Bush mortgage plan freezes subprime rates for 5 years

By William Neikirk and Mary Umberger Tribune staff reporter
12:56 AM CST, December 6, 2007
Article tools
E-mail

Share
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Fark
Google
Newsvine
Reddit
Yahoo
startChangeSocialBookmarkingBG();
Print
Single page view
Reprints
Post Comment
Text size:

WASHINGTON - Faced with a wave of costly home foreclosures, the Bush administration and financial institutions on Wednesday agreed to a five-year freeze on interest rates for certain Americans who face default on their subprime mortgages.The unprecedented accord, to be announced Thursday by President Bush, is aimed at curtailing the economic damage from the bursting of the housing boom during which many marginally qualified borrowers used easy credit to buy homes and now can't afford the mortgage payments.The freeze would enable eligible mortgage holders to pay only their initial, lower "teaser" interest rate for the next five years so that they will not face sharply higher payments when their interest rate is "reset" to a higher rate. More than a million such loans are scheduled to be reset over the next year.
Related links
Homeownership declined to all-time lows during housing boom
Fannie Warns Investors on 2008 Losses
With more than an estimated $1 trillion worth of subprime loans outstanding, the U.S. housing industry is facing a crush of defaults in 2008. The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that 1 in 5 subprime mortgages made in 2005 and 2006 will end in foreclosure.But not every homeowner with a subprime mortgage would qualify, only those who are current with their teaser-rate payments and can't afford a higher interest rate.Those who have been delinquent on their current loans would not be eligible for the freeze, according to a source briefed on the plan. These loans would be worked out with lenders on a "case-by-case" basis, but many would likely end up in default. Another source said that borrowers with a 60-day loan delinquency would not be eligible for the freeze.The freeze would apply to adjustable-rate mortgages originated between Jan. 1, 2005, and July 31, 2007, which would reset between Jan. 1, 2008, and July 31, 2010. The program is designed to help those with two-year or three-year low teaser rates on their mortgages.It would only affect borrowers living in their homes, not those who purchased housing for investment purposes. According to the source briefed on the plan, those who have a 3 percent equity stake or more in their property also would not be eligible for the freeze.Under the reasoning of federal officials, those who currently have financial wherewithal to make their payments but would struggle to pay a higher reset rate could qualify for refinancing.The Bush administration is expected to seek authority to enable state and local governments to use tax-exempt bonds to fund these refinancings, an idea floated by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in a speech on Monday.The voluntary agreement caps a lengthy negotiation between the government and key players in housing finance, including lenders, loan-servicing companies, investors and trade associations. The government wanted investors, chiefly bondholders, to go along with the plan on the grounds that some return on their investment is better than none.Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, singled out investors as the biggest problem."The loan freeze is a good first step, but the $64,000 question remains: Will investors who might balk at going along with this be able to maintain legal roadblocks and prevent the plan from going into effect?" Schumer asked.Lyle Gramley, a former Federal Reserve member and formerly chief economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association, said financial institutions who collect loan payments would need "legal assurance that bondholders are not going to sue them."According to one source, the Bush administration will give its blessing to a bill by Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) that would provide such protection.Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, helped write a letter to those involved in the negotiations urging that "to the maximum extent possible, we want to rely on market-based solutions to this [housing] problem and limit the use of government funding to address this need."The administration carefully sought to avoid the charge that it was bailing out the industry, since no government money would be involved. But the key role played by Paulson gave the plan a strong government flavor.Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), both presidential contenders, have proposed similar plans to deal with the housing crisis.Jim Shilling, a finance professor at DePaul University, questioned the value of the plan, saying studies show that a high percentage of those having trouble making mortgage payments ultimately default.Geoff Smith, research director of the Woodstock Institute in Chicago, which has studied the effects of foreclosure in the region, said, "We've been very supportive of this idea in general -- the idea of some sort of systematic loan modification. Working with borrowers on a case-by-case basis is not efficient."Characterizing the program as "a start," he estimated that it could affect 10 percent of subprime adjustable-rate borrowers who are facing reset troubles."For us, that 10 percent seems low, and we would hope that [the program] would cover a larger number of people," Smith said. "But I think it's an appropriate kind of program to help borrowers who are not yet in foreclosure. It makes a lot of sense to us."But Dan Lindsey, supervisory attorney for the Home Ownership Preservation Project of the Legal Assistance Foundation of Greater Chicago, said he was skeptical of the voluntary nature of the program because his group has encountered resistance from lenders in working out terms to stave off foreclosure for individual borrowers."It's hard to express the frustration we experience, the incredible gulf between what we hear high-level people say at a meeting about what their companies are able to do [to help borrowers in trouble] and, when they have a live human being in this situation, they become unwilling," Lindsey said."There is a chasm between the policies that are set at the top and what homeowners actually experience on the front lines," he said. "If it's voluntary, I have not much hope. I think it will help some people at the margins, but I think it needs to be mandatory."Paul Leuken, president of the Illinois Association of Mortgage Professionals, based in Lombard, said he expected the plan to be helpful."Anything—whether it's government or investors or banks—anything they can do to try to help the consumer is a good thing," Leuken said."Some people feel, well, they made their bed and they can sleep in it, but what people don't realize is that if the average home buyer who has good credit is going to fail, it's going to hurt everybody," he said. "We need to figure out a solution, not just let them sink or swim."

30% of Mass. Agents Expect to Lose Auto Business under New Managed Competition

Massacusetts insurance agents dealing with the switch to managed competition are expecting a lot of business movement as a result of the competitive system, with almost one-third (30.7%) predicting they will lose accounts as a result.
Advertisement
A sizable 78.1% said they disagree with a statement that managed competition will have a minimal effect in the marketplace because most consumers will stay with their current agencies and insurers.
The results are from an online survey by Insurance Journal completed by 76 Massachusetts agents.
Agents were asked about how they think the managed care system slated for next April might affect their business. While 42.7% are uncertain about what will happen, 30.7% expect to lose accounts, 18.7% expect to gain business and 8% see things staying the same.
A good number (39.7%) also think the change could help their homeowners insurance business.
Most agents anticipate they will confront added competition with 77.6% predicting additional agency carriers entering the market and 81.3% believing additional direct writer or captive carriers will enter the fray.
As for the effect on auto commissions, 38.7% expect commissions to go down under managed competition, the same percentage that is uncertain about what will happen to commissions. A minority (10.7%) see commissions increasing or not changing (12%).
While there is some uncertainty about commissions, agents are rather convinced (78.7%) that managed care competition will mean higher expenses for them.
A slight majority (54%) anticipates obtaining a new agency appointment as a result of competition. Of the 76 agencies completing the survey, 61.6% currently have two to five carriers for private passenger auto, 12.3% have six to 10 and 21.6% have one.
Even though a majority (56%) supports the move to a managed competition system, there is some anxiety over the time frame and technology needed to make the transition. A majority (52.7%) said more time should be given for the transition.
"For such a significant change in our market place, implementation time lines are very short to properly assess the technology issues and detail to competently move to a managed competition system in Mass. Bottom line, there will be confusion in the distribution system during 2008 an in turn causing our clients unnecessary concern and upset. In addition, without a common insurance carrier delivery system, the added expense in enormous," offered one agent.
"I would feel much better if I knew that the technology was in place to do our rating on April 1. Also, it would be nice to know that the companies are ready and at this point it doesn't seem like they are," added another.
But agents are actively working to adapt to the coming change. To prepare, nearly two-thirds (75.3%) say they are reviewing their marketing plans and preparing for increased expenses. About half (50.7%) are upgrading their web sites, seeking additional company appointments (50.7%) and boosting their advertising (54.8%).
More than half (52.8%) plan to provide consumers with competitive quotes both online and over the phone.
In terms of location, 68.9% of the agencies said they are suburban, 20.3% urban and 10.8% rural. About one-third (33.8%) have six to 10 employees, 27% have one to five, 24.3% have 11-25 employees, 9.5% have 26 to 50 and 5.4% more than 50.
For a complete report on the results from the agents' survey, see the Dec. 3 issue of Insurance Journal magazine.