Some guy wins the Nobel prize for microfinance lending in Indonesia. What he described sounded just like the villified subprime lending in the U.S. Is there a difference between the two? One sounds humanitarian, the other rapacious, but the rates & products sounded exactly the same to me.
Posts Tagged ‘Subprime’
Does anyone know of a subprime lending for home mortgage score a little less than 600?
March 19th, 2011Credit issues due to broken neck in 2000. Stable now and have good income but trouble finding lending? Any help welcome.
Management of subprime lending by Banks
March 13th, 2011How do the losses for Citi due to subprime lending compare to some of the other industry giants; Goldman Sachs
January 31st, 2011How do the losses for Citi due to subprime lending compare to some of the other industry giants; Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and even Bear Sterns? Do Citi more consumer based offerings diversify them enough to compete with these banks?
Subprime Mortgage Lending – Pieces of the Puzzle
December 15th, 2010Subprime Mortgage Lending – What?s Wrong With It?
October 2nd, 2010or the past couple of years, it seems that every time you open a newspaper or turn on the television, you come up against the subject of subprime lending. Everyone seems to have something negative to say about it. You’d think it was the root of all evil!
It’s true that subprime lending has many things about it that are not especially positive. For example, for whom was subprime lending designed? For the subprime, not-quite-good-enough borrower, of course. Often, the person who finds it necessary to borrow at subprime is the person whose credit rating is a bit tarnished, and therefore someone who is considered more likely to default on the loan. Subprime lenders generally specialize in this area. They tend to charge more, both in fees and in interest rates, to make up for the increase in risk of default.
How did we allow this to happen? It has a lot to do with greed. Borrowers were greedy, and wanted a way to buy houses they really could not afford. Subprime lenders and mortgage brokers were greedy, and offered mortgages to people they knew shouldn’t be borrowing money at all. Add easy-to-access money and low interest rates into the mix, and it’s a disaster waiting to happen.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, you could borrow on the equity in your home – an amount equivalent to 125% of its value. While interest rates were low, many people began refinancing their homes, or taking out lines of credit and loans on their home equity. At the same time, American real estate markets were growing faster than ever before. These individuals figured it would be easy to sell their homes, or refinance again, if they wanted to. Such extravagant growth led to a sudden, but inevitable, decline in the housing market.
At this point, these people are in a real bind. They are unable to sell their houses: the value is nowhere near the amount of the mortgages they hold. They are in a position of negative equity: that is, the mortgage is more than the value of the house, and their savings are insufficient to fill the gap. They may have an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) that escalates regularly. That’s a whole lot of trouble for a whole lot of people! Foreclosures on homes are at a record high. These foreclosures will make the situation even worse, as houses are sold at auction for a fraction of their full market value.
There are several other kinds of subprime loans out there that may look tempting to a borrower who has no money for a deposit. An 80/20 mortgage is one of these. This one is the epitome of greed; no borrower with an ounce of financial responsibility should even consider these loans. Eighty per cent of the asking price is borrowed through a conventional fixed-rate mortgage or an adjustable rate mortgage. Then you borrow the remaining 20% of the price as a loan on your home equity. The rate of the latter mortgage will be higher. The lender can decide to readjust some of these mortgages on a whim. Negative amortization mortgages and interest-only mortgages are also motivated by greed. Both types benefit only the lender, not the borrower; as time goes by, the loan just gets bigger. Although monthly payments are not too large during the five-year or ten-year term of the loan, none of the principal has been repaid, and there is an enormous “balloon payment” awaiting the borrower when the term ends.
These are a few of the things that are wrong with subprime lending. Keep an eye out for mortgage plans that actually are of greatest benefit to the lender!
Subprime Lending: Trojan Horse Of The Home Loan Lending Industry
August 29th, 2010Home loan lending used to be relatively simple. Lenders were so hungry for business they readily accepted no-down mortgages, interest-only loans, and E-Z refinancing for borrowers with bruised credit. Recently, however, a wave of bad loans wiped out small independent mortgage brokers, devastated bad-credit lenders, and prompted the industry itself to tighten lending practices.
Today, it has become harder than ever for cash-strapped would-be homeowners to obtain home loan lending.
Who Is To Blame?
Experts blame subprime lenders for the recent home loan lending debacle. In the past, people with poor credit scores or large debts and modest incomes would not have been granted a loan. In recent years, however, a new breed of mortgage brokers – called subprime lenders – burst onto the market. Instead of denying loans to people with poor credit history, they let these people take out mortgages and then charge them higher interest rates to offset the high risks associated with the loans.
Such action on the subprime home loan lending front enabled a huge part of the population to own houses. Subprime home loan lending morphed dramatically from a start-up business into a $600-billion-a-year enterprise. The problem with high risks, however, is that they either pay off magnificently or go bust, and this is just what happened. The subprime market fell, and it was not long before homeowners who financed their purchase with subprime loans found themselves with foreclosure notices in their hands.
Stringent Loan Standards
When applying for home loan lending, expect more than run-of-the-mill scrutiny. The industry is cracking down on the so-called “liar loans.” These are mortgages obtained without verification of the buyer’s declared income, under a “stated income loan” or “no documentation loan.”
Additionally, the home loan lending industry has become more conservative in attaching value to houses. Before, bankers generously appraised homes for so much more than they’re worth. Today, the appraisal is based not on the recent market value of similar homes but on worst-case scenario market pricing. Worst-case scenario value is not the amount a house can be sold for, but the amount it will fetch once it goes into foreclosure.
The Silver Lining
That home loan lending implements stricter regulations is sure to dismay everyone, from borrowers to lenders . However, three good things can come out of this. First, inexperienced and even fly-by-night mortgage brokers will be driven out of business, leaving the home loan lending market to legitimate lenders. Second, with lenders no longer eager to grant high-risk loans, there will be more money and better rates for borrowers with sufficient downpayment and good credit. Finally, fewer high-risk loans that never should have been granted in the first place will be floated into the market. This will result in fewer homeowners being dismayed and losing their homes due to inability to meet payments.
Every story has a moral, and this article contains only one. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. So when buying a house, do not be tempted to take shortcuts. Go the longer but perfectly legitimate and business-sound home loan lending route.
Subprime Mortgage Lending: What?s it All About?
August 15th, 2010There’s a lot of talk in the media these days about subprime lending. Do you really know what it is? Essentially, subprime lending means loaning money at a rate of interest that is usually much higher than the “prime” rate. In the United States, the most frequently used prime rate is the one established by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). This is the interest rate on corporate loans currently posted by at least 23 of the 30 largest American banks. The prime rate doesn’t change regularly, only when three-quarters of the banks decide they need to change it!
And how might subprime lending affect you? If you have a generally poor credit rating (under 620 on the FICO scale), you are considered a greater credit risk to a lender. You’re perceived as more likely than others to default on your loan. To compensate them for taking a greater degree of risk with their money, subprime lenders charge a significantly higher rate of interest. If you are classified as a subprime borrower, bear in mind that when you need to borrow money, your best bet is not a regular bank, but an organization specializing in subprime lending.
The problem that faces the American public right now is that several years ago people began borrowing more than they could afford to repay. The real estate market appeared solid a few years back; home values were steadily rising. As much as 125% of the value of a home was available for borrowing to the owner. People who opted for subprime mortgage loans expected that the value of their homes would keep rising, and within the next 3-5 years they could refinance once again. Some other types of mortgages that suddenly became popular were negative amortization mortgages, 80/20 mortgages, and interest-only mortgages. These left many homeowners owing more on their mortgage loans than their properties were worth, as the housing market began its sharp decline. These people thus found themselves with “negative equity” in their homes.
Adding to the present subprime lending problem is the fact that many of these homeowners hold adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), which are continually readjusting – and always upward. Although most of these ARMs have a cap of some sort, preventing them from limitless increases, they generally have long-term rates. Many people have found that their mortgage payments have nearly doubled over time, with the continual readjustment of their rates. Simultaneously, we are experiencing record costs for gas and oil, and greatly elevated food prices, making it more and more difficult for many families to make monthly mortgage payments. Once a family is in arrears by three months on mortgage payments, they can expect foreclosure proceedings to be inaugurated by the bank that holds their mortgage. The problem is further augmented as neighborhood real estate values drop, due to the foreclosure sales of some homes.
After reading this description about the subprime lending trouble, assess your own situation. If you believe you may be in trouble, you should discuss the matter with your lender. Sometimes lenders are willing to offer various forms of relief to overextended borrowers, rather than have the bank foreclose on the mortgage. If, on the other hand, your mortgage is up to date and your payments are being made in a timely fashion, don’t worry. Keep yourself informed, and keep focused on your budget. Most importantly, whatever your position, do not panic!
Subprime Mortgage Lending – 2007 Statement
August 2nd, 2010The United States Treasury Department, along with several other federal financial regulatory agencies, released a Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending in June 2007. This sizeable document (it is 31 pages long) is aimed at people involved in borrowing and lending for mortgages at subprime rates. Of particular concern to the authors are adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). The Statement provides guidelines that will ensure more appropriate practices regarding ARMs. The agencies are concerned that lenders persuade borrowers to take out ARM loans by giving them an extremely low rate of interest (called a “teaser rate”) for the first few months. Unfortunately, this rate adjusts upward very soon to a formula based on and exceeding the prime rate. Now the loan is no longer within the means of the person who is classified as a subprime borrower, and it will cause extreme financial hardship. Other issues covered by the Statement are below.
Adequate documentation of income for subprime borrowers is not always required by lenders. This practice is of concern to the agencies because it leads to so-called “liar loans.” A borrower can put whatever inflated number he chooses on the application form, knowing there will be no effort to verify that this is truly the amount of his income. These loans greatly increase the chance that the borrower will default, which is a problem for the lender as well.
The agencies also address the problem of the introductory rate period. Most ARM loans include significant penalties for early prepayment, and the penalties extend well past the initial period. In addition, borrowers are not always given full information about additional monthly payments that will be required, such as taxes and homeowners insurance. This failure to disclose such information leaves the borrower at an enormous disadvantage, and will no longer be permitted.
It is interesting and unusual that, three months before releasing the Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending, the agencies involved in creating it requested comment from the public, from members of Congress, and from financial institutions that engaged in mortgage lending. From the industry came the comment, over and over, that they are opposed to disclosing to borrowers all the details of ARM fees and rates. They think that would result in “overloading the consumer with information”! This is of great concern to the agencies, and to the author of this article as well. We don’t think the average consumer requires the protection of subprime lending agencies from information overload. Consumers can handle information just fine! Failure to disclose costs and fees for which the borrower will be responsible is nothing short of deception.
Virtually all comments reflected uneasiness that there was no adequate definition of the term “subprime” within the Statement. When the final revision appeared in June, readers were requested to refer back to the definition of a subprime borrower contained in the earlier guidelines document Expanded Guidance for Subprime Lending (2001). All the pertinent characteristic are listed there, and can be used in determining whether a particular borrower should be classified as subprime.
The Statement also requires that every borrower be given a full repayment schedule, including information on amortization, and an estimate of the amount of insurance and taxes that will be applicable. This must be done whether or not the extra costs are escrowed and are included in the loan. The extra charges must be part of a mandatory and accurate calculation of the borrower’s debt ratio.
The Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending is a valuable effort to remedy some of the ailments of the current housing market, and insure that subprime borrowers as well as subprime lenders are not left with a financial disaster on their hands because of imperfect communication between them.
Subprime Mortgage Lending – Regulators Tighten Rules
July 26th, 2010The most recent regulatory report on subprime lending is the Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending (June 2007). This 31-page document was released by the Federal Reserve and other federal financial regulatory agencies in response to the current out-of-control subprime lending market. It describes in detail the requirements made of subprime lenders for the financial protection of both the borrower and the lender.
The first issue of concern is improved communication to subprime borrowers about the real, hidden cost of their adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loans. This kind of loan is often suggested to subprime borrowers because the introductory rate of interest is so low – so low, in fact, that it’s often called a “teaser rate”. Before the appearance of the government Statement, ARM loans assessed huge penalty fees for refinancing the loan or prepaying it before the term expires. Often, the penalties continued for most of the duration of the loan.
Regulators tighten rules for subprime lending in the Statement by providing guidelines requiring subprime lenders to offer full disclosure of fees and rates associated with an ARM. Moreover, they state that “liar loans,” loans that ignore a borrower’s capability of repaying the loan and require no documentation of earnings, must be curtailed. These liar loans are also called “stated income loans,” “low-doc loans,” and “no-doc loans.” A borrower simply states the amount of his income, without being required to produce a W2 form or pay stubs to substantiate his statement. Based on what he has claimed, he qualifies for a loan he cannot really afford. It’s clear that this practice is the cause of at least part of the subprime market problem!
The Statement is specific about predatory and deceptive lending practices – what they are, and why they must not be used. Such predatory practices often victimize those who may not really understand what they are being asked to sign, members of particularly vulnerable groups: the elderly, minorities, and first-time home buyers. It is also very clear about the fact that not all subprime lenders can be considered predatory.
If you are a subprime buyer, what do these new regulations mean to you? For one thing, you can’t be entrapped in an ARM with an upcoming reset date: 60 days notice is now required. If you decide to refinance early in the loan, or if for some reason you become able to repay it early, no astronomical prepayment fees will be assessed. Lenders must now require proper documentation to verify income. This is a positive improvement, because a subprime borrower should never borrow more than he will really be able to repay. Many subprime financial institutions have gone under in recent years, simply because they ignored the critical need to determine accurately each home buyer’s capability to meet financial obligations. The regulations force subprime lenders to deal more ethically with subprime borrowers. They must show due diligence with their determination of these borrowers’ future solvency. Foreclosures ruin local real estate markets, as well as borrowers and lenders.
Earlier guidelines issued by the regulatory agencies have been tightened by the Statement. Some have been incorporated into its text; others, like the 2001 Expanded Guidance, are referenced. The intention of the federal agencies in tightening the rules for subprime lending is to protect subprime borrowers from lenders of questionable integrity, and to protect lenders from ruining themselves because of laxity in their underwriting practices. This document is bound to have a positive effect on the current downward-spiraling real estate market.
