OTS Plan: Negative Equity Certificates

IrvineRenter_IHB

New member
Does anyone remember this post: <a title="Permanent Link to How Homedebtors Could Avoid Foreclosure" rel="bookmark" href="http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/2007/04/16/how-homedebtors-could-avoid-foreclosure/" linkindex="20" set="yes">How Homedebtors Could Avoid Foreclosure</a>




It looks like it might come to pass.


<a href="http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/02/ots-plan-negative-equity-certificates.html" linkindex="405" set="yes">OTS Plan: Negative Equity Certificates</a>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002710.html" linkindex="406" set="yes">This</a> is certainly innovative:</p>

The Office of Thrift Supervision is preparing a plan to help mortgage borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth and to discourage them from abandoning those properties, agency officials said yesterday.





Under the regulatory agency's proposal, still in its early stages, these borrowers would refinance into government-insured loans that cover the current value of their homes. The refinancing would pay part of what's owed to the original lender. For the remainder, the lender would get what the plan's backers call a "negative equity certificate." The lender could redeem the certificate if the home is eventually sold at a higher price. . . .





The proposal was briefly mentioned at a regular quarterly news briefing. More details should emerge over coming weeks, Petrasic said. The plan has been extensively analyzed internally and is now being discussed with policymakers and industry officials, he said.





The plan would separate a troubled mortgage into two parts. The first would cover the current fair-market value of the home and would be refinanced by the Federal Housing Administration. The remainder would be issued to the original lender as a certificate.





If the borrower eventually sells the home, the FHA mortgage would be paid off first. Remaining cash would be applied to paying off the value of that certificate. Anything left over would go to the borrower.





If there's not enough profit to pay off the certificate, the original lender would take a loss, which makes this proposal a gamble. However, the plan anticipates that there would be a market where these certificates are traded. That means the lenders could sell them immediately to offset some of the loss or hold them with the hope that they will appreciate, said Jaret Seiberg, an analyst at Stanford Policy Research.





The certificates would likely trade for small amounts, maybe $2 for every $100 in home value, and the amounts would increase as the housing market strengthens, Seiberg said.





But there are still many political and logistical hurdles.





This plan has not been vetted by the White House, Congress or other policymakers. The FHA declined to comment on the specifics except to say it is "regularly looking at new ideas and actively exploring ways to expand the eligible pool of creditworthy borrowers FHA can serve."





Whether investors will embrace the idea depends on many details that aren't resolved, Seiberg said. But it could be a way for lenders to cut their losses. "It beats foreclosure," Seiberg said. "These certificates enable [investors] to share in the upside if the housing market recovers."





For borrowers, avoiding foreclosure means they get to keep their homes and reduce damage to their credit.





"What we tried to do is figure out the best way to create market incentives for all the parties involved," Petrasic said.That's a real twist on the idea of taking back a lien on a property to recapture any future equity. Apparently, only the FHA mortgage would be a lien against the property, with the certificate being an obligation of FHA? It certainly surprises me that the OTS feels confident it can work out the legal kinks with that quickly enough to make a difference.
 
Back when I was a teenager we used to talk about welfare for poor people...








So now we will have welfare for home owners...............





Or maybe we should start to think of home owners as poor people.......
 
<i>"Whether investors will embrace the idea depends on many details that aren't resolved, Seiberg said. But it could be a way for lenders to cut their losses. "It beats foreclosure," Seiberg said. "These certificates enable [investors] to share in the upside if the housing market recovers."</i><p>


This sounds all hunky dory, but put yourself in the lenders position. If I am the lender, I am saying, "Either pay me the full amount or I will take my chances on foreclosure. I want no part of some <b>possible</b> future gain that is being maintained by some loser in a declining market." Cut your losses short, let your winnings ride. This smells like one more desperate attempt to save what can not be saved. Home prices are unaffordable and the only way for them to become affordable is for prices to come down and income to go up.
 
<p>If you are the bank, how do you book this "warrant"? How do you value it? What is the capital requirements on this "warrant"? What are the FASB rules on this? How will the investors of the SIV's feel about it?</p>

<p>IMO this only works one place -</p>

<p><img alt="" src="http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/images/Records%20Page/fantasyland.JPG" /></p>

<p>http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/images/Records%20Page/fantasyland.JPG</p>
 
<p>Why is it so bad for the banks?</p>

<p>1. They are guaranteed a govt. check for current fair market value (ex. FHA) - which puts a limit on their losses (ex. foreclosure = current price - foreclosure costs, so more money is recovered)</p>

<p>2. They have potential upside via the certificate should the market recover.</p>

<p>The more interesting question is which homeowners would like the deal and why? For those able to afford current market price on a reasonable loan (ie. based on real income, none of that baloon neg am exotic stuff) ... it is a great deal, they get a nice place. But ... how many can really still afford that? And ... how many still want the house (ex. only bought it to flip & get rich quick).</p>

<p>Also, what happens if they do the refi and get their FHA for $500,000 say and a certificate for $100,000. But later the house value drops to $400,000. Can they refi again? If so is there another certificate which takes precidence over the first certificate? Or does the $100,000 underwater homeowner then either have to live with being underwater, or walk and stick the govt. with paying the $500,000 back to the bank and eating the foreclosure costs (ex. $400,000 - foreclosure sale costs).</p>

<p>Also, how does inflation figure into that? What good is an FHA guantee for $500,000 say if inflation ran wild and so $500,000 future dollars didn't buy nearly as much?</p>
 
anon - I would take my chances on fair market value - foreclosure costs before I would trust the FHA's assessment of FMV.
 
This program won't work..... if you read the fine print it said the program is voluntary. when was the last time you saw a bunch of greedy banker voluntary help anyone? especially a sucker homeowner who can't afford to make his payment.....
 
This program is preferable to foreclosure, for the lender, even if the warrants are worth big fat zip. The lender gets ownership of a loan at fair value without the costs, delays, and broker fees of a foreclosure and sale, and without the risk to a vacant house.



Homeowners will only want this if they plan to stay for an extended period and can afford the house at current prices and rates. Not everybody, but not trivial either.



awgee - you really think FHA's assessment will undershoot market value by 10-15%? They're certainly not lending that way.
 
FE - As an investor, it would be an unknown. And an unknown dependent upon a governement agency to boot. As an investor, I hate unknowns and will take my lumps before I bet on the unknown. Put yourself in the lender's shoes. Everyone says this is preferable to foreclosure or that is preferable to foreclosure and everyone just accepts it as true that anything is preferable to foreclosure. It aint true. Look at all the foreclosures. How hard do you think the lenders worked to prevent foreclosure? I'll tell you. They did nothing except foreclose. Think about it in terms of it being your money. What are you going to do when the counterparty does not meet it's contractual obligations and it is costing you? You gonna work something out? Only if it is someone else's money. But when it is your own money, <b>NO WAY</b>. Anybody who has money because they made it knows what they have to do to protect what is theirs.<p>


Plus, in this enviornment, I am not going to trust the FHA to make good and being a realist, like any investor, I know that this deal is just going to prolong the agony and will cost me more down the road.
 
Foreclosure, right now anyway, is even more of an unknown. You have no idea whether you'll be able to sell, or what the prices will look like after a few months. Heck, you don't even know if the house will get stripped and be virtually worthless. If I held a bad mortgage right now I would absolutely be doing everything I could to arrange a workout. In normal circumstances I'd foreclose but these are anything but normal circumstances. <p>



The FHA has appraisal systems that are generally well-respected. Certainly better than the private appraisal systems have been. I've never heard of serious problems with their appraisals, and their appraisers have no incentive to mis-appraise.
 
I just read the article again. If I read it correctly, the FHA is not going to insure the mortgages as they usually do, but instead is going to become the refinance lender. If that is the case and I am the original lender, I am going to take the money and run.<p>


<i>"If I held a bad mortgage right now I would absolutely be doing everything I could to arrange a workout. In normal circumstances I'd foreclose but these are anything but normal circumstances."</i><p>


If you think you would do everything you could to arrange a workout with people who don't pay on their mortgage, my guess is that you will not be a lender or investor for long. First rule of investing - Don't lose money! Which actually means, as soon as you realize you are incurring a loss and have made a mistake, exit. Get out and don't look back. I think you are looking at this situation from a theorectical viewpoint instead of someone who is looking out for their own interests, (money). But hey, what do I know? Not much.<p>


And the other thing I don't know is; Where is the FHA going to get the money to pay off $100 billion or $500 billion or half a trillion dollars to buy bad mortgages on people who have a history of not paying?
 
And the Oscar for the highest informational value to letter-count ratio for a statement on the housing market for the month of Feburary goes to NanoWest for this welcome bit of insight:



"Back when I was a teenager we used to talk about welfare for poor people...



So now we will have welfare for home owners...............



Or maybe we should start to think of home owners as poor people......."



Brav-f*cking-o!
 
Back
Top