Inman
Real Estate News
May 16, 2007
The Next Subprime WaveBy Gordon Schlicke
The Next Subprime Wave
Guest Perspective: Broker Crackdown
is Coming
|

Gordon Schlicke |
Because the worst of the option ARM
loans begin to mature through the
last half of 2007 and all of 2008
there is more bad news coming.
Real estate professionals could be
punished if Rep. Barney Frank,
D-Mass, has his way. He wants to let
delinquent subprime borrowers sue
the investment bankers who bought
the loans and turned them into
securities. A major sea-change in
mortgage lending would follow.
Big secondary market players like
Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and
Merrill Lynch have largely escaped a
full-blown consumer assault on them
through the Tort Reform Act. A legal
maneuver called "implied cause of
action" has provided some
protection. Congressman Frank would
take the protection away and the
trial lawyers of America would be
forever grateful. Mortgage brokers
and many wholesale lenders don't
have the deep pockets the
plaintiff's bar needs.
If delinquent borrowers are allowed
to sue their way out of foreclosure,
you can bet the loan terms for
marginal borrowers and first-time
homeowners will tighten
considerably. But there's more to
worry about. Housing needs a
constant stream of mortgage money to
stay healthy, and the latest
subprime burnout has investors
running for cover.
The real estate market will be left
with three money sources for
marginal home buyers: the Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac duo; the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA); and
finance companies. Mortgage brokers
will sell to any of them but will
operate under many added federal
restrictions.
Regulators are pushing to require
mortgage brokers be able to defend
their recommended loan choice,
similar to the standard of care a
licensed securities dealer must
maintain. Brokers are insisting only
the borrower can make that decision.
It's unlikely the regulators will
win this one. But a broker crackdown
is coming and everyone knows it.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are
essentially the same company. They
are joined at the hip when it comes
to underwriting risk and neither
will have the same appetite for low
scorers. Both are just coming out of
big accounting scandals and they
fear another round of bad publicity
would sink the unique status they
enjoy. Their borrowers will need to
have some equity, and pricing will
be no bargain.
FHA needs to revamp its entire
single-family program. It's doubtful
that Congress will allow 100 percent
LTVs (loan-to-value ratios), which
they've asked for. Keep in mind that
while Fannie, Freddie and FHA are
touting their efforts to save the
hapless consumers now facing
foreclosure, this is done on a
one-on-one basis. There will be no
across-the-board mass reduction in
rates.
FHA wants to get into the act
because their market share plummeted
when subprime came on the scene.
Three things would have to happen:
1) Congress would have to raise the
loan ceilings to match Fannie and
Freddie; 2) FHA premiums need to be
adjusted to the increased risk,
possibly making them less
competitive; and 3) FHA has to be
easy to do business with. The
bureaucracy lives there.
Finance companies who operate under
a consumer loan license can charge
considerably more than banks because
they will take more risks. But their
record isn't a good one. Some heavy
fines have been levied to big
players who admitted cheating their
customers. Because they would
undoubtedly turn their "new subprime
loan" into a portfolio product they
would have the edge needed to gain
loan volume.
Add to this the fact that they can
also sell into the secondary market
and maybe even offer some FHA
products and you have a powerful
market force. But it is a force that
is least concerned with consumer
satisfaction. It is more like a
sales organization than any other:
pushing credit insurance and making
personal annual visits to sell
borrowers on refinancing existing
debt using their equity. Worse,
finance companies may not come under
the jurisdiction of any regulator
who keeps everything honest.
For real estate professionals, this
means using greater care in
recommending lending sources to
clients not qualifying for prime
rates. In spite of government calls
for reform of predatory lending,
history has shown that by the time
all of the players are heard from
and the final rules are published
we'll get less than half of what is
really needed. We can only hope that
the lawmakers will provide enough
money for the enforcement of the new
rules.
Gordon Schlicke
is a consultant and expert witness
on predatory lending and mortgage
fraud, RESPA, the HUD-1 Settlement
Statement, federal and state lending
compliance, and RESPA-compliant
Affiliated Business Arrangements. He
is affiliated with
BPI Consulting Group and
Ethical Lending Foundation.
Published by
Inman Real Estate
News
May 16, 2007
***