Why You May Not Get That 2% Interest Rate by Feldman Law Center
Posted by admin | Home Center | Posted on March 8th, 2010
Much has been made of the 2% base rate included in the guidelines for the Obama Administration’s “Making Home Affordable” plan. It’s been well documented that the plan is off to a very slow start with current estimates of approximately 50,000 loan modifications in process. Less talked about, at least so far, is that the 2% headline interest rate of the plan may be unavailable to most homeowners seeking loan modifications that follow the plan’s guidelines.
As the saying goes, “The devil is always in the details” and Making Home Affordable has a detail which goes by the name of the “Net Present Value” test. Many of the mortgages which were originated during the boom in real estate, including those considered to be toxic, were sold to investors on Wall Street, from pension funds, and insurance companies (like AIG). These investors didn’t have the infrastructure or experience to collect payments, prepare statements, etc. so they left the handling of those matters to loan servicers like Saxon Mortgage (now a part of JP Morgan Chase). These servicers interface with the homeowner on all matters, including home loan modifications. For that work, they receive a small percentage off of each of the homeowner’s monthly mortgage checks as their fee.
An unintended consequence of the meltdown in real estate prices and skyrocketing default rates is there is now a conflict of interest between servicers and the investors that employ them. The foundation of that conflict is this; with monthly mortgage payments functioning as the lifeline of the servicers, their priority is to keep those payments going. To that end, granting loan modifications, even with drastic cuts in interest rates, is a much better outcome for the servicer than not receiving payments at all and/or having the home go into foreclosure. Aggressive loan modifications which benefit the servicers often hurt the investors by forcing markdowns on value of loans in their portfolio, hence, the conflict of interest.
Having experienced this conflict prior to the unveiling of Making Home Affordable, investor groups insisted that the net present value test be added to the plan to protect their interests. A net present value (NPV) calculation works this way:
1) Determine the proposed monthly mortgage payment for the life of the modified loan
2) Calculate the total return in dollars over the life of the loan – monthly payment x 12 months x 30 years = total return
3) Estimate the value of what the foreclosed home would sell for at auction
4) The highest number between the total return and the estimated selling price at foreclosure determines what action will be taken.
Motivated to keep properties generating monthly payments and out of foreclosure, servicers will negotiate the highest interest rate possible, within the constraints of the plan and what the homeowner can afford, to generate higher fees and to make sure that the net present value test comes out on the side of loan modification. With higher fees and the net present value test driving the negotiations in a loan modification, granting 2% interest rates becomes a very low priority and in some cases a deal killer for the servicers.
Congress, hearing the cries from their constituencies, has backed the efforts of the mortgage servicers by passing the “Safe Harbor Law” in May. The law protects servicers from lawsuits filed by investors claiming that the servicers are acting in their own best interests in loan modifications, at the expense of the aggrieved investors. It also gives servicers more autonomy in their structuring their home loan modifications.
The net present value test can present formidable challenges to the loan modification process due to many factors that are constantly changing. In New York City, for example, overall property values have remained relatively high but income levels have dropped. Limited by Making Home Affordable guidelines, mortgage payments cannot exceed 31% of the homeowner’s monthly income. The cap on payments can result in a net present value outcome that favors foreclosure on a property. Industry watchers have expressed concerns that the relative resilience in real estate values in the city could actually work against homeowners.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are cities such as Las Vegas and Detroit where property values have dropped as a much as 80%. These are areas where the net present value tests favor loan modifications but homeowners are walking away, forcing the properties back to the investors.
The next issue for investors wishing to foreclose is whether they can actually sell properties at auction. In California, approximately 17,000 out of 111,000 foreclosed properties went up for sale at the most recent auctions. Of the 17,000 properties, banks took back 85% of the properties when bids averaged only 59% of the outstanding loan balances. The lack of foreclosure sales across the country has led to a massive backlog of foreclosed properties that are either being kept off the market, put up repeatedly at auction, or for sale to private parties.
With unfavorable outcomes on either side of the net present value test, it’s apparent that investors are deciding not to decide on either action. The advantage of leaving properties in limbo is that they don’t have to be marked to market until action is taken, a necessary concession from Congress granted to investor groups in March. That way they can carry the properties in their portfolios at values that don’t trigger capital requirements. If it all sounds like a house of cards, well, at least it’s house.