Subscribe: NJ HELOC Heaven
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
americans  credit score  credit  home  money  mortgage  mortgages  people  reverse mortgage  reverse mortgages  reverse  score 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: NJ HELOC Heaven


This blog's purpose is to document the local excesses from the housing bubble era.

Last Build Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 12:10:16 +0000


Banks Make More $$ Not Modifying Mortgages

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:20:00 +0000

Just when we thought we understood what was going on we find that banks are taking advantage of their investors. Well, they do not call them banksters for nothing. There is a great article titled Mortgage servicers perverse incentives from Reuters Blog that illustrates how lenders make money by not negotiating. This bundle comes from the investors. Let's take a look -

Last month, I wondered whether banks’ seeming inability to effectively modify mortgages was a function of “greed on the part of the banks — that while they pay lip service to the idea of modifying mortgages, they actually make more money by being recalcitrant and obstructive and unhelpful.”

It turns out that the answer is yes, it is — and the NYT’s Peter Goodman has chapter and verse:

Many mortgage companies are reluctant to give strapped homeowners a break because the companies collect lucrative fees on delinquent loans.

Even when borrowers stop paying, mortgage companies that service the loans collect fees out of the proceeds when homes are ultimately sold in foreclosure. So the longer borrowers remain delinquent, the greater the opportunities for these mortgage companies to extract revenue — fees for insurance, appraisals, title searches and legal services.

In a sidebar, Goodman examines the case of a mortgage servicer, Countrywide, which refused to let Alfred Crawford sell his house for $620,000 in settlement of mortgage debts exceeding $800,000. The latest offer on the house is now just $465,000, and still no short-sale is being allowed.

In the meantime, Countrywide is paying itself lots of fees — fees which will ultimately come out of the pockets of the investors who bought the mortgage-backed bonds which Crawford’s loan was bundled into. The minute that Countrywide allows the house to be sold, that fee income dries up.

The claim is that lenders are looking out for investors. But if you read the whole post you will see that the lenders are really just looking out for themselves. That is why short sales do not work out. That is why foreclosures seem to lag on and on. The lenders are able to extract every penny out of the situation as possible. How is the housing plan going to compete with that?


Some Interesting Alternatives to a Reverse Mortgage

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:39:00 +0000

Finally some more articles warning about the equity loss involved with a reverse mortgage. We see this as basically taking a gamble against the future. Option ARM takers gambled that housing prices always went up and the accumulation of deferred interest would be less then the increase in the value of the home. Whether they were aware of the gamble or not is another story - but that was the big gamble with the Option ARMs. And we are almost on the verge of an epic wave of Option ARM foreclosures.

So the new product to gamble one's life savings is being pushed - the Reverse Mortgage. This article at (who is this - they seem to be everywhere?) titled A Reverse Mortgage Is A Costly Option To Use Your Home Equity sums up some of the problems and provides some alternatives. Let's take a look -

Unless your home is continually appreciating at a good clip, it won’t take long until there’s little of no equity left as a legacy when you die or move out. This is what makes reverse mortgages so costly to you and you’re loved ones.

If leaving a legacy is not an issue and you’ve the health to live on your own for 10 or more years, then a reverse mortgage may be a reasonable option for you. But if you want to leave a legacy, consider alternative ways to access the value of you home for income. Here are a few:

Renting a portion of you home: If your home has extra bedrooms you may want to rent a room out for the income it can bring you. You may even consider borrowing a little for creating an in-law apartment for renting. This allows you to remain in your house yet use it to create some income. You may find local programs that allow you to borrow cheaply for the renovation needed.

Sell Your Home to Your children: Your children can pay you a monthly payment toward ownership of your house. You could arrange that you’d have a right to live in it as long as you live. What better way to have your cake and eat it too - leaving all that equity to your children for the payments made to you.

Sell Your Home And Pay for an In-law at your child’s house: Here, you’ll have to move out of your home, but you get to live with your children, increase the value of their home, and have money from your home sale that you can live on -and leave as a legacy.

Sell and Buy-down: Again, you have to move out of your home, but if you buy down to a condo much better adapted to your age and needs, your extra equity from you home sale can perhaps supply sufficient income for you to live on. You may want to buy a life annuity with it too.

Because basically after all the fees involved with a reverse mortgage there may be nothing left after 10 years or so.

The selling point (from lender/broker) is the same with HELOCs during the bubble - it is your money and you are smart enough to use it wisely. Until we found that people were using HELOCs like ATMs - paying for vacations, eating out, the latest in entertainment and fashion, etc., etc.

How many people taking reverse mortgages will end up in the same bought as the HELOCers? Extracting all the equity early and left with nothing down the road...

Americans reducing debt

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:15:00 +0000

Here is a big story that Americans are reducing debt. We wonder about the hows and the whys. Are Americans reducing debt because their home equity line has been cut-off? Their credit cards closed or reduced? Perhaps the fact that lenders are reducing the amount they are willing to lend out a part of it. During the bubble their were rumors of children and pets receiving credit card offers. Now people have to fight to get any credit. And monitoring one's credit score is a part-time job. This Gallop Poll titled Americans Deleveraging: One in Three Has Reduced Debt forgets to mention that almost one in for is increasing their debt. Let's take a look at the report -Gallup Poll trends show Americans continuing to cut back on debt. In a May 29 survey, 31% of Americans say they have decreased their total outstanding debt over the past six months -- essentially the same as the percentages who said this in April (32%) and March (34%). Only 23% of consumers increased their debt in May, also not much different from March and April. Many Americans Say Now Is a Bad Time to Borrow Over the past three months, almost half of Americans have consistently indicated that now is a "bad time" to borrow, including May's 46% "bad time" reading. At the same time, the 19% in May who say now is a "good time" to borrow is typical of such sentiment since March. While many on Wall Street are talking about a thaw in credit-market conditions, those on Main Street do not seem to perceive this. Many Worried About Making Their Monthly Payments The percentage of Americans saying they are worried about keeping up with their monthly payments over the next six months reached 25% in May -- up from 20% a month ago and 23% in March. The survey has an error of ±3 percentage points - so the debt reduction could be as low as 28% with the debt increased as much as 26% - perhaps not that great of a difference. It would also be interesting to know where the debt reduction was taking place - in super bubble states or equally across the country. And did the debt levels reduce among people who lost income (either lost their job totally or still employed but with substantially less income).The report also notes that while there may be green shoots on Wall Street the concern about keeping up with payments indicates that nothing has sprouted yet on Main Street. It also warns about the greet shoots turning brown - yes, it really does note that! Sounds like pretty good analysis to us.One last point - we wonder how this would look as compared with historical data. During the bubble what did the numbers look like? And how did they look pre-bubble?[...]

Where is the Recession At?

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:52:00 +0000

Everyday we seem to hear about the green shoots. Shouts that the recovery is here. The recession is over. The recession is over. Then some hard numbers come out and everyone stops to ponder where exactly we are on the road to recovery. Are we past the turning point? Or is this just a lull and everyone is getting very comfortable? One argument often made is that since there has been no real fundamental changes to the banking system that we are not on the road to out of the recession. This week US News gives us an article titled 4 Ways to Tell Whether A Real Recovery Has Begun. Let's take a look - The danger of hyping a technical recovery is that it will arrive, with much fanfare—but fail to make ordinary consumers feel better off. Many economists, for example, are predicting that the recession will officially end by this summer or fall. The only problem is that when a technical recovery begins, a lot of companies fail to get the memo. They don't play along; they keep payrolls lean and maybe even continuing to lay off workers. So to guard against false optimism, here's how to tell when a real recovery is finally kicking into gear: Unemployment improves. The single best indicator of the health of the economy is the job market. People who have lost their job, or worry that they might, obviously hoard their money and don't spend. That spells doom for an economy driven by consumer spending, as ours is. But once it's clear that jobs are coming back, consumers are more likely to relax and open their wallets.... Housing prices stabilize. This has become a mantra by now: For the economy to get healthy, housing prices must stop falling. Problem is, the houses haven't been listening. Housing matters for two reasons: It represents a big chunk of the economy, and it's the largest single repository of Americans' household wealth. With prices falling, buyers are scarce, since nobody wants to buy an expensive good today if it's going to be worth less tomorrow. With few buyers, all the other economic activity that swirls around real estate—remodeling, appliance and furniture sales, relocation services—is depressed. Homeowners are worse off, too, because the value of one of their vital assets is eroding....Household wealth increases. The housing bust and the volatile stock market have hammered the traditional investment tools that most Americans use, causing epic declines in the wealth of Americans. Since 2006, household net worth has declined by about $12 trillion, which equates to about $107,000 of lost wealth for each of America's 112 million households. That's partly because of the 40 percent plunge in the stock market since October 2007 and partly because of the steep declines in real estate values. ... President Obama stops fudging on the economy. There's still a lot that could go wrong, and Obama knows it. Yet part of the president's job is to reassure skittish Americans, even as his economic lieutenants are fighting battles in the war room. That's why Obama has been making half-hearted pronouncements, like saying that the economy shows "some return to normalcy" and that "we expect there'll be some stabilization of the economy." Virtually all of Obama's remarks on the economy contain modifiers and future tense and a not-quite-there-yet quality, since he'll blow his own credibility if he tries to convince Americans that they're better off than they actually are. When Obama starts hedging less, be happy. That will signal better days. Finally. Well - there we have it. And by these 4 signs - unemployment, housing value stabilization, personal savings, and political posturing - we still have a long way to go. Sounds like a few more years. Maybe by that time lending institutions will have made fundamental changes to take care of that measurement as well.[...]

Credit Scores and your HELOC

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:53:00 +0000

While we really do not like the control that the credit scores have over people's lives. It is like mysterious black box that can affect almost every aspect of people's lives. The credit scores can affect how much you pay for everything, influence the home purchase or rental, even getting a job.

We have, in the past, hoped for some type of regulation for the credit score industry. Since different lenders can supply different standards for the same activity. Or people can have their credit score dinged through absolutely none of their own doing. And do not even get us started on the complexities of trying to fix something that is wrong with a credit score - it can easily become a full time job.

Now we see that you have to play HELOC games so as not to ding your credit score. Open your HELOC for 3 times the amount you plan to use or watch your credit score get hit. In this article titled Treat delicately before tapping HELOC - it could damage your credit from the Orlando Sentinel we see the complexities involved. Let's take a look -

I have heard from some of my sources who work for credit card companies that the federal government is requiring lenders and creditors to have cash on hand equal to, in some cases, 40 to 50 percent of the credit that has been extended in the form of available credit on a credit card, or a home equity line of credit (HELOC).


For example, if you have a credit card that you haven't used in 12 months, the lender may close it or reduce the amount of total available credit. We're hearing from thousands of Americans who have had their home equity lines of credit reduced or closed. Not only does this make it difficult to access the credit you've so carefully preserved, but it will also tarnish your credit score.


If you don't take money out of your credit line, you may be one of those who ends up having the credit limit cut and later regret that you didn't take the money out when you could. But taking a sizable amount of money without the means to pay back the funds can put you in a precarious situation.

Let's think about how this would play out: If you tap 80 to 90 percent of your line of credit, you will hurt your credit score at least a little. But if your credit line is cut substantially, that too might hurt your credit score, as you'll have less available credit.

Optimally, you'd never tap more than 25 to 30 percent of a line of credit ... Anything more than that could lower your score a little, depending on other factors in your credit history. But since you might actually need the cash, it's better to take it now rather than want it later and not be able to get it.

The credit score is a messy area - and it is probably getting messier with the economic downturn. It is in desperate need of standards and regulation. Having access credit but not using it could harm your credit. Use your credit - but get the amount available reduced also harms your credit score. Not having enough credit activity or history also affects your credit score. It all seems so counter intuitive. But that is the way credit scoring works.

Reverse Mortgage as Last Choice

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:53:00 +0000

When their are no other options on the table perhaps a reverse mortgage may work. But for many people this option will take all future options off the table. Reverse mortgages are just another option to drain equity. With the continued downward spiral in home values their may be no equity for homeowners if and when they decide to sell. We many several people who see their properties as their retirement nest eggs. But since reverse mortgages can let healthy 62 year-olds extract a large portion of their equity now it can easily cause trouble down the road. Over at CBS News in an article titled Reverse Mortgages" "Loan of Last Resort" their is a warning of trouble that reverse mortgages may cause. Let's take a look -

It's a last resort for many Americans who are strapped for cash, but reverse mortgages are a way to make ends meet for an increasing number of homeowners.


[Early Show financial contributor Vera Gibbons] said about 10,000 reverse mortgages are being done each month, because homeowners need the cash.

"They've lost a lot of money in the stock market," she said. "...They need the cash infusion."

Gibbons said people who can't get a loan or refinance due to the credit crunch are finding their way around it with a reverse mortgage, which have no income requirements.


Gibbons said many seniors are funding their retirement with a reverse mortgage because they need the cash infusion.

"This is a loan of last resort," Gibbons said. "People have exhausted the options, and can't rent the house or sell it or they're doing this."

Have people really exhausted all their other options? Just like we did with HELOCs and HELs? Or are they taking the easy, short-sighted, dead end road to financial misery. Kind of like Option ARM holders. Looks good initially but their will be problems down the road. Very messy, very complex with a brand new set of problems.

There are warnings that reverse mortgages will cause a wave of financial problems and hardships in the future. We agree. Money will be lost. People who think they are hurting financially now probably will get hit much harder in the future.

The article also notes the maintenance requirements on the properties. But if there is no money left who will be for the maintenance. And what level of maintenance. Will most of these properties be fixer-uppers or tear-downers in the future? With little to no money for upkeep left, probably.