ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

Surprise on Refi Revamp: Key Regulator Agrees to Major Program Reforms

Federal Housing Finance Agency chief Edward DeMarco had blocked earlier efforts to help struggling homeowners, but now he’s signed onto a major change to encourage banks to refinance underwater mortgages.

.

Federal Housing Finance Agency chief Edward DeMarco speaks at the 2010 Mortgage Bankers Association Convention in Atlanta, Ga., on Oct. 25, 2010. (Chris Rank/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Last month, we noted that the Obama administration's push to allow more underwater homeowners to refinance faced a major barrier: the regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Housing Finance Agency chief Edward DeMarco had blocked earlier efforts to help underwater homeowners.

But this morning, the administration announced major changes to its refinancing program -- changes beyond what analysts were expecting.

One of the main reasons the program hadn't reached many homeowners is that banks have been reluctant to participate. The revamped program offers the banks a major incentive: If they grant a homeowner a new loan, they will no longer be on the hook to buy back the previous loan, even if it was not properly underwritten. That removes a large potential risk to the banks.

Launched in 2009, the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) was designed to allow homeowners with little or no equity in their homes to take advantage of low interest rates, so long as their loans were backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, which back more than half of all U.S. residential mortgages. Normally, such homeowners wouldn't qualify for refinancing. Back then, the administration said "up to 4 to 5 million" homeowners would be able to take part.

But the program has fallen far short. As of August, about 894,000 homeowners had refinanced through the program. And only about seven percent of those homeowners were significantly underwater.

This morning, the Federal Housing Finance Agency announced a slew of reforms to improve the program's reach, changes that it estimated could double the number of homeowners helped. The program will now be open to all homeowners with little or no equity, regardless of how underwater they are, provided they got their loan before June 2009. (Previously, the program had been limited to borrowers who were no more than 25 percent underwater on their loan).

Many of the specific reforms seek to make it cheaper for homeowners to refinance by reducing various costs and fees associated with refinancing. Some changes are technical and address problems that homeowners with mortgage insurance or a second mortgage have encountered in getting a refinance.

But on a conference call with reporters this morning, administration officials emphasized one reform in particular that's likely to be key: releasing lenders from so-called buy-back risk.

When Fannie or Freddie buy or guarantee a loan, they do it on the basis of a promise by the lender -- usually a bank -- that the loan meets certain standards. If it doesn't, the companies can force the lender to buy it back, which they've done for billions of dollars' worth of mortgages. So banks had recoiled from granting new loans to underwater homeowners because they feared doing so could trigger a repurchase of the original or new loan if the homeowner defaulted.

Resources for Homeowners:

But under the new plan, Fannie and Freddie will waive their right to force the lender to buy back the original loan.

Why did FHFA's DeMarco agree to these changes? As we noted last month, DeMarco has often stressed conserving Fannie and Freddie's assets so as to limit the level of taxpayer support. So far, taxpayers have pumped $169 billion into the companies to keep them afloat.

In a statement about the reforms today, the FHFA argued that it waived its right to force repurchase of the loans because nearly all the loans eligible for the new program seem to be good ones: "These are seasoned loans made to borrowers who have demonstrated a capacity and commitment to make good on their mortgage obligation through a period of severe economic stress and house price declines." Defects in underwriting tend to show up in the "first few years of the mortgage," according to the statement.

"We feel pretty confident that if there were defects on the original loan, it's probably shaken itself out at this stage," said Meg Burns, a senior FHFA official.

Burns did say that Fannie or Freddie could force the lender to buy back the new, refinanced loan if there were a defect in its underwriting. HARP has simple, streamlined underwriting standards that involve the bank verifying that the homeowner has regular income.

When asked this morning why DeMarco changed course, administration officials cited a number of factors, such as the fact that the barriers to the program's success have become more and more apparent. But on the conference call this morning National Economic Council director Gene Sperling also cited bipartisan support for these types of reforms and increasing political pressure on the FHFA to adopt them.

Earlier this month, 16 senators (12 Democrats and 4 Republicans) wrote a letter to DeMarco and the administration calling for changes to HARP. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who met with DeMarco this summer, has been pushing a bill to implement these reforms. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., is a co-sponsor. In the House, Democrats have also been pressuring DeMarco on the issue and called for a new director of the FHFA earlier this month after a recent meeting.

In this morning's conference call for reporters, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said that in exchange for relinquishing the right to force buy backs Fannie and Freddie will charge a "modest fee" for each refinance. News media reported what he said, but later FHFA officials told ProPublica that Donovan was incorrect and there would no such fee. HUD did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Another attempt to make it look like Obama and his sham administration really care about the people.  Too late!

I’m cautiously optimistic. I could save about $400 a month if the banks actually participate. I wonder though what the “standards that involve the bank verifying that the homeowner has regular income” will entail. I’m self employed and had bad years in 2009 & 2010. That is what, according to the bank, kept me from participating in the first program. They needed to average two years income in order to qualify me. It didn’t matter than things were slowly improving. We’ll see. Fingers crossed. What about all of the folks whose loans are not backed by Fannie and Freddie?

this will have minimal impact similar to its predecessor program.  As long as principals remain the same why would anyone in their right mind want to refi a $ amount that is well above the current market price of their house.
The banks are sharing in this equations as they are not being forced to take a haircut!.. as usual another program stacked against the consumer.

@mathen I can only speak for myself, but I would prefer not to move. So, yes, going from a high interest rate to a low one is helpful.

@Chris- Not to burst your bubble of optimistic hope, but I’ve read in several articles that the banks participation is voluntary. You are aware of how they implemented the first HARP, not to mention the HAMP. Good luck to you brother. In all sincerity, good luck.

No thanks to Obamas help, with the HARP program B of A would only help me with believe it or not just $76 and it only took 1 whole year of sending them the same paperwork over and over, no the prez is doing this sham for our votes again, just tell us you want our vote and the hell with our wants.

This is a sweat deal for Banks that have no financial investment in the loans at all.  Fannie and Freddie realize that every loan in the country that was securitzed has a broken chain of title and this is another way to help the undeserving, not-a-penny’s worth of risk in the loans banks get another bailout.  Don’t do it homeowners, stop paying your mortgage, it is the only way to stop the banks.

Oops, meant sweet deal.  In any case don’t do it homeowners you will be sorry and you will lose your right to sue.

You’re all paying DEBT COLLECTORS—-THERE ARE NO MORTGAGES—-FIGHT BACK—-YOU ARE BEING LIED TO—-WALL STREET MBS PONZI SCHEMES DESTROYED OUR COUNTRY—-TELL THEM TO PROVE YOUR PAYMENTS ARE GOING TO AN ACTUAL “MORTGAGE”—-WITH A LEDGER AND A BALANCE SHEET—-NOT JUST A SERVICER/DISTRESSED DEBT COLLECTOR!!!

THEY CAN’T PROVE ANYTHING BECAUSE AN ACTUAL MORTGAGE DOES NOT EXIST—-IT’S ALL UNSECURED MANUFACTURED FALSE DEFAULT DEBT!!!

FIGHT BACK!!!!  DON’T LET THEM STEAL—-YES, STEAL—-YOUR HOME!!!

My own observation, having completed a loan modification with CitiMortgage in Feb. this year, is that Citi was steering modifications out of HAMP into their own and less generous modifications.  After my 4th try in two years I was approved for a loan modification from 7.4% to 4.9% for which I was more than grateful.  However, when I received the final papers to sign it noted it was not a HAMP modification, that the rate was only for two years and then re-escalated back over 4 years.  I was left with taking it as is or starting all over.  So what choice do you have.  Something didn’t smell right, but the process is so fragmented that no one can ever be held accountable.

Parallel Foreclosure

Nov. 3, 2011, 3:04 p.m.

The scam is now exposed. All Debt Restructures first require that the debtor be declared in default. This needs to change.

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Foreclosure Crisis

Foreclosure Crisis: Banks and Government Fail Homeowners

Banks and the government have fallen short in helping homeowners in danger of foreclosure.

The Story So Far

Systemic failures at the country’s banks and mortgage servicers have exacerbated the most severe foreclosure crisis since the Great Depression, and government efforts to limit the damage have fallen short. ProPublica created an unrivaled database of homeowners who have faced foreclosure, opened a Facebook page to encourage homeowners to share their stories, wrote profiles of some of them, and incorporated their experiences into our reporting. We also provided a comprehensive rundown of the numbers behind the crisis.

More »

Get Updates

Stay on top of what we’re working on by subscribing to our email digest.

optional