Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress

By
Friday, May 08, 2009 at 9:34 am
Flickr: respres

Flickr: respres

A housing program blamed in part for high default rates on government-backed loans, derided as a “scam” by the Internal Revenue Service and targeted for years for elimination by the agency that ran it looked like it finally had reached its end this fall, after Congress finally banned it. But now, in a sign that some lessons of the housing crisis have yet to be learned, a movement is afoot to bring it back.

The program is called seller-funded down payment assistance. When U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan told Congress last month that dramatic growth in seller-funded down payment assistance programs in recent years had added to high default rates on Federal Housing Administration-backed loans, it might have seemed like the final blow. The programs, initially intended to help low and moderate income people buy homes, had long been under fire, the subject of complaints from HUD, the General Accounting Office, and the IRS. And with FHA default rates threatening to trigger yet another taxpayer bailout, policymakers have plenty of motivation to steer clear of any lending approaches deemed risky or problematic.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

But supporters of seller-funded down payment assistance aren’t giving up. Despite Donovan’s stance, they’re still supporting a bill to revive the program – a measure now before the House Financial Services Committee. Sponsored by Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), the bill has 17 co-sponsors, among them powerful lawmakers such as Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). Backers include builders and realtor groups, the National Association of Mortgage Bankers, and the Congressional Black Caucus. Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., told the Wall Street Journal last year he wants to reform the program, not kill it. And supporters are continuing to pressure HUD to preserve it.

“We do agree there were problems with the previous program,” said David Ledford, senior vice president for housing policy at the National Association of Home Builders. “But we still support the legislation. HUD was somewhat at fault for not properly monitoring it. It can be done more carefully, and with tighter controls. But HUD is just throwing up its hands and saying things turned out badly and we shouldn’t do it at all.”

But Ledford’s views aren’t widely shared by many in the mortgage industry, and they simply don’t reflect reality, according to the program’s numerous critics. FHA’s seller-funded down payment assistance should have ended years ago, given ample evidence of its problems, said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a Bethesda, Md. company that covers the lending industry. The GAO concluded that homes purchased using the programs were appraised at and sold for 2 to 3 percent more than comparable homes bought without the assistance. The IRS in 2006 revoked the tax-exempt charitable status of providers of seller-funded down payment assistance – and called the programs “scams.” HUD’s Inspector General and the FHA itself have complained the programs raise home ownership costs and lead to more foreclosures, saying homeowners using the assistance were two to three times more likely to default on payments than other borrowers.

Both the FHA and HUD allow homebuyers to receive downpayment money from third parties, such as relatives, employers, government agencies and independent nonprofits. But unlike much of the rest of the mortgage industry, the FHA also allowed homeowners to get downpayment help from nonprofits or charities funded in part by sellers. And that’s where the problems came in.

In a speech last summer, former FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery called seller-funded down payment assistance programs “circular financing schemes.” Property sellers often raised the sales price of a home to cover the cost of downpayment “gift,” the GAO noted. The charity or nonprofit that supplied the down payment money was reimbursed by the seller for it, along with service costs and fees, once the deal closed. Borrowers unwittingly paid for it all. Critics contended some charities existed solely to funnel the downpayment money from the seller to the buyer. The program was especially popular with builders.

The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter, an influential financial blog leading a blogosphere campaign against reinstating the downpayment program, explained that buyers qualified for FHA loans using grant letters from the charities as proof of downpayment. As far as the FHA was concerned, the grant was a charitable donation that came from an independent nonprofit, and not the seller.

Suckers!…Of course the losers in this scheme are the FHA (the taxpayer –who actually has to insure these loans), and ultimately the borrower — who is probably already underwater and overextended.

After buyer lawsuits, rising defaults, and other controversies, Congress finally ended the practice as part of the mortgage rescue package approved last summer, and the programs were banned as of Oct. 1. The bill to revive them is a long shot to eventually become law, given the past controversies. But the fact that a campaign even exists means one of the biggest lessons of the financial meltdown – that buying homes with no money down isn’t exactly a great idea – seems to be lost, at least on some.

“It’s a program that HUD doesn’t really want, the mortgage industry doesn’t really want and most community groups don’t really want,” Cecala said. “It’s got such a lousy track record. That anyone would want to resurrect it at all is astonishing.”

Added Cecala: “The fact that Congress would even consider this… are these guys serious? Did they do any research on this at all? It should have a skull and crossbones on it.”

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, who warned before the financial crisis of a growing housing bubble, expressed similar sentiments. “I’d say it’s a bad idea that won’t go away,” Baker said. “I think it’s basically crazy. Arguably one of the lessons we were supposed to have learned is that we shouldn’t have been pushing homeownership, everywhere and always.”

“It’s a long shot to become law, but I wouldn’t rule it out. You have some big groups pushing it on the other side.”

Seller-funded down payment programs drew little attention earlier in the decade, when the FHA had a much smaller share of the mortgage market, and when helping low-income borrowers get into homes was an aggressive public policy goal, noted Patricia McCoy, a University of Connecticut law school professor who specializes in banking and securities regulation.

But use of the programs increased sharply, after the subprime meltdown led to an expansion of FHA-backed lending. And last month, HUD Secretary Donovan told Congress that while loans with seller-funded down payment assistance represented only 12 percent of the FHA portfolio at the start of 2008, they accounted for 30 percent of all foreclosures completed that year. He said the end of the program “should substantially reduce FHA losses on new originations in the years ahead.”

Some large down payment assistance providers, however, are countering with a campaign that contends the ban is hurting working class Americans, who want to buy homes but can’t come up with steeper downpayments because of tightened lending standards. A website sponsored by the bill’s supporters refers to the measure as “DPA Reform” and includes a running tally of the number of Americans denied access to homeownership since the programs officially ended.

Ann Ashburn, president of AmeriDream, a Gaithersburg, Md. provider, said in a statement last fall that “eliminating charitable down payment assistance will slam the door on over 100,000 teachers, firefighters, working families and others who rely on these programs annually to become homeowners.”

AmeriDream spokesman Henry Fawell said the company is “cautiously optimistic” about prospects for reviving the program. Helping buyers with downpayments would benefit the economy as a whole and could jump start the housing market, he said. Vacant homes are scarring neighborhoods with blight, but many borrowers can’t come up with downpayments on their own to buy them, he said.

Fawell acknowledge problems with the programs in the past, but said the new bill addresses them by including requirements for higher credit scores, fees for riskier borrowers, and penalties for inflated appraisals. “We have support on both sides of the aisle,” Fawell said.

The bill’s co-sponsors include one Republican, Rep. Gary Miller of California, a former builder.

With the Obama administration busy handling banks stress tests, bailouts and financial regulatory reform, the bill to reinstate seller-funded down payment assistance isn’t facing much active lobbying opposition. And down payment providers and housing lobbyists have a long history of successfully fighting off attempts to end the programs. HUD began trying to do so back in 1999 and again in 2007, when it was successfully sued by AmeriDream and by the Nehemiah Corp. of America, another large provider. Barely 24 hours after Congress approved the ban last summer, Rep. Green introduced a measure to bring it back.

One possibility is that supporters could slip in reinstatement of the program into a larger housing bill. But Cecala, of Inside Mortgage Finance, thinks it’s still a hard sell. Putting people in homes with no money down is a widely discredited idea, he said. Although civil rights groups still support the programs, the thinking has changed regarding the best approach to help minority borrowers.

“The Community Reinvestment Act and other programs are a much more sustainable way to get people into homes as opposed to subprime and no-downpayment FHA loans,” Cecala said. “But they also are a lot more work for both the lenders and borrowers.”

In the meantime, Ledford, of the builders’ association, said his group is working with HUD to see if first-time homebuyers can apply some of the new $8,000 tax credit toward downpayments. HUD is trying to make sure some of the same circular financing problems that plagued the seller-funded down payment assistance program wouldn’t affect that proposal, he said.

It seems that when it comes to seller-funded down payment assistance, the fight never really ends.


Correction: The Mortgage Bankers Association does not support seller-funded downpayments, as was incorrectly reported in the original version of this story . The National Association of Mortgage Bankers does support seller-funded downpayments. We regret the error.

Comments

21 Comments

Mortgage Credit - Fannie Mae asks Treasury for aid - BBC News « Mortgage Credit Blog
Pingback posted May 8, 2009 @ 10:04 am

[...] Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress – The Washington Independent.comA housing program blamed in part for high default rates on government-backed loans, derided as a “scam” by the Internal Revenue Service and targeted for years for elimination by the agency that ran it looked like it finally had reached its end [...]


The Washington Independent » Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in …
Pingback posted May 8, 2009 @ 12:34 pm

[...] here to read the rest: The Washington Independent » Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in … Posted in [...]


The Washington Independent » Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in … | Money Blog : 10 Dollars : Money Articles.
Pingback posted May 8, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

[...] View original post here: The Washington Independent » Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in … [...]


Mortgage online » Blog Archive » The Washington Independent » Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in …
Pingback posted May 8, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

[...] Read more:  The Washington Independent » Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in … [...]


Mortgage Bad Credit - Stress tests do little to fix banks’ asset problem - PR Inside
Pingback posted May 8, 2009 @ 10:41 pm

[...] Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress – The Washington Independent.comA housing program blamed in part for high default rates on government-backed loans, derided as a “scam” by the Internal Revenue Service and targeted for years for elimination by the agency that ran it looked like it finally had reached its end [...]


Congress Links :: Elites TV
Pingback posted May 9, 2009 @ 2:57 am

[...] a movement in Congress to bring back seller-funded down payment mortgage assistance (H.R. [...]


Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress - The Washington Independent.com » Bad Credit Mortgage
Pingback posted May 9, 2009 @ 7:44 am

[...] Th­e pr­o­gr­ams, in­itially­ in­ten­ded to­ h­elp lo­w­ an­d mo­der­ate in­co­me peo­ple b­u­y­ h­o­mes, h­ad lo­n­g b­een­ u­n­der­ f­ir­e, th­e su­b­j­ect o­f­ co­mplain­ts f­r­o­m H­U­D, th­e Gen­er­al Acco­u­n­tin­g O­f­f­ice, an­d th­e IR­S. Th­e ch­ar­ity­ o­r­ n­o­n­pr­o­f­it th­at su­pplied th­e do­w­n­ pay­men­t mo­n­ey­ w­as r­eimb­u­r­sed b­y­ th­e seller­ f­o­r­ it, alo­n­g w­ith­ ser­vice co­sts an­d f­ees, o­n­ce th­e deal clo­sed. B­u­t th­e f­act th­at a campaign­ even­ exists mean­s o­n­e o­f­ th­e b­iggest lesso­n­s o­f­ th­e f­in­an­cial meltdo­w­n­ – th­at b­u­y­in­g h­o­mes w­ith­ n­o­ mo­n­ey­ do­w­n­ isn­’t exactly­ a gr­eat idea – seems to­ b­e lo­st, at least o­n­ so­me. Seller­-f­u­n­ded do­w­n­ pay­men­t pr­o­gr­ams dr­ew­ little atten­tio­n­ ear­lier­ in­ th­e decade, w­h­en­ th­e F­H­A h­ad a mu­ch­ smaller­ sh­ar­e o­f­ th­e mo­r­tgage mar­ket, an­d w­h­en­ h­elpin­g lo­w­-in­co­me b­o­r­r­o­w­er­s get in­to­ h­o­mes w­as an­ aggr­essive pu­b­lic po­licy­ go­al, n­o­ted Patr­icia McCo­y­, a U­n­iver­sity­ o­f­ Co­n­n­ecticu­t law­ sch­o­o­l pr­o­f­esso­r­ w­h­o­ specializes in­ b­an­kin­g an­d secu­r­ities r­egu­latio­n­. A w­eb­site spo­n­so­r­ed b­y­ th­e b­ill’s su­ppo­r­ter­s r­ef­er­s to­ th­e measu­r­e as “DPA R­ef­o­r­m” an­d in­clu­des a r­u­n­n­in­g tally­ o­f­ th­e n­u­mb­er­ o­f­ Amer­ican­s den­ied access to­ h­o­meo­w­n­er­sh­ip sin­ce th­e pr­o­gr­ams o­f­f­icially­ en­ded. Vie­w C­o­­mple­te­ U­pdate­ H­e­r­e­&#8… [...]


No More Bubbles
Comment posted May 9, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

It's obscene that congress is even entertaining these industries and their lobbying to bring back things that helped create a housing bubble and bust. We're all paying for the greed and fraud of real estate and finance industry shenannigans, and few of the crooks will ever pay the price. To even think of bringing back such irresponsible processes as seller funded down payment assistance flies in the face of common sense and decency. These companies love ignorant suckers as customers because those are the only people left who don't get it yet, that the housing/finance industries caused the economic meltdown. It speaks of the corruption in congress that they are allowing this, thanks to the industry being a major contributor to congressmen's campaign funds.


Repayment Mortgage - Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress - The Washington Independent.com « Repayment Mortgage
Pingback posted May 9, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

[...] Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress – The Washington Independent.comA housing program blamed in part for high default rates on government-backed loans, derided as a “scam” by the Internal Revenue Service and targeted for years for elimination by the agency that ran it looked like it finally had reached its end [...]


Topics about Foreclosures » Archive » Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress
Pingback posted May 9, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

[...] Sarah Byrnes added an interesting post on Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in CongressHere’s a small excerptFlickr: respres A housing program blamed in part for high default rates on government-backed loans, derided as a “scam” by the Internal Revenue Service and targeted for years for elimination by the agency that ran it looked like it finally had reached its end this fall, after Congress finally… [...]


Bad Credit Mortgage - Senate to pass bill helping those with bad credit keep homes(268) - Houston Chronicle « Bad Credit Mortgage
Pingback posted May 10, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

[...] Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress – The Washington Independent.comA housing program blamed in part for high default rates on government-backed loans, derided as a “scam” by the Internal Revenue Service and targeted for years for elimination by the agency that ran it looked like it finally had reached its end [...]


Bruce2003
Comment posted May 11, 2009 @ 5:25 am

Legitimate down payment assistance (DPA) and how it works: Historically, Sellers have long been willing to negotiate from their Full Asking Price between 4% and 6% in addition to paying some or all closing costs. Legitimate 501(c)3 non-profit DPA programs are intended as an alternative to negotiating down on the price. Sellers who enrolled homes in DPA programs could benefit from a sale where a price reduction would not if an otherwise qualified Buyer lacked a down payment.

While those Buyers who had a down payment were in a position to negotiate on price, other good-credit mortgage-qualified buyers without a down payment weren’t able to buy at any price, or WORSE, they were left to the extremely risky, adjustable-rate, high-cost, zero-down programs of the sub-prime lenders who, by FAR, have been the major contributors to the mortgage melt-down.

To Sellers who were willing to negotiate on price and terms, legitimate DPA programs like AmeriDream were an option for Sellers to be able to sell their homes to good-credit, mortgage-qualified Buyers who lacked the down payment. An example would be a Seller of a home priced at $100,000 who has expressed willingness to negotiate a 4% price reduction.

A 4% reduction in the home’s sale price to a buyer who HAS a down payment could result in a $96,000 sale to the Buyer, but a 4% reduction in the price to a Buyer who does NOT have the down payment would result in NO SALE…unless the Buyer succumbed to a risky and high-cost sub-prime loan provider.

By enrollment in a DPA program, a Seller has an alternative to lowering the price that would result in a sale by offering to sell the home for $100,000- the Seller’s full asking price- to include a 3% gift of down payment to a good-credit, mortgage-qualified Buyer from a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The DPA would provide a 3% gift of down payment- one that had no repayment requirements or surprises- so the Buyer could get a $97,000 mortgage. The Buyer would close with 3% equity in the property using the gift funds in combination with the lender’s loan proceeds from a very safe and secure, financially-friendly HUD insured FHA mortgage. The down payment money did NOT come from the Seller. It came from a pool of funds from the DPA provider that has been raised in part from previous participating Seller Enrollment fees.

After closing, the Seller paid a service fee in accordance with the DPA provider Enrollment Agreement. The service fees paid by Sellers resulted in the Seller realizing almost the same sales proceeds as if he’d sold the home at a reduced price to a different Buyer who had the down payment, and offered a flow of revenue to the legitimate DPA providers that served would-be and post-purchase homebuyers with an array of free homebuyer education and certification resources, home retention and loss mitigation services and counseling, a tremendous resource for charitable giving to housing-related charities in addition to the ensuring the availability of gift funds for future home buyers.

Legitimate DPA providers like AmeriDream strongly urged against practices that would financially jeopardize Buyers, increase Lender Risk, or create credibility issues between sellers, realtors, lenders, and appraisers. The result is that more than 95% of Buyers who used legitimate DPA gift funds to buy homes continue to this day to demonstrate responsible home-ownership and make their mortgage payments.

The abuse of any program designed to help people is wrong, but the solution to the abuse by a few is NOT to throw out legitimate programs like AmeriDream, but to make it costly to be an abuser!

Bruce Curtis
St Augustine, FL


Daily News Feed May 12, 2009 » Harry Tran’s Daily Economy 101 » Blog Archive
Pingback posted May 11, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

[...] Stressing The Positive, Ignoring The Rest Countrywide, KB accused of inflating house prices Risky mortgage program resurfaces Government’s mortgage debt subsidies create disaster 20% Underwater In Silicon Valley [...]


Bad Credit Mortgage - Editorial: Mortgage lending bill holds risks - MetroWest Daily News « Bad Credit Mortgage
Pingback posted May 12, 2009 @ 10:20 am

[...] Risky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress – The Washington Independent.comA housing program blamed in part for high default rates on government-backed loans, derided as a “scam” by the Internal Revenue Service and targeted for years for elimination by the agency that ran it looked like it finally had reached its end [...]


M Petrone
Comment posted May 20, 2009 @ 5:38 am

It seems that you are correct and the lessons of the mortgage crisis have not been learned by these greedy mortgage lenders. Luckily, they have the fundsto back these type of loan programs with our hard earned tax money. The lenders are the reason why my site http://www.refinancingcondo.com is so popular in recent months. I offer simple, financially beneficial mortgage refinancing and modification information to help homeowners who got into bad loans to begin with. It looks like this will happen again now in just a few more months.


M Petrone
Comment posted May 20, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

It seems that you are correct and the lessons of the mortgage crisis have not been learned by these greedy mortgage lenders. Luckily, they have the fundsto back these type of loan programs with our hard earned tax money. The lenders are the reason why my site http://www.refinancingcondo.com is so popular in recent months. I offer simple, financially beneficial mortgage refinancing and modification information to help homeowners who got into bad loans to begin with. It looks like this will happen again now in just a few more months.


Government coercion in the finance blogosphere - Credit Writedowns
Pingback posted January 3, 2010 @ 11:05 am

[...] reporter’s privilege to Web site – Reporters Committee for Freedom of the PressMarylandRisky Mortgage Program Resurfaces in Congress – Washington IndependentClearly, using the courts to force bloggers to reveal sources is a way of [...]


Name
Comment posted January 3, 2010 @ 9:26 pm

Basically, putting your own good money down is what distinguishes
owning a home from renting.


Name
Comment posted January 4, 2010 @ 2:26 am

Basically, putting your own good money down is what distinguishes
owning a home from renting.


louis vuitton
Comment posted July 30, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

To Sellers who were willing to negotiate on price and terms, legitimate DPA programs like AmeriDream were an option for Sellers to be able to sell their homes to good-credit, mortgage-qualified Buyers who lacked the down payment. An example would be a Seller of a home priced at $100,000 who has expressed willingness to negotiate a 4% price reduction.


louis vuitton
Comment posted July 30, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

To Sellers who were willing to negotiate on price and terms, legitimate DPA programs like AmeriDream were an option for Sellers to be able to sell their homes to good-credit, mortgage-qualified Buyers who lacked the down payment. An example would be a Seller of a home priced at $100,000 who has expressed willingness to negotiate a 4% price reduction.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.