And today, Zillow reported that banks and home loan companies will not grant mortgage loans to a whopping one-third of Americans. Since the subprime mortgage blow-up, lenders have refused to extend conventional lending products to the bottom 33 percent of credit-seekers, those with FICO scores of about 620 or less, even if they put down 25 percent.

The mortgage documentation at this place is really terrible. And such small portions!

In Wisconsin and other states, home buyers might be eligible for 100 percent financing on mortgages. (Creative Commons.)

“Buy new with $1,000 down,” the advertisement says, the words resting atop a trim green clapboard house offset by a bright blue sky. “The time has come. Stop wasting rent check after rent check and start building equity in your own home. And with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance required, the dream is closer than you think.”

[Economy1] It sounds too good to be true. But it is true. This offer does not come from a subprime lender, looking to reel in thousands of unqualified and ill-advised homebuyers, only to slap them with add-ons, fees and variable rates. It is not a teaser or a trick. The advertisement references a program initiated by the National Council of State Housing Agencies and Fannie Mae, the taxpayer-backed, government-sponsored enterprise that buys up mortgages from lending banks.

The pilot program is called “Affordable Advantage,” and it has now been adopted by three states — Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Idaho. (Other states, such as Pennsylvania, California and Colorado, have similar state programs.) The initiative is small, reaching just a few hundred people so far. But it is looking to expand. Given the dangers of these types of mortgages and the specter of the housing bubble, where unconventional loans wreaked disaster, it is also raising questions from wary housing experts and legislators.

Fannie Mae helped to create Affordable Advantage after the state government agencies tasked with expanding homeownership found they were having trouble doing their job. Before the recession hit, these housing finance agencies, known as HFAs, issued tax-free bonds and used the funds on programs to encourage developers to build in underserved areas and to support single-family mortgages. When the financial crisis hit, private companies — leery of the collapsing housing bubble and freezing mortgage market — no longer wanted to buy the HFAs’ bonds. Their business ground to a halt.

To help HFAs move forward, Fannie Mae and NCSHA stepped in. Fannie Mae agreed to purchase mortgages with tiny down payments, as long as the homebuyers were vetted — had excellent employment histories and credit, and merely lacked a cash reserve for a down payment. And the participating HFAs agreed to buy back loans if they became delinquent, in lieu of Fannie asking for more-traditional mortgage insurance.

“[The program] was created to support state HFAs and their efforts to provide qualified first-time homebuyers with financing in the wake of the housing and economic downturn,” Janis Smith, a Fannie Mae spokesperson, says. “HFAs are nationally regarded leaders in affordable housing finance and their business is prudent, sustainable business. HFAs work closely with their borrowers to ensure they’re well prepared for homeownership. As a result, the loans delivered by HFAs have very low delinquency rates. In addition, HFAs work with first-time homebuyers who need and are qualified for affordable housing — a segment that has seen increased demand with the downturn in the housing market.”

Now, qualified homebuyers in the three states pioneering Affordable Advantage do not need to put down the 3.5 percent minimum down payment required by the Federal Housing Administration, or much of a down payment at all. They can get 100 percent financing — a loan as big as the purchase price of the house — for a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage — a vanilla mortgage. The deal includes a program to help homebuyers if they become unemployed, lowered fees and there is no requirement that the homebuyer purchase mortgage insurance.

Wisconsin started the program first, in March, offering 100 percent loan-to-value mortgages for borrowers with a minimum credit score of 680. “It’s a good credit score,” explains Kate Venne, the spokesperson for the Wisconsin HFA. “In addition, we want to see what other lines of credit people have, and their performance. We look at their work history. We call their employers.” Thus far, Wisconsin’s HFA has offered $52 million in mortgages to 450 buyers.

But there are concerns and problems intrinsic to purchasing a home with almost no money down. First and foremost, if the housing market turns down even a fractional amount, the homeowner will go “underwater” immediately. If the price of the house falls by even a bit, he will owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth. If he needs to sell it, he needs to come up with extra cash to pay the bank back. And the fact that the homeowner only had a thousand dollars to put down in the first place implies that he does not have much financial breathing room and might default.

“That is clearly a worry,” says Barry Zigas, the director of housing policy for the Consumer Federation of America. “But for people who are buying a home first and foremost as a place to live, the fact there might not be much equity, or the equity might go negative — that’s not the most important feature.”

He argues that vetted low-income buyers have excellent track records in terms of default, as long as they are invested in their communities and have good employment and credit histories, if not savings. “The more equity you bring to your transaction, the more security you bring. But this can be a great way for people to gain access to homeownership who might not have been able to otherwise. And with mortgage rates what they are” — at historical lows — “this program lets those specific people gain mortgages.”

Others disagree. “Haven’t they noticed what’s happened to the country in the past five years?” asks Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “You’re not necessarily helping if you’re helping them buy a home where they’re in the position they won’t be able to afford it. I don’t understand the logic of this. House prices are still going to fall. And when they do, we haven’t helped these people who are going to have to work like crazy to pay their mortgage off, or they’re going to default. If you’re in a situation where this is the only mortgage you can get, you shouldn’t be buying a house.”

And many of the governments’ own economists believe that houses should not be many Americans’ primary investment. Karen Pence, who leads the Federal Reserve’s real estate finance research group, argues that homes are a terrible investment and believes the government should offer fewer programs and incentives to subsidize homeownership.

On top of that, Affordable Advantage raises questions since, at the end of the day, taxpayers are backing its investments — Fannie Mae being under the government’s conservatorship, and Treasury being the main purchaser of bonds from the state HFAs. In recent months, the government has turned away strongly from programs helping encourage mortgages with low down payments.

The Federal Housing Administration, for instance, considered a plan to let homebuyers use the Obama administration’s $8,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover the 3.5 percent minimum required down payment. It received such push-back from the Hill, incensed the federal government would pay homeowners to have no skin in the game, and from housing experts, that the Department of Housing and Urban Development pulled the program. Indeed, faced with a 14 percent delinquency rate, the Federal Housing Administration increased the premiums it charges to insure some mortgages this year. And it set down payment requirements at 10 percent for borrowers with low credit scores.

On the Hill, increasing numbers of legislators want to ban mortgages with low down payments outright. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) last year introduced legislation requiring FHA borrowers to put down 5 percent at least. This spring, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) requested an amendment to the financial regulatory reform bill requiring minimum 5 percent down payments for private mortgages. Multiple legislators from both sides of the aisle have recommended looking at down-payment reform for Fannie and Freddie.

Low-income housing advocates argue that the state programs have much lower default rates than the national average, because the state HFAs had good track records of checking out prospective candidates and offering loans only to good ones. Kate Venne, of the Wisconsin HFA, says its default rate is just 1.83 percent. But more and more believe that the products are simply too dangerous, and that the government should no longer boost homeownership for Americans without the means to put at least 3.5 percent down.

“In today’s world, without question, we’ve learned two lessons,” FHA Commissioner David Stevens told reporters this winter. “One: homeownership is important to the sustainability of communities. And two: not everybody should own a home.”

Correction: A prior version of this article misstated the name of the Federal Housing Administration, as the Federal Housing Agency. TWI regrets the error.

In the good column: The number of homes receiving default notices fell 12 percent and the number of foreclosure auctions fell 13 percent. In the bad: Bank repossessions hit an all-time high, with banks taking over 92,432 homes last month alone, an increase of 45 percent year-on-year.

“There were two important milestones in the April numbers that show foreclosure activity has begun to plateau — but at a very high level that will not drop off in the near future,” RealtyTrac’s chief executive officer, James Saccacio, said in a release. “April was the first month in the history of our report with an annual decrease in U.S. foreclosure activity. Secondly, bank repossessions, or REOs, hit a record monthly high for the report even while default notices dropped substantially on a monthly and annual basis. We expect a similar pattern to continue for most of this year, with the overall numbers staying at a high level and ripples of activity hitting the various stages of the foreclosure process as lenders systematically work through the backlog of distressed properties.”

The “sand states” — Nevada, Arizona, Florida and California — continued to bear the worst of the foreclosure crisis. And the report noted that strategic defaults are rising, and could bump the foreclosure number up again in the coming months.

Foreclosure sign in the Southern California desert (Flickr: jeroen020)

As foreclosures continue at a record pace, homeowners in trouble have watched the government devise a $700-billion rescue plan for Wall Street, buy shares in nine major banks and extend credit to insurance companies like AIG. What they haven’t seen is much of anything coming their way.

Now the Treasury Dept. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. are putting together a plan to offer as many as 3 million homeowners lower loan payments for at least five years. Lenders will be covered for some of their losses should the restructured mortgages go bad. Some details of the $40 to $50 billion plan leaked out this week — and it seems that homeowners at the center of the crisis may finally get their turn at a helping hand from the government.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

But, in the end, can they get the help they really need?

The Bush administration isn’t entirely on board with the plan, The Washington Post reported. The White House — which aggressively led the way in pushing for a bailout of the financial system — quickly went on record to say it hadn’t made decisions on any proposals for homeowners.

In contrast to the urgency with which the administration pushed the bailout package, whatever might be aimed at homeowners apparently will take a while to become a reality.

Even if the plan gets approved, loan modifications haven’t shown themselves yet to be a fully effective curb on foreclosures. To critics, they have been oversold as a way to keep people in their homes, with policy-makers continuing to push them despite any evidence that they really work.

Redoing a loan for someone who still can’t pay it only leaves the borrower worse off than where he started, said Joshua Rosner, managing director of the investment firm Graham Fisher, and a longtime critic of loan modifications. Early in the downturn, failed subprime lender New Century Financial had loan modification default rates of 50 percent, he said.

Adding to the problem: Restructurings don’t work all that well even in the best of times. Redoing loans while housing prices fall means the homeowner could once again find himself underwater, even with his restructured loan, and in a position to default once again.

Before the government launches mass loan modifications, it should be gathering and analyzing redefault rates, to see if the whole thing is worth it, Rosner said. To him, Congress supports loan modifications as a way to let regulators eke out a patchwork of solutions.

Then it can avoid making a bold but controversial move, like creating something similar to the Home Owners’ Loan Corp., which purchased and refinanced delinquent home mortgages during the Great Depression.

“They’re just trying to declare victory and do nothing,” Rosner said. “We really should be having a public discussion, with facts and figures on loan modifications and redefault rates. Modifying loans in this environment is very risky.”

Others also don’t think the Treasury and FDIC are going far enough. The modification plan simply means they are offering another carrot to entice lenders to restructure loans — but that’s all. It’s a far cry from the unprecedented, sweeping action taken to rescue banks.

The government could direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake mass restructurings, since it controls the two agencies. Housing advocates say both continue to foreclose and to refuse to do restructurings on a large scale.

The government could also issue waivers giving securitizers authority to make decisions on restructuring loans, allowing them to bypass the problem of putting back together again mortgage-backed securities that have been sliced into pieces and scattered around the world.

No one’s sure the new government plan will be able to navigate around this roadblock, which has held up many loan modifications. It could mean that only a small percentage of homeowners will get help.

The government could also take an entirely new turn, and back proposals gaining steam lately that would encourage lenders to allow former homeowners to rent their properties, either for the short- or long-term. Supporting rental policies would keep a property occupied and a homeowner in a home, or would help people who can no longer afford to own their homes find alternatives.

Even with foreclosures jumping by 71 percent in the third quarter, the government’s latest response to homeowners has fallen far short of any decisive intervention — and that’s a different posture from its moves to prop up the credit markets.

“Clearly, banks are the priority,” said the economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

In the meantime, it’s been an uphill battle for agencies trying to kickstart loan modifications.

After taking over the failed subprime lender IndyMac in July, the FDIC decided to try a mass modification of its mortgages, with the goal to setting an industry standard. FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair has been an outspoken advocate of mass loan restructurings, and has pushed for more lenders to try them.

But a look at the FDIC numbers that Bair reported last week shows how hard this task is. Of IndyMac’s 60,000 borrowers, 40,000 who were more than 60 days late on their loans were deemed eligible for restructurings.

The FDIC sent out 15,000 letters in the first round of its modification attempt. Of that total, some 3,500 borrowers accepted modification offers, and more are being processed. But it’s still not clear yet how many of them actually will qualify for new loans, spokesman David Barr said.

To financial blogger Tanta at Calculated Risk, the totals prove what she suspected all along: the FDIC wasn’t going to be any better at loan modifications than the private sector:

Certainly 3,500 modifications successfully completed in two months is better than nothing. Then again, I don’t think IndyMac’s modification rate prior to the FDIC takeover was exactly “nothing,” either. Bair doesn’t address that, so we still don’t know if the FDIC’s “expedited” approach has really been measurably better than what IndyMac was already doing. At best, it’s probably only marginally better, which wouldn’t be so much of a problem if Bair hadn’t spent so much time earlier in the year scoring cheap rhetorical points about uncooperative servicers not doing enough to help. In any event, the Bair Plan doesn’t seem likely to bring the mortgage crisis to a screeching halt by year-end.

Not everyone agrees, with some advocates praising the FDIC approach as the best way to tackle loan modifications, because one-on-one negotiations are just too lengthy and arbitrary. All loan modifications usually involve lowering the interest rate, reducing the amount of money owed on the loan or stretching out repayments. Borrowers also have to prove they can afford to stay in the home, with the modification.

Under the FDIC approach, borrowers in arrears sign a standard modification agreement that lowers their loan amount. Then they mail in a check for the new payment, along with verifying their incomes.

Barr declined to draw a conclusion from the agency’s progress so far. He said “it’s too early for optimism,” and that the agency’s early results may reflect the easiest and most cooperative borrowers to work with.

To Alan White, a Valparaiso University professor who studies subprime loan modifications, a loan workout is just what it seems — a work in progress. Counselors, agencies and lenders are all getting better at doing them, as they get more experience and as servicers increasingly sign on.

That wasn’t the case at the beginning of the economic crisis. In a sample of a pool of subprime loan modifications begun in 2007, White found not a single loan showing a reduced loan amount, and many loans with higher monthly payments.

Since then, however, some subprime loan modifications have improved, White said. The $700-billion bailout included legal protections for servicers regarding loan modifications, which has helped.

The biggest problem remains that some servicers will restructure loans — and others won’t even try.

Countrywide, for example, does its loan modifications all the same way — by rolling in late payments to the balance and reconfiguring the monthly payment, which usually ends up higher. That’s not a real modification.

“Servicers have been all over the place,” White said. “But what we’re having is a process where things are getting marginally better.”

But that marginal progress is matched by the foreclosure machine’s rapid pace. That means something to stop foreclosures has to be happening at the same time loan modifications are underway, White said. States like Massachusetts, that require some mediation before foreclosure, have had some success in slowing down the process, at least temporarily, he said.

Because servicers don’t make money doing workouts — but do collect fees for foreclosing — a better avenue for Treasury might have been paying servicers $1,500 or so for every loan workout, giving them a financial incentive, White noted. Like Rosner, he also believes modifications have to evaluated for their effectiveness, and targets should be set for new modifications.

Nonetheless, the new approach by Treasury and the FDIC is a step forward, he believes — with a caveat. This is a very positive proposal,” he said. “My concern is that there is such resistance to doing sufficiently aggressive loan restructuring, on the grounds of moral hazard and fairness, that they will produce needlessly stringent guidelines.”

In White’s view, “moral hazard has gotten thrown out the window with the banks” and shouldn’t impede loan restructurings.

Still, unless the government writes some restrictions into its plan, it could create a different kind of moral hazard, said Rosner, the financial analyst. Servicers might rewrite anybody’s loan, whether it would work or not, because they’ll be bailed out by the government in any case. “They could stick it to the homeowner, and to the taxpayer,” Rosner said.

Loan modifications have never been particularly popular with the lending industry. Some believe even government guarantees won’t change that.

Christopher Whalen, an investment banker and research analyst who follows the financial services industry, and who once worked for Bear Stearns, said lenders and servicers aren’t enamored with either workouts or with the idea of becoming rental property managers. If the numbers don’t show someone can afford a house, it’s time to get the foreclosure over with and get that property back on the market, as a first step toward stemming falling home values.

“Lenders are ill-equipped to hold hands with people,” Whalen said. “They don’t want to become a social-services organization. Their goal is to get all this resolved as quickly as possible.”

For people on the brink of losing their homes, the policy debates offer little of anything that’s useful.

Iris Pulliam, 51, who lives in Prince Georges County, Md., thought her loan was restructured in July, through the Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, a housing advocacy group. But even that group, which attempts mass loan restructurings, hasn’t been able to get her servicer to sign on. She struggles each month to keep up with her payments. “This is very stressful,” she said. “I feel like I’m losing my patience.”

Just like many homeowners, who see everyone else’s hand out for a government bailout, with only theirs coming up empty.

The August figures show bankruptcy filings have reached a post-2005 high of 4,476 filings per day, notes credit expert Robert Lawless, a University of Illinois law professor. That milestone is significant because, in 2005, lawmakers approved a new bankruptcy law aimed at making it harder and more time-consuming to file bankruptcy, and more difficult to discharge debts.

But instead of slowing filings, bankruptcies are “staggeringly high,” Lawless said. If filings keep growing at this pace, Lawless expects a return to the era of more than 1 million bankruptcy filings annually. High numbers of bankruptcies prompted the 2005 law in the first place.

From Lawless:

People often ask me why I think bankruptcy filings are rising. My answer is that it is both simple and complex. The simple answer is that hard economic times obviously contribute to rising filing rates. Tightening consumer credit markets also lead to short-term increases in bankruptcy filings as consumers find it difficult to borrow more to stave off the day of reckoning. That is the simple part. The more complex part of the answer is that we know people do not file bankruptcy immediately upon the onset of financial distress. Typically, consumers struggle for a long time–often two or more years–before filing bankruptcy. The job loss today or the harassing calls from creditors may precipitate a bankruptcy filing, but the seeds of that bankruptcy filing were sown long before it shows up as a statistic in the bankruptcy filings.

During the bankruptcy reform fight, consumer advocates warned that the reforms – supported largely by the lending industry – would do little to curb bankruptcies, and would mainly benefit creditors. As filings continue to increase, it’s evidence that they had it right.