 2008, 10% of all loan originations were FHA loans, compared with 3% in 2007 and 2% in 2006, according to Cecala.

1
2
Next
Find More Articles About: mortgage, housing, real estate, credit score, Deals
Order ReprintsOrder Reprints
Bookmark and Share RSS
User Comments
Posted by: Skeefo96
Well, the general guidelines of FHA say that credit scores do not matter! We could drastically change our situation if the investors look at these loans and say...'these are Federally Insured Loans.' This story clearly states and it's true, that FHA loans are restrictive as to who the government will lend to. However, the trend of Adjustable Rate Mortgages a few years ago has put too many people into a situation that even if they had a chance, could afford and had the home value their credit score do not let them qualify for these loans, because lenders are putting limits or minimum credit score requirments on these loans(FEDERALLY INSURED)!! What the Government needs to do is tell these lenders that are signed up to qualify homeowners for FHA programs, that they can no longer put FICO requirments on a NO FICO requirment loan if it shows clear benifits to the Borrower. John Q Tax payer would then have the ability to help them selves at no tax payers expense.
Posted by: bobfwayne
I, and tens of millions of others have taken a big hit in the stock market over the last six months. Where is our bail out program? The stupid, ignorant, clueless, I want what I want and I want and deserve it now crowd of morons that got in over their heads can live in a cardboard box in a vacant lot for all I care.
Posted by: joetaxpayer
ckb and rick - I agree with you. The buck must stop somewhere, and indeed what of us who 'played by the rules', bought only what we could afford, and struggle to pay the ever increasing property taxes that followed the rising prices? The bankers that encouraged the classic 'liar loans' should not be fired, they should be jailed, and the bills sent to their employers. Back to basics.
Joe
www.blog.joetaxpayer.com
Posted by: richrpoor
Well, there they go again. The majority of the house buyers who are in financial trouble are those who bought more house, and as the article implies, more of everything else than they could afford. Even the most reality challenged borrowers and greedy lenders should have known that $600,000 McMansions, multiple $40,000 SUVs, and who know what else were impossible on a $25,000 income. There was an element of get rich quick speculation in most of these too -- not just buying a place to live. The more the government tries to subsidize the foolish and greedy the more they spread the problem to and punish the prudent and frugal via inflation of essential commodities, increased government debt/taxation, and encouraging more recklessness. The good guys who didn't overbuy are now getting into trouble because of always-higher prices, but near constant wages. The home builders, who are pushing these schemes, aren't entitled to guaranteed wealth and income either.
Posted by: ckbckb
No one enjoys seeing someone lose their home. But the banks who made these loans and buyers who couldn't afford the houses, vehicles, and lifestyles they bought with these mortgages, home equity lines of credit, and paper equity must be the ones to foot the bill. Period. Who else? Taxpayers should not foot the bill. Nor should those who played by the rules and sacrificed and saved wisely. If that means that some people lose their homes, sadly so it must be. It is a painful lesson, but it is absolutely necessary for the future economic well being of our country- including future home prices and interest rates. Furthermore, if we are to allow mortgagees who are in trouble to stand down and have their problems taken up by taxpayers, what then of contracts anywhere?
Advertisements