Special offer

FHA CHANGES COMING. SADLY, THEY ARE DESIGNED TO REDUCE THE BUYER POOL, DENY HOME OWNERSHIP TO MANY PROSPECTIVE BUYERS and FURTHER DAMAGE THE HOUSING INDUSTRY.

By
Real Estate Agent with Lenn Harley, Homefinders.com, MD & VA Homes and Real Estate 303829;0225082372

ONE THING EXPERIENCE TEACHES US IS THAT, JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IN AUTHORITY SAYS SOMETHING, DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

EXAMPLE:  HUD Secretary Donovan, in announcing the details of the changes to FHA financing, states:

"The new policies are designed to strengthen the FHA's capital reserves so we can continue to fulfill our mission of serving underserved communities."

The changes include:

  1. Increase the up-front mortgage insurance premium (MIP) to 2.25%;
  2. Update credit score and down payment requirements for new borrowers;
  3. Reduce seller concessions to three percent, from six percent; and
  4. Implement a series of significant measures aimed at increasing lender enforcement. 

1.    Assuming HUD/FHA employs actuaries, the actuaries had to know that, due to increased MIP payouts, the FHA insurance fund was approaching a dangerous level and the MIP needed to be increased.  Why did the request for an increase in MIP wait until the fund was in default???   If the MIP had been brought up to where it was before being reduced to 2.25% or 2.75%, the fund could have been replenished over the past year or two without going into default.

IN 1990, THE UPFRONT MIP WAS, I believe 3.8%.

"o    If this authority is granted, then the second step will be to shift some of the premium increase from the up-front MIP to the annual MIP."

By shifting the upfront MIP (which can be financed) to annual MIP, which adds to each monthly mortgage payment, more home buyers will be disqualified. 

Mr. Donovan states further that:  "In addition, we were determined that these changes should support, not disrupt, the nation's housing market recovery."

2.   It defies logic that proposals to increase the cash needed by home buyers can do anything but disrupt the nation's housing market recovery by reducing the pool of qualified home buyers with money to close.  Higher closing cost will = fewer buyers.   

3.  It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to understand that reducing seller concessions from up to 6% to up to $3%, will reduce the buying pool.  For every $100,000 in purchase price, the buyer's cash needs for closing may, depending on the area, increase by 1%.  Further, HUD/FHA is, I believe, infringing on the home seller's right to use their assets as they please.  How the seller uses their equity is, IMO, none of the government's business.  If a buyer requests more than a seller is willing to pay, the real estate industry has a simple process, accept, counter or reject.  The appraisal process is the logical check on inflated value to fund closing cost assistance. 

4.  Lender enforcement.  I am interested in lender comments about proposals for lender enforcement.

Mr. Donovan writes:  "by continuing to provide affordable, responsible mortgage products, FHA will support the housing market's recovery.  Importantly, FHA will remain the largest source of home purchase financing for underserved communities."

The new higher cash requirements will simply drive prospective home buyers out of the market.  Or, make them further reliant on community/county/state programs funded by HUD/FHA designed to provide tax money to further grow government or funnel tax money to politically connected groups.

Courtesy, Lenn Harley, Broker, Homefinders.com, 800-711-7988.

            Home for Sale           

"Honey, can't we at least look at homes for sale, our apartment is just to small and expensive".

"Why Dear??  Our lender said the new FHA rules mean we need several $Thousand more to buy".

Posted by


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Want to learn more about Loudoun County, VA? Join Loudoun County, VA on Facebook!

Comments(131)

Frank Kliewer
Woodinville, WA

Government must wake up to the fact that IT is the problem. Making home buying more difficult is absolutely compounding the difficulties we are all in right now.

Feb 01, 2010 02:42 AM
Nancy Flanagan
Wainwright Real Estate---Virginia Beach, Va - Virginia Beach, VA

Lenn....Love reading your blog! I admire your moxy! Thankyou for blogging about these upcoming FHA changes.

I recently went to a luncheon with the CEO of a local mortgage lender here in Va Beach and asked him what specifically would be outlined on the GFE and he replied by saying all costs related to the buyers loan and associated with the HUD 1 would be fully disclosed on the GFE. 

I didn't say anything further to the gentleman at the luncheon but shouldn't that have been the true intention of the Good Faith Estimate anyway?  Will these new "FHA changes" change how info like the buyers interest rate and payment are disclosed? I appreciate all opinions on this.

~Nancy

Feb 01, 2010 01:37 PM
Carol Culkin
Diamond Partners Inc - Overland Park, KS
Overland Park Residential Real Estate

Lenn - I just don't understand what they are hoping to accomplish.  Two steps forward, one step back.

Feb 01, 2010 02:29 PM
Lyn Sims
Schaumburg, IL
Real Estate Broker Retired

It's all about the banks security, we've had it the other way and look what happened!

Feb 02, 2010 06:38 AM
Lenn Harley
Lenn Harley, Homefinders.com, MD & VA Homes and Real Estate - Leesburg, VA
Real Estate Broker - Virginia & Maryland

Lyn.  I don't see where this change in the MIP has any relevance to banks security.  The MIP insures the loans.  All they had to do was adjust the MIP and replenish the fund.

Carol.  I wish I didn't understand, but I believe that I do.

Nancy.  The new GFE doesn't make any sense.  It added a page and eliminated the monthly payment.

Frank.  BINGO!

Stephanie.  Thanks.

Mark.  I see these changes as an attempt to reduce home buying opportunities for absolutely no reason.  We have an MIP problem.  Not a buyer problem.

Ben.  The tax credit and proliferation of "programs" has brought out a lot of wood be buyers that are not going to meet the guidelines.  Without the "programs" you wouldn't even be hearing from the.

 

Feb 02, 2010 07:34 AM
Laurie Mindnich
Centennial, CO

Not only should FHA leave things as they are, but they (along with VA) should re-institute the non-qualifying assumption. Talk about properties moving with investors when times get tough...

I waited until no one would see my comment, Lenn, because I REALLY BELIEVE that the nq assumptions somehow, don't know how, were far more beneficial (perhaps due to the required by seller cash, take over payment requirment) better than what lenders provided in recent years- get rid of it QUICK if the market tanks. As it is now, no getting a loan without hoops- no salvation from those with a nice take over payment $, but iffy credit.

Feb 02, 2010 10:24 AM
Lenn Harley
Lenn Harley, Homefinders.com, MD & VA Homes and Real Estate - Leesburg, VA
Real Estate Broker - Virginia & Maryland

Laurie.  I sold a lot of non-qualifying assumptions.  In the 1990 or so market, it was the only way families has of moving up.  We sold the first home, usually a condo, through assumption and used retirement fund money to buy their dream home. 

Feb 02, 2010 08:54 PM
David Monroe
Keller Williams Realty - Kirkland, WA
Short Sale Real Estate Agent

Thank you Matt (#89) for pointing out the home ownership is a privelege, not a right.  More specifically, borrowing money to buy a house is a privelege, not a right.
Jim & Linda (#80) saved me some typing.  Well said.
Steve & Tina's (#40) suggestion is definitely on the right track--A better alternative to the new FHA rules.

While I think there may have been better ways for HUD to implement a change that would filter out buyers who are more likely to default, there's nothing wrong with requiring a borrower to have more skin in the game.  Who do you think is more likely to walk away from their house if things get tough--someone who has $20K+ of their own hard earned savings tied up in their house, or someone with nothing into it?

 

Feb 04, 2010 10:31 AM
Karen Rittenhouse
www.JKKPropertyInvestors.com - Greensboro, NC
Real Estate Investor

HUD is infringing on the seller's rights to use their equity as they please. I wrote post about that very thing yesterday talking about work-for-equity requirement changes.  Now, we can't even give credits as we were in the past to our buyers unless they're "approved" by government guidelines.

This is a very scary time as more and more regulations take control.

Feb 05, 2010 10:41 PM
Chris Richter
Wintrust Mortgage - Chicago, IL

I don't get it.  How, preferably with numbers, does this impact the seller's right to use their equity?

Feb 05, 2010 11:06 PM
Lenn Harley
Lenn Harley, Homefinders.com, MD & VA Homes and Real Estate - Leesburg, VA
Real Estate Broker - Virginia & Maryland

David.  That solution simply punishes the prospective home buyer who would make their payments.  Why not put the burden for default on the mortgage system that approves their loan??  A simple piece of software would easily identify lenders and loan officers who are "stretching" qualifying limits, approving without documentation, etc. 

Karen.  I agree completely.  The home owner/seller's right to the use of their own equity is one of the things that infuriates me about this nonsense.

Chris.  Goodness.  If the seller can contribute 6% of their net proceeds to the buyer, now reduced to 3%, is that not interferring with the seller's right to use their own assets to sell their home????  They are willing and able to reduce their net proceeds by 3% of the purchase price.  The government should not interfere with that.

A buyer who has 3.5% to make their down payment is less worthy if the seller wants to pay their closing, but the buyer who uses tax supported "programs" to pay their down payment and closing is O.K.??????

When a buyer gets closing and down payment from the government, they have no skin in the game.

When a seller pays closing costs for a buyer, that's the free market at work. 

What's hard to understand?

Feb 06, 2010 12:50 AM
Chris Richter
Wintrust Mortgage - Chicago, IL

Sellers contribute from gross sales price, not net equity.   Otherwise, the amount of the seller's mortgage would influence the amount of the credit.

There is no "equity" inherent to the gross sales price.  A $100k offer and a $102k offer with $2k credit are exactly the same as relates to equity.   The IRS, an accountant or any financial planner would all agree to that.  It's financially wrong to say that these changes influence what a seller can do with their equity.

Regardless, I don't understand how it is a factor.  Without DPA programs where that credit was being run through an AmeriDream type company, this has zero impact on required down payment. 

The only impact is on cash-to-close and that is only when there are more than 3 points of closing costs in a transaction.  Maybe it is smaller price points or there are huge regional variances, but are more than 3 points normal in your area?

Feb 06, 2010 03:17 AM
Lenn Harley
Lenn Harley, Homefinders.com, MD & VA Homes and Real Estate - Leesburg, VA
Real Estate Broker - Virginia & Maryland

Good grief Chris.  If a seller is has no mortgage and contributes 6% to the buyer's closing, net proceeds are $90,000 before paying commissions and other charges.

If the seller pays 3% to the buyer's closing, his net proceeds are $97,000 before other charges. 

What's so complicated$  Playing symantics doesn't change the seller's bottom line.

All the seller cares about is what they walk away with.  If they choose to contribute $XXX to the buyer's closing cost, it's none of the government's business.

 

Feb 06, 2010 03:23 AM
Matt Robinson
Professional Investors Guild - Pensacola, FL
www.professionalinvestorsguild.com

Lenn, I posted about this last week, and it's certainly of major concern for homebuyers.  I certainly understand the need for HUD & the FHA to mitigate their risk, but in a time where we are throwing money at all kinds of ineffective programs, why don't we throw a little towards the FHA so it can leave well enough alone.  All of the gains we received from the 1st time buyer credit could be lost with these changes to FHA insured loans.  Housing will lead us out of the recession, and these changes will do nothing but delay the recovery further.

Feb 07, 2010 11:29 AM
Lenn Harley
Lenn Harley, Homefinders.com, MD & VA Homes and Real Estate - Leesburg, VA
Real Estate Broker - Virginia & Maryland

Matt.  It isn't necessary to throw a dime at the FHA insurance deficiency.  A simple adjustment of the MIP would have achieved the desired result, kept FHA reserves within the law and not contributed to the destruction of the real estate industry.

These Draconian measures are punative for existing and future would be home buyers. 

The goal cannot be solvency of the MIP fund.  It has to be the deliberate further destruction of the real estate industry.

Feb 07, 2010 10:02 PM
Kerry Jenkins
Prime Properties - Crestline, CA

THe thing is the politicians actually believe that this will work, without taking our opinions and experience into play.  We are doing this every day, all day.  We all know that lowering seller concessions isn't going to work.

Feb 18, 2010 05:29 AM
Lenn Harley
Lenn Harley, Homefinders.com, MD & VA Homes and Real Estate - Leesburg, VA
Real Estate Broker - Virginia & Maryland

Amy.  I am of the opinion that there is a deliberate, planned scheme to destroy the real estate industry as we know it. 

I also know that our economy will not recover until and unless the housing industry recovers and for that to happen, every home owner who can will need to be in the housing market. 

Reducing the buying pool isn't going to help.

 

Feb 18, 2010 07:03 AM
Joan Whitebook
BHG The Masiello Group - Nashua, NH
Consumer Focused Real Estate Services

Lenn -- I hope you sent this post to Secretary Donovan..  I think they need to rethink this whole thing.  With the tax credit ending and the expected rise in the interest rates, there will be fewer buyers than ever who can buy a home.

Feb 25, 2010 12:55 AM
Lenn Harley
Lenn Harley, Homefinders.com, MD & VA Homes and Real Estate - Leesburg, VA
Real Estate Broker - Virginia & Maryland

Joan. 

Donovan wouldn't know what I was talking about.

Feb 25, 2010 02:07 AM
Tony and Suzanne Marriott, Associate Brokers
Serving the Greater Phoenix and Scottsdale Metropolitan Area - Scottsdale, AZ
Coldwell Banker Realty

I really enjoy reading your archived posts Lenn Harley - hope you are doing well - might we see you back in the 'Rain some day?

Nov 20, 2017 04:01 AM