The New York Times recently reported that “high value” homes are going to lose government support in the secondary mortgage market – and that that loss will likely further deteriorate the real estate recovery. It was right.

“By summer’s end,” it reported “buyers and sellers in some of the country’s most upscale housing markets are slated to lose their biggest benefactor of the economic downturn: the deep pockets of the federal government. In [Monterrey, CA, a] seaside community of pricey homes, the dread of yet another housing shock is already spreading.

‘We’re looking at more price drops, more foreclosures,’ said Rick Del Pozzo, a loan broker. ‘This snowball that’s been rolling downhill is going to pick up some speed.’

For the past three years, federal agencies have backed new mortgages as large as $729,750 in desirable neighborhoods in high-cost states like California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Without the government covering the risk of default, many lenders would have refused to make the loans. With the economy in free fall, Congress broadened its traditionally generous support of housing to an unprecedented degree.

But Democrats and Republicans agree that the taxpayer should no longer be responsible for homes valued well above the national average and are about to turn a top slice of the housing market into a testing ground for whether the private mortgage market can once again go it alone. Michael Barr, a former assistant Treasury secretary, said the federal government’s retrenchment would be painful for many communities.

‘There’s always going to be a line, and for the person just over it, it’s always going to be an arbitrary line,’ said Barr, who teaches at the University of Michigan Law School. ‘But there is no entitlement to living in a home that costs $750,000.’

As the housing market braces for the trouble, homeowners everywhere have been reduced to hoping things will some day stop getting worse. In some areas, foreclosures are the only thing selling. New-home construction is nearly nonexistent. And CoreLogic, a data company, said Tuesday that house prices fell 7.5 percent over the past year. Each month, the number of faltering cities rises.

Federal agencies last year backed nine out of 10 new mortgages nationwide, and losses from soured loans are still mounting. Fannie Mae, which buys mortgages from lenders and packages them for investors, said last week that it needed an additional $6.2 billion in aid, bringing the cost of its rescue to nearly $100 billion.

Getting the government out of the mortgage business, however, is proving much more difficult than doling out new benefits. As regulators prepare to drop the level at which they will guarantee loans — here in Monterey County, the level will drop by a third, to $483,000 — buyers and sellers are wondering why they should be punished simply for living in an expensive region. Sellers worry that the pool of potential buyers will shrink. ‘I’m glad to see they’re trying to rein in Fannie Mae, but I think I’m being disproportionately penalized,’ said Rayn Random, who is trying to sell her house in the hills for $849,000 so she can move to Florida.

The National Association of Realtors is making an extension of the loan guarantees a top lobbying priority.

‘Reducing the limits will put more downward pressure on prices,’ said president Ron Phipps. ‘I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense.’ But he said that in contrast to last year, when a one-year extension of the higher limits sailed through Congress, ‘there’s more resistance.’
Federal regulators acknowledge that mortgages will get more expensive in upscale neighborhoods but say the effect of the smaller guarantees on the overall housing market will be muted.”

Really? No “entitlement” to live in an expensive house? Let Wall Street come up with a private secondary market for expensive (i.e. anything over $500,000?) homes? Who are they kidding? Especially in CA, CT, NT, VT.

This “sock it to the ‘rich’” business is a bunch of baloney.

Lance Churchull writes:
“One thing I have wondered about in the past is why the two government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, found it necessary to have different rules for short sales, but then I remembered that the “G” in GSE stood for government and, of course, the government usually makes things more complicated than they should be. Well, on April 28, 2011, the Federal Housing Financing Agency (FHFA), which has been overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since their near financial collapse, decided it would be better if they had uniform rules for delinquent mortgages. The FHFA has directed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac align their guidelines for servicing delinquent mortgages they own or guarantee with the stated purpose of creating an updated framework that will establish uniform servicing requirements for how delinquent mortgages are handled, including the short sale process. The director of FHFA said, “Once fully implemented, the enterprises’ aligned policies will require earlier contact, more frequent communication and prompt decisions.”

The aligned guidelines will also govern the “dual track” foreclosure process by requiring the servicers to immediately contact delinquent borrowers in an effort to resolve a delinquency. The foreclosure process may not commence if the borrower and the servicer are engaged in a good faith effort to solve the delinquency. In the event that the property is referred to foreclosure, financial incentives would be provided to encourage the servicers to help continue the borrowers pursue a foreclosure alternative such as a short sale.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae must issue the new guidelines to their servicers on or before September 30, 2011. Having reviewed the actual and very detailed servicing announcements by both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that seems like an awfully long time to implement the new rules. However, given the fact it took Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eight months to implement a HAFA program that was nearly the same as the Treasury Department’s program, I guess it is reasonable for them to take five months to align their loss mitigation rules.

One of the new policies that agents will like is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have the same borrower package for borrowers to be considered for all workout and foreclosure avoidance solutions, including HAMP modifications and short sales. When the borrower’s package is received, it is required that at the beginning of the process there be a simultaneous evaluation of borrowers for both the HAMP and HAFA programs. An additional new standard that agents will applaud is that there will be a uniform case escalation process which requires acknowledgement of an escalation request within three business days after receipt and adherence to a 30-day maximum total time to resolve an escalated case.

Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac short sales constitute a large portion of the short sale market, new uniform short sale guidelines and procedures for non-HAFA short sales would certainly be welcomed by the real estate industry. Let’s hope that the new guidelines, when they are issued, will actually simplify and expedite the process, and that the servicers will effectively implement the new rules. Stay tuned for updates on this topic, but don’t hold your breath in anticipation of seeing the newly aligned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac short sale rules very soon.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Buy and bail – where a homeowner buys a new house before his credit is trashed by walking away from the old one – is on the rise, according to a recent Bloomberg report.

According to the article, those most likely to “buy and bail” have a large income and low debt, enabling them to qualify for a mortgage – now at historic lows – on another home. Once they purchase that home, they then walk away from the old home that likely carries a much larger mortgage payment at a much higher interest rate on a property that is worth considerably less than they paid for it.

A Morgan Stanley report noted that those most likely to walk away are debtors with the best credit scores and jumbo loans that exceed the Fannie and Freddie cap limits for mortgages. They have typically lost more than $100,000 in property value.

Both GSEs put protections in place two years ago to thwart buy and bailers, but a Freddie Mac spokesman quoted in the Bloomberg piece said, “it still seems to be going on.”

Of course, if buy and bailers use false information to qualify for a loan on that next house, that’s called fraud. And the FBI is working with local housing agencies to conduct investigations.

At a conference held last week to discuss the overhaul of housing finance, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that the Obama administration was not looking to perform “radical surgery” on the system, but was focused instead on creating a “new and improved” version of the current system where the government would subsidize mortgage loans made by private lenders.

The administration convened the conference with dozens of leading experts on housing finance, who were largely of two minds: some want to do away with the current system altogether, with the government taking a more limited role by offering insurance for catastrophic losses only. Others argue that mortgage lending will not recover unless the government plays a more active role, providing the guarantees necessary to attract investors.

Left largely unsaid was the fate of Fannie and Freddie, which now guarantee 90 percent of all new mortgages. While most agree that they are unlikely to survive in their current form, there are so far no suggestions on what to do to get rid of them and their vast portfolios of troubled loans.

For the New York Times coverage of the conference, go here.

The Obama administration is holding a conference today to discuss ways to overhaul Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying that doing so will be important to fixing the country’s broken housing finance system.

The conference will focus on a review of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Home Loan Banks and the “significant private sector role” in mortgage origination, funding and servicing.

To date, the U.S. Treasury has spent more than $145 billion to keep Fannie and Freddie solvent, after seizing the lending giants in September of 2008, as they teetered on the brink of collapse.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that the Obama administration wants a “comprehensive reform proposal that protects taxpayers, institutes tough oversight, restores the long-term health of our housing market, and strengthens our nation’s economic recovery.”

According to the Treasury, Fannie, Freddie and other government entities currently guarantee more than 90 percent of new mortgages.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin told the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) conference in New York recently that Treasury will not propose housing finance reform measures until 2011, and will probably do so in conjunction with the agency’s enforcement of the new financial reform law just passed by the Senate and due to be signed by President Obama next week.

However, several conference attendees question whether Treasury can implement housing finance reform at the same time it is implementing the most sweeping changes to the country’s finance system since the 1930s.

Both sides of the political aisle endorse the need for reform, especially for crippled lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but no one has yet developed a workable plan that would not inflict more harm on the still-sagging housing market.

Congress continues to be leery of implementing big changes that could upset the economic recovery since Freddie, Fannie and the FHA provide the majority of funding for American homebuyers.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin’s keynote address to the SIFMA conference can be read here.

If you’ve attended any of our Short Sales presentations, you know this, because we talk about it a lot…but just in case you missed it, Freddie Mac is now making it clear that they are aware of and are taking steps to prevent Short Sales fraud.

From an April 12 press release on their website:

There are many variations of short payoff fraud. The example below is just one way this type of mortgage fraud can occur.

• A seller (delinquent borrower) owes $100,000 on a property that is worth $80,000.
• The short payoff facilitator negotiates with the bank to accept a $70,000 offer to purchase the property. In several instances, Freddie Mac has seen that this offer will be made directly by the facilitator or through an entity under his/her control.
• The lender/investor accepts the offer for $70,000.
• The facilitator neglects to disclose to the lender/investor that there is an outstanding offer between the facilitator and a second end-buyer for $95,000.
• Both transactions close on the same day with the net difference being pocketed by the facilitator and increasing the lender/investor’s net losses.

At first glance, this may look like a legitimate short payoff. However, in this example, the fraud is the failure to disclose the second, higher offer. The facilitator is willfully withholding important information the same way a scam artist would, and the lender does not realize they are walking into a premeditated short payoff fraud scheme. Because the facilitator is deliberately withholding the higher offer, Freddie Mac also experiences a larger than necessary loss on this sale.

The federal regulator for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae told the mortgage finance giants “thanks, but no thanks” to generating new loan products – at least while they are under the control of the U.S. government.

Too bad, when the past ones worked so well….(!?!)

The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s acting director Edward DeMarco told lawmakers that FHFA “concluded that permitting the enterprises to engage in new products is inconsistent with the goals of conservatorship.”

In other words, let’s keep our eye on the ball – you remember, that big ball of managing $5 trillion in mortgage holdings and guarantees that are supported by taxpayers.

DeMarco says the new ruling does not apply to foreclosure prevention efforts.