lllustration: George Peters

WASHINGTON — Mortgage giant Fannie Mae’s recent announcement that it will give homeowners facing foreclosure the chance to stay in their properties as renters for as long as a year is the latest aggressive move by the government to help troubled borrowers and tenants avoid being evicted. But as past efforts to stem the foreclosure crisis have already shown, even well-intentioned programs haven’t managed to reach significant numbers of people in peril – meaning any new approach faces a tough road ahead.

Consider, for example, a new federal law approved in May that protects renters from foreclosure evictions by giving them the right to stay in their residences after foreclosure for 90 days or for the duration of of their leases. Despite the new law, some tenants aren’t getting notice of their rights and are simply moving out, housing advocates said.

The problem has been particularly widespread surrounding a provision in the law, called the Helping Families Save their Homes Act, that allows for borrowers with Section 8 affordable housing vouchers the option to also stay in their residences when their landlord is in foreclosure. Some tenants who call their state or local housing authorities in Massachusetts and Connecticut after a foreclosure eviction notice are mistakenly told they have to move, noted Judith Liben, a senior housing attorney with the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, a nonprofit legal services advocacy group. Better training of housing authority staff would help fix the situation, she said.

“Even with well-intentioned policies, there’s a disconnect between a good idea put into law, and what really happens on the street,” Liben said. “We see that disconnect on the ground, all the time.”

Despite anti-foreclosure initiatives by the government and lenders, the housing crisis has continued to worsen. Foreclosure notices totaled a record high of nearly 938,000 in just the third quarter of this year, according to RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure database. The Center for Responsible Lending predicts a total of 9 million foreclosures by 2012. Vacant and abandoned foreclosed properties are adding to neighborhood blight problems. Renters increasingly have become caught as innocent bystanders, evicted often without notice when their landlord faces foreclosure.

The new federal protections are supposed to address that. But in some cases, tenants in foreclosed homes either can’t reach real estate agents in charge of selling the properties to let them know they want to continue renting, or they get incorrect information from agents and think their only option is to move out immediately, said Shelley White, litigation director at New Haven Legal Assistance in Connecticut. In some instances, law firms send misleading letters that imply a financial incentive to move, known as cash for keys, is a renters’ only option, she said.

“We’re definitely seeing a lot of problems with tenants that just get notes from Realtors that say the bank has foreclosed on your property, and it’s time to get out,” Wright said.

The difficulties in outreach to tenants comes as the government continues expanding options and assistance to borrowers and renters dealing with foreclosure. In addition to the new federal law, the Treasury Department plans soon to rollout its plan encouraging more short sales by offering financial incentives to lenders and borrowers. In a short sale, a homeowner sells his home for less than the amount owed on the mortgage, and lenders forgive the remaining loan balance.

Both Fannie and Freddie Mac earlier this year began allowing qualified tenants in foreclosed homes under their control to sign month-to-month leases. Freddie Mac also started offering former owners of foreclosed homes the month-to-month lease option. Last week, Fannie announced its new policy, which significantly expands on the idea, allowing some owners who didn’t qualify for a loan modification and can’t afford their mortgage  the option of staying on in their homes. The owner would voluntarily turn over the property to Fannie in a “deed for lease” transaction, instead of going through a lengthy foreclosure process. The former owners in exchange would be given the option to rent back their homes for at least a year. Unlike in a short sale, their credit is unlikely to take a hit because of the transaction. And even investors may be eligible, meaning they would turn over their properties to Fannie, but their tenants would have the option to remain.

“This is huge,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who proposed a similar own to rent idea when the financial crisis first hit two years ago.

Baker would prefer that Fannie’s new policy extend the the rent-back period even further, to five or 10 years. But, overall, Baker said Fannie’s program addresses the problem of growing numbers of vacant properties, and represents a shift to promoting rental policies as a foreclosure solution. “You’re guaranteed a year, and that gives you some stability and a chance to plan ahead,” he said.

He and others also described Fannie’s new program as a big step forward over some efforts currently in place to help renters in foreclosed homes.

Fannie Mae, for example, already gives renters in foreclosed homes the option to continue renting on a month-to-month basis, or to accept a cash for keys offer. According to Fannie’s data, the financial help has been a far more popular option. Since January, it has tallied 3,500 cash for keys agreements, and 300 signed leases. Fannie Mae spokesperson Amy Bonitatibus said the program was set up to offer both choices to renters. It is open to all tenants of Fannie Mae-owned properties, but she had no information on specifically how many tenants had been approached with offers.

The small number of leases signed isn’t really surprising, said Danilo Pelletiere, research director for the National Low Income Housing Coalition. The options to renters were offered post-foreclosure, by which time some tenants may have decided to make other living arrangements. Cash for keys can be a more attractive option than a month to month lease. The new federal tenant protection law also overlapped with Fannie’s program, so some tenants may not have felt a need to sign leases, he said.

Pelletiere and other advocates said they have much higher expectations for Fannie’s new approach for former owners. A deed for lease transaction can happen far more quickly than a foreclosure, and having a longer-term lease will be more attractive to many people. Fannie also has hired a national property management company to handle the new program, while its existing rental initiative for tenants uses local real estate agents and property managers.

“Because of the way it’s designed, it should do a much better job,” Pelletiere said. “That makes it much more likely that we’ll see a national response. It provides a way for Fannie to be proactive and to get to the property earlier. And it costs less than getting someone out of a home and foreclosing on them.”

Alan Mallach, a senior fellow at the National Housing Institute and the Brookings Institution, agreed. “What’s interesting will be to look at how many people this new policy affects,” Mallach said. “I think it will be significant.”

Pelletiere said he also found some encouragement in early results from Freddie Mac’s program earlier this year to rent back properties to former owners of foreclosed homes on a month by month basis. According to Freddie Mac’s figures, almost 12,000 units entered its portfolio of foreclosed homes between April and October. In 70 percent of cases, a borrower is working on a mortgage loan modification, leasing the home back, or accepting cash for keys. In another 27 percent of cases, the property was vacant by the time Freddie Mac took it over. In three to four percent of cases, an owner or renter faced eviction. Of those occupants who signed leases, two-thirds were owner occupants and one-third were tenants. Spokesman Brad German said he had no further breakdown of the numbers.

The long-held belief has been that owners would decline to become renters again, so having more owners than renters sign rental leases is an encouraging sign for Fannie’s new program, Pelletiere said.

Still, he and others noted the government wouldn’t be prompted to move toward a more aggressive rental policy if a greater number of loan modifications were successful. A recent report by the Congressional Oversight Panel for the government’s taxpayer-funded bailout program criticized the progress being made under the administration’s Making Home Affordable program, saying that in a best case scenario it would prevent fewer than half of expected foreclosures.

As foreclosure notices pile up, troubled tenants and borrowers don’t always understand they might be eligible for help, or they don’t know who to contact to apply for programs, or they just give up and leave upon a foreclosure – even in cases where they have new federal laws and programs intended to avoid evictions. To Liben, the Massachusetts housing attorney, one constant of the housing crisis has been that some people “get lost in the shuffle.” She’s waiting to see if that will finally change.

Photo: The Truth About..., Flickr

Just a year ago, the theory that poor and minority borrowers were to blame for the housing crisis took hold with a vengeance, and so did the belief that the government forced lenders to make subprime mortgages to meet affordable housing goals. The view took on greater prominence in the heat of a presidential campaign, and an obscure anti-redlining law known as the Community Reinvestment Act became a scapegoat for subprime lending and the collapse of the mortgage market.

Things have changed quite a bit since then, as the spotlight has shifted to lenders and their behavior during the boom. States and cities continue to aggressively pursue subprime lending discrimination suits, and judges across the country are signaling a willingness to move forward with some cases. As the lawsuits wind their way through the court system, more details and allegations about the inner workings of the subprime world are emerging. And as startling as some of the charges already have been — a former loan officer for Wells Fargo testified in one affidavit that employees regularly referred to minority borrowers as “mud people” and called subprime mortgages “ghetto loans,” — there’s even more ahead, said David Berenbaum, executive vice president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

“The ’smoking guns’ are coming out,” Berenbaum said, referring to possible evidence that lenders targeted minority communities and borrowers for higher priced loans. “And I expect more and more of these smoking guns to become apparent.”

In the latest development, a Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles recently certified a 2005 lending discrimination lawsuit against Wells Fargo as a class action case. The suit contends that area managers at the bank refused access in some minority neighborhoods to a software program that allowed for discounted prices on mortgage loans. Barry Cappello, a partner with Cappello & Noel in Santa Barbara, which represents some 10,000 to 20,000 borrowers in the suit, said he believes it is the first subprime lending discrimination suit in California to be classified as a class action.

According to Cappello, Wells Fargo introduced a program in 2002 called “Loan Economics,” which gave loan officers the authority to offer discounts to loan applicants. The savings on lower fees and interest rates could be significant, ranging from $500 to as much as $10,000 per loan. The suit claims that the Los Angeles area Wells Fargo manager refused to allow loan officers operating in certain minority neighborhoods to offer the program. Borrowers in predominantly white neighborhoods were given access to the software.

Cappello said the suit stemmed from complaints by black and Hispanic loan officers for Wells Fargo, who said they asked to use the software in their branches but upper management refused.

Wells Fargo is fighting the suit and has denied all the charges. In a statement, the bank said, “We are disappointed in this ruling and intend to vigorously defend this matter as the case proceeds. The decision does not indicate the court believes the underlying allegations have any merit. We feel the allegations represent a complete mischaracterization of our long-standing commitment to responsible lending and the pricing practices and tools we use. The policies, systems and controls we have in place ensure race is not a factor in the pricing or products we offer.”

The case could go to trial in about a year, Cappello said.

More lawsuits are expected in the near future over the treatment of Hispanic borrowers in Arizona and Texas, who were offered high-cost loans they didn’t understand at misleadingly low teaser rates, then refinanced into even more expensive loans than their initial mortgages, Cappello said.

Wells Fargo, the nation’s largest home lender and Minnesota’s second-largest employer, also has been a target of lawsuits elsewhere. Last month, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan sued the lender, alleging that blacks and Hispanics were sold high-cost subprime loans more frequently than white borrowers with similar incomes. The suit contended loan officers were offered incentives by the bank to steer borrowers into the more expensive loans, and that white borrowers generally received the lower-cost prime mortgages.

Some borrowers thought they were getting prime loans from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, the suit also charged. But their loans actually came from Wells Fargo Financial, the bank’s subprime unit.

In Iowa, two watchdog groups charged this week that minority homeowners in Des Moines were three times more likely to receive high cost subprime loans from Wells Fargo than white homeowners.

In June, the New York Times reported on affidavits from a 2008 lawsuit by the city of Baltimore against Wells Fargo over subprime lending, which charged that the bank targeted blacks in Baltimore and suburban Maryland for high-interest subprime loans. Former loan officers testified in affidavits about using terms like “mud people” and “ghetto loans.” The bank also had an emerging markets unit that pinpointed black churches as fertile ground for selling subprime loans, according to the former officers. And in March, the NAACP filed suits in federal court in California against Wells Fargo and HSBC, alleging minority borrowers were more likely to be issued higher rate subprime loans than white borrowers with similar credit scores and qualifications. Both banks have strongly denied the charges. The NAACP also has pending litigation against nearly a dozen other banks and lenders over subprime lending discrimination.

Should all the charges in all the lawsuits be proven, it would amount to massive and violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and other fair housing and lending laws, Berenbaum noted. Enforcing fair lending laws has been “an issue the government has failed to address over the past decade,” he said. Lenders could face criminal penalties from the government for violating fair housing laws, and they could be subject to punitive damages and fines from government lawsuits.

Big lenders like Wells Fargo and HSBC are obvious targets for suits because of their size and the amount of lending they did. In addition, many other lenders and originators of subprime loans have gone out of business, complicating efforts to address allegations of lending discrimination through lawsuits.

That leaves a major question regarding all the lending still unanswered, Berenbaum said: Where has the U.S. government been? The Federal Reserve reported in 2005 that an analysis of federal mortgage data found that blacks and Hispanics were more likely to receive higher interest rates on mortgage loans – and that it intended to examine the practices of 200 lenders as a result.

But nothing’s happened since that announcement, Berenbaum noted. Instead, as the years go on, and the government takes no action, allegations about price differences in mortgage loans based on the race of borrowers and their neighborhoods continue to grow.

Mary Kane is an economy reporter for the Washington Independent.

Related: Wells Fargo: Minnesota’s No. 2 employer is No. 1 for targeting minorities with high-cost loans

Image: Matt Hertel, iStockphoto

WASHINGTON — As bank-owned foreclosed properties pile up across the country, from abandoned houses in hard-hit neighborhoods to empty big box retail stores in failed strip malls, the fight over holding someone responsible for the brick and mortar mess left behind by the mortgage crisis continues to heat up.

More than two years into the crisis, local authorities still are slapping banks, servicers and speculators with fines ranging from $30,000 to even $90,000 for ignoring orders to take care of foreclosed and vacant properties under their control. The continuing punitive measures come as servicers already find themselves under fire for failing to complete more loan modifications under the Obama administration’s Making Home Affordable program – an effort that includes $75 billion in taxpayer money as incentives for the lending industry to rework loans. And it also comes as some realtors and lenders are mounting challenges to local anti-blight ordinances, and promoting the use of a mortgage database to track down servicers. Some housing advocates fear the industry will go beyond lobbying for the use of its mortgage system to push for getting rid of local vacant property laws altogether.

The end result: Some of the same servicers the Obama administration is urging to complete more loan modifications still are walking away entirely from vandalized homes, or failing to fix broken windows, get rid of junked cars, clear trash, repair damaged roofs and gutters, or even demolish a condemned house, all of which can be violations of local housing codes. And housing courts keep hearing persistent arguments from servicers that they’re merely temporary custodians who can’t alienate investors by spending money to bring properties up to code.

“They may think it’s unfair, but the law provides that if you have ownership of a property, you take care of it,” said Cleveland Housing Court Judge Raymond Pianka, who regularly fines lenders $5,000 a day for properties that don’t comply with city codes. “There’s no provision to exempt corporations. I’m not going to treat them any differently than the individual property owners who come into my courtroom in wheelchairs and walkers.”

And while the lending industry contends its working more cooperatively than ever with local authorities, not everyone sees it that way.

“For every one vacant property owner who wants to work with the local government, there are five other property owners who are gaming the system,” said Joseph Schilling, a Virginia Tech urban affairs professor and co-founder of the National Vacant Properties Campaign. “My sense is the industry is also overwhelmed, almost as much as the code departments, and properties still fall through the cracks.”

Controversies over vacant properties are one sign of how the aftermath of the mortgage crisis may be as complicated to address as the initial waves of foreclosures themselves.

As the Washington Independent reported recently, the volume of REOs, or bank-owned foreclosures, is growing at an alarming rate, exacerbating the foreclosure crisis by sticking hard-hit neighborhoods with vacant and sometimes vandalized homes that drive down property values. REOs are foreclosed properties that lenders take back after they don’t sell at foreclosure auctions or sheriff’s sales. They keep the homes in inventory until they can be sold again.

RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure database, predicts that REOs will total 1.5 million this year, up from 160,000 just a few years ago. And a significant percentage of those REOs still haven’t been listed for sale. That means a glut of bank-owned foreclosed homes remains in limbo in many communities. Some banks hire property managers, but others let houses fall into disrepair. Neighborhoods in Cleveland, Detroit, and other cities with weaker housing markets have been stung by growing blight from REOs. In once-hot areas, like Atlanta, “zombie” subdivisions that were half-built and then abandoned mar the suburbs.

Speculators who buy REOs in bulk over the Internet, then fail to fix them up or abandoned them, have added to the crisis. And more loan defaults are expected, with 9 million foreclosures predicted by 2012, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. On top of all this, the bust in commercial real estate means communities also are increasingly stuck with empty big box retail stores, closed-down car dealerships, and vacant strip malls – more blight, and more problems.

For its part, however, the lending industry contends that it’s doing more than ever to solve the problem, stepping up to work more closely with state and local governments, and promoting a mortgage database that local officials can use to track down servicers and notify them of violations.

“There was a disconnect a few years ago, but we’re moving forward,” said Robert Klein, CEO of Safeguard Properties, a company that maintains vacant homes nationwide for mortgage servicers and banks. “There’s been tremendous progress made between code enforcement officers and lenders and servicers around the country. I think we’re all on the same page now.”

Empty houses with code violations resulting in stiff fines usually are the result of years of previous neglect, or cases in which servicers can’t be found to be notified of problems, he said. That situation is happening with far less frequency than in the past.  “The $90,000 fines are an exception to the rule,” Klein said.

But in remarks to a recent Mortgage Bankers Association mortgage servicing conference that continue to be passed around on housing and community development listerves, Cary Sternberg of American Home Mortgage in Irving, Tex., went further. Sternberg, the firm’s senior vice president of Real Estate Owned (RE0) properties, contended that servicers increasingly are caught “in the cross hairs of disgruntled and cash-strapped local governments” looking to drum up revenue. The local governments often don’t understand the legal and other constraints under with servicers operate when it comes to REOs, he said.

“They need to look for ways to keep their cities going,” Sternberg said. “It’s a difficult problem to deal with and servicers like us are dealing with cities and municipalities all over.”

In Chula Vista, Calif., Realtors and lenders complained this summer that the city’s landmark anti-blight ordinance, which includes fined of up to $1,000 for lenders that ignore code violations, was driving away new business. Chula Vista’s 2007 ordinance became a national model, with more than 200 other communities adopting similar rules. The city has issued a total of $1.3 million in fines. Realtors asked the city to lessen fines and give firms more time to repair properties. The city is reviewing possible changes to the ordinance.

While servicers and code enforcers have made real progress sharing information through the mortgage database, the huge volume of REOs and continuing foreclosures continues to swamp the resources of everyone involved, Schilling said.

And in some places, problems run even deeper..

“From my experience, servicing of properties in the inner city, particularly in African-American neighborhoods is either non-existent or erratic,” said Kermit Lind, a Cleveland State University law professor who specializes in housing and foreclosure issues. And, he added, “servicers have testified under oath that they receive instructions to stop maintaining properties and walk away. Servicers have complained that they cannot afford to bring their properties up to code and still make money selling them, and that their investors will not allow them to comply with local laws.”

Lind had little sympathy for the plight of servicers, noting archly that “any reasonable person should see that compliance with local building and housing codes protecting the health, safety and welfare of taxpaying neighbors should be subordinated to the duties and responsibilities of servicing and pooling agreements concocted on Wall Street.”

But Christopher Oswald, a lobbyist with the Mortgage Bankers Association, which launched the mortgage database project, said lenders hit with huge fines only face additional obstacles getting foreclosed properties on the market and into the hands of new owners. Communities may once have needed to levy punitive fines to get the attention of servicers, but that problem has been addressed by the mortgage database, known as MERS, he said.

The industry database was expanded to allow its use by local governments. Enter an address, and up pops the name and contact information for a servicer or property management firm.

“We’re both after the same thing – to make sure the properties are maintained,” Oswald said.

The MBA introduced database in a handful of pilot cities more than a year ago, and the effort has been so successful the group plans to expand it nationally, he said.

Schilling said the industry outreach has been particularly successful in the West, in fast growth markets, and in some individual cities such Dayton, Ohio. But there are still problems elsewhere. At a recent housing conference in Kansas City, Schilling said he “got an earful” from housing and code officials throughout the state about how hard it was to find and work with mortgage servicers.

The mortgage database itself has drawbacks. It covers many, but not all, mortgage loans. It has no data at all on commercial real estate owners. And in some cases, a property contact shifts once a house moves from foreclosure to an REO. “There are gaps,” Schilling said.

An even bigger concern is that the lending industry will lobby state and local governments not just to use the database, but to also get rid of their local vacant property ordinances. Communities still need those regulations on the books as a powerful tool to make sure servicers and lenders take care of their properties, Schilling said.

The MBA isn’t actively lobbying against any anti-blight measures, Oswald said. But it makes sense for some towns to realize they may not need anti-blight ordinances if they can track down owners through the database instead. Communities can then avoid having to issue large fines that may delay transferring properties to new owners, he said.

“Anything standing in the way of getting servicers to put properties back on the market would be of concern to us, and should be of concern to local code officials too,” Oswald said.

Some local officials already have plenty of concerns about getting foreclosed homes back on track.

In Cleveland, Judge Pianka said some banks and servicers finally are catching on, showing up in his courtroom to answer to violations and repair properties. He’ll often forgive the big fines if a firm cleans up its property. (Court records show Pianka reduced a $30,000 fine for U.S. Bank to $3,000, after the bank brought a house into compliance.) But a recent court docket also gave a glimpse of continuing disputes, from the speculator from Dubai, who bought six properties, sight unseen, off Craigslist, and hasn’t fixed them up, to a real estate company that purchased REO worth only $1,000, and already has racked up $50,000 in fines.

Pianka recently spoke to a conference of property management contractors sponsored by Safeguard, showing photographs of graffiti-scarred, abandoned homes, and letting the lending industry know he’ll hold them accountable for their foreclosures. Klein, of Safeguard, said the judge’s talk was well-received – another small step in a continuing battle over cleaning up after the foreclosure mess.

Mary Kane is an economy reporter for the Washington Independent.

Image: Matt Hertel, iStockphoto

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Even as the Obama administration presses the lending industry to get more mortgage loans modified, the practice of forcing borrowers to sign away their legal rights in order to get their loans reworked is a tactic that some servicers just won’t give up on.

Waivers requiring borrowers to give up any legal claims related to their mortgages, even in cases where borrowers may be victims of predatory lending, are showing up sporadically in loan modification agreements under the Obama administration’s Making Home Affordable plan, consumer attorneys say. They were stunned to find the legal waivers still being used, despite more than a year of efforts – including calls from lawmakers – to get rid of them.

“It was shocking to see that people are still being asked to waive their legal rights,” said Bruce Dorpalen, national director of housing counseling for ACORN Housing Corp. “I mean, this should be abolished. It’s incredible that it’s still in there.”

The Obama modification plan, launched five months ago as the centerpiece of the administration’s anti-foreclosure efforts, includes financial incentives for servicers to participate, with the government paying $1,000 for each loan they modify, and $1,000 per year for up to three years. The goal is to rework loans with more favorable terms and lower interest rates, and to keep delinquent borrowers or those at risk of default in their homes.

The Treasury Department’s published guidelines for the $75 billion taxpayer-funded program specifically prohibit the waivers. Mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac removed the waivers from their standard loan modification agreements earlier this year. But Diane Thompson, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, said she has seen legal waivers resurface in loan modification agreements by Aurora Loan Services, Ocwen Financial Corp., and other firms. She also is getting complaints about waivers in Bank of America agreements.

“The waivers continue to be an issue,” Thompson said.

Complaints about the waivers come just as the Obama administration tries to ramp up loan modifications under its plan, which has gotten off to a slow start. More than 200,000 trial loan modifications have begun under the program’s Home Affordable Modification Program initiative, the Treasury Department said, well short of the initial goal of 3 to 4 million agreements. On Tuesday, top officials from the Treasury Department and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development met with 25 servicers to put pressure on them to complete more loan modifications – something Thompson described as a “come to Jesus” meeting. The administration will begin publicly reporting loan modification progress by individual servicers next month, HUD said in a news release. The government also will develop a “second look” program with Freddie Mac to make sure borrowers aren’t wrongly turned away.

But the re-emergence of the waivers shows how dramatic gestures or public shaming might not be enough. They’re an example of how problems exist deep in the the fine print of loan agreements — something media attention to a high-level meeting of servicers in Washington doesn’t address. The waivers prompt concerns about how carefully the program was put together, and how well Treasury is supervising it. And they raise questions about how effective it can really be, if there are no real consequences or penalties for doing loan modifications improperly, or for not doing enough of them.

Frustration over the program has been growing. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week, asking for an investigation into violations in loan modifications, including the waivers. Thompson testified before Dodd’s committee on July 16, providing copies of the waivers found in loan agreements.

Adam Levitin, a Georgetown University law professor and credit expert, said the inclusion of waivers by servicers being paid by the government to complete proper loan modifications is especially galling. It’s not clear how widespread the use of the waivers is. It’s also unknown many servicers are charging the government for loan modifications that include waivers, and how many are simply doing them independently of the government’s program. But it’s also obvious that the waivers aren’t rare exceptions, he said, and that the administration should be looking into them.

“Is Treasury paying money for this?” Levitin said. “If so, it’s like paying a government contractor for performing substandard work. Why are servicers getting millions of dollars for doing loan modifications if they’re not going to do them the right way? We’re relying on the servicers to do the right thing and time after time, they don’t do it. These companies just say one thing in front of Congress and then go and do something else. Treasury should be demanding its money back and handing out some penalties for this.”

The fact that the administrations’ main foreclosure program allows for a slip-up like the waivers also is troubling, he said. Getting loan modifications done “does not seem to be the top priority of this administration,” Levitin said.

Legal waivers in loan modifications have a long history. Until last summer, they were regularly included in loan modification contracts, often buried in a long list of requirements. Borrowers often had no idea they were signing their rights away. The waivers could mean that borrowers would have to give up all legal claims related to their mortgage, not just to the loan modification, even in cases where borrowers signed up for predatory loans they didn’t understand.

In a dramatic confrontation last July, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told representatives of Bank of America to get rid of waivers in their agreements. His pronouncement came after Bank of America representatives denied they were using the waivers – and Julia Gordon, senior policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, produced one from her briefcase.

Then, in January, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also removed the waivers from their standard streamlined loan modification agreements, following a Washington Independent story about the practice.

Advocates hailed the end of the waivers as a win for borrowers, who would no longer be forced to give up their rights to pursue legal action regarding their mortgages, in order to get a loan modification. As a result, they find the resurfacing of the waivers particularly troubling.

“At this point, it’s this constant whack-a-mole exercise,” Gordon said. “By this time, I would think the issue would have been aired sufficiently that servicers would be aware of this.”

Gordon added that the waivers illustrate that “there’s a lot of sloppiness out there” with regard to the administration’s loan program, which she finds disappointing.

For the program to work, there must be consequences for servicers that include the legal waivers or any other irregularities in their loan modifications, she said. “There shouldn’t be any gray areas here,” she said.

Thompson, of the National Consumer Law Center, said it’s possible that some servicers simply are using outdated forms that still require the waivers. Nonetheless, she said, it’s not in the servicers’ interests to get rid of the waivers in a timely manner – and some clearly aren’t doing so, she said.

Some advocates were particularly surprised to find that Ocwen had used the waivers, considering the servicer has been leading the industry in doing loan modifications. But Paul Koches, general counsel for Ocwen, said his company was just as surprised, and called their inclusion a mistake.

The waivers had been “fairly standard practice” in loan agreements for years, he said. But in late 2008, after meeting with representatives of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and hearing concerns about the waivers, Ocwen agreed to remove them from all loan modification agreements.

The company assumed all the waivers were gone, until Thompson’s testimony showed otherwise. Ocwen then realized one of its old forms still included the waiver. Ocwen is working to fix the form. Only a handful of borrowers were affected, and they’ll be assured the waivers won’t be enforced, Koches said.

Including legal waivers “is no longer our policy and we will be so notifying the homeowners to whom we mistakenly sent the old version,” he said.

Bank of America stopped using the waivers in September of last year, said spokesperson Jumana Bauwens. She did not know why or how waivers might be showing up in Bank of America loan modifications, and said the bank had not been aware of complaints about them. Bank officials will look into the matter, she said.

Aurora Loan Services could not provide a representative to comment.

Dorpalen, of Acorn, said his staff saw waivers showing up in loan modification agreements in May. Counselors told servicers to take them out before allowing their clients to sign contracts, he said. Since then, the waivers haven’t appeared in loan modifications that his group sees, he said.

Some kinks in launching a new program are to be expected, and the Treasury Department doesn’t have past experience with loan modifications, Levitin noted. But it’s hard to remain patient with the slow pace of the administration’s efforts to slow down foreclosures, he said. At this rate, by the time Treasury gets all the program’s difficulties ironed out, it will be slated to expire.

“I lost patience a year ago,” Levitin said. “At this point, it’s just sad.”

Gordon, of the Center for Responsible Lending, said the waiver mess shows once again how Congress’ failure to approve mortgage cramdown legislation is adversely affecting foreclosure prevention. Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage loans was the “backstop,” if voluntary loan modification wasn’t enough.

Lenders that opposed cramdown argued that the loan modification program was a better choice, Gordon noted. But so far, loan modifications aren’t keeping pace with foreclosures, and some borrowers already in trouble are unknowingly signing their legal rights away.

Mary Kane is an economy reporter for the Washington Independent.

(iStockPhoto)

There’s more proof out today that the foreclosure crisis is only getting worse, despite everything that’s been thrown at it so far: Foreclosure notices reached a new record high during the first half of this year.

Citing data from RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure database, Bloomberg said the rising number of notices shows how job losses and falling property values are making the housing crisis even more severe.

More than 1.5 million properties received a default or auction notice or were seized by banks in the six months through June, the Irvine, California-based seller of default data said today in a statement. That’s a 15 percent increase from the year earlier. One in 84 U.S. households received a filing.

“People are losing their jobs, seeing their income go down and are underwater on their mortgage,” Richard Green, director of the Lusk Center for Real Estate at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, said in an interview. “It’s a toxic combination.”

The foreclosure jump even prompted RealtyTrac CEO Joseph Saccacio to echo TWI’s story on Monday, and call for a new strategy to tackle the crisis.

Stemming the tide of foreclosures is a critical component to stabilizing the housing market, so it is imperative that the lending industry and the government work in tandem to find new approaches to address this issue.

The Wall Street Journal, in the meantime, takes a look at servicers trying to do loan modifications, and offers a glimpse into why so few loans are getting reworked. The story profiles the troubles of Morgan Stanley’s mortgage loan servicing firm, Saxon Mortgage Services Inc., which has been slower than most servicers to get loan modifications off the ground.

Part of the problem at Saxon is that it didn’t ramp up its ability to modify loans as early as other servicing companies. A spokeswoman for Saxon says that when Morgan Stanley purchased the company in 2006, it lacked enough employees and systems to undertake massive numbers of modifications. It wasn’t until the spring of 2007 — after its portfolio of subprime loans had already started to sour — that Saxon began to focus on modifying loans. Not until the fourth quarter of 2008 did Saxon boost its capacity to handle a large flood of requests.

All this takes its toll, not just by increasing foreclosures but by adding to the woes of already troubled borrowers. The story profiles Steve Applegate, owner of a Lake Mary, Fla., building-supplies business. Hurt by the construction downturn, Mr. Applegate last fall asked Saxon to modify his $750,000 home loan.

Mr. Applegate, a 60-year-old father of two, says he was told in January that he’d been approved for a rate cut to 2.08% from 6.5%, which would cut his $4,063 monthly payment by more than half. But the confirming paperwork from Saxon never arrived, he says, and in March, he was notified he was in default. When he phoned Saxon, a different loan negotiator recommended foreclosure.

He tried to resuscitate the earlier modification. At one point in April, he spent nearly two hours on the phone with Saxon, got disconnected twice, and was routed to four individuals, according to a recording of the call.

In May, Mr. Applegate was informed by Saxon that he had approval under HAMP for a modification starting June 1.

The good news didn’t last. When he tried to make a second payment on the modified loan, he was told he hadn’t qualified after all. When the Journal asked what happened, a Saxon spokeswoman said that the company had erred in sending him paperwork for a HAMP modification because his outstanding loan balance exceeded the program’s limit of $729,750.

Earlier this month, Saxon said it would modify his loan outside the federal program. Mr. Applegate is still waiting.

If you want to know why foreclosures seem unstoppable, there’s one reason. And the more foreclosures there are, the more dramatic the domino effect. Foreclosures drive down home values for everyone else, forcing more people into negative equity situations, which can lead them to quit paying on their loans, which means more foreclosures. And the cycle repeats itself.

Foreclosures that are delayed don’t just go away; they resurface eventually. Borrowers like Steve Applegate sit in limbo, hoping to avoid a foreclosure that may be inevitable. How many more loans are in the pipeline, just like his? How much longer will the lending industry and Washington wait before heading this off? Time is not on their side, and each month that brings fresh evidence of record high foreclosures only proves that point.

Mary Kane is an economy reporter for the Washington Independent.

Image: Matt Hertel, iStockphoto

WASHINGTON, D.C.— The time may be ripe for a shift in strategy as the foreclosure machine grinds on, and new foreclosure notices reach the troubling milestone of 10,000 per day.

A weak economy has added job losses and falling home values to the mix of toxic loans that prompted the crisis two years ago, making an already difficult situation even more severe. Government measures from foreclosure freezes to loan modifications have only served, so far, to stall the inevitable – and to create an ominous backlog of millions of pending foreclosures. Plus, more than one in five homeowners now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, according to the real estate website Zillow.com. No one can predict with assurance whether those underwater homeowners will keep paying on their loans, or take a walk.

And as bad as things may seem now, there’s still a long period of pain to come: A steady drumbeat of foreclosures, and a stagnant housing market, for the next several years ahead, at a minimum. Some experts see an even more dire picture: Five to 10 years, in California alone, of record high foreclosures. No significant home prices increases nationwide on the horizon in the next year. Or the year after. Or for as long as the next five years. Some 9 million foreclosures are expected by 2012.

While economists search for signs of green shoots, “no one’s really saying anything about this,” noted Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, a Bethesda, Md. publication that covers the lending industry. “There’s really no good news out there, other than we can’t possibly get in much worse shape than we already are.”

Given this bleak scenario, some say it’s finally time for more forceful action. Congress and the Obama administration need to move boldly to stop foreclosures, requiring lenders to go beyond what Calculated Risk dubs “extend and pretend” repayment plans, and actually write down loan balances. And the Obama administration should move quickly to bring more players to the table to pick up the pace of those loan modifications – including the Internal Revenue Service. Servicers might be more aggressive about writing down loans if they’re sure it won’t create tax liabilities for trusts they represent, an impediment that currently stands in the way of getting more mortgages modified, said Kathleen Engel, a Cleveland State University law professor who studies mortgage securitizations.

There’s more to be done, Engel said: Expand the benefits of the homebuyer tax credit up the income ladder, offering it to move up buyers with existing homes as well as first time purchasers. Even direct government loans to borrowers, to keep them in their homes, shouldn’t be dismissed.

“Now is the time to do something,” Engel said. “There are a lot of things to be very concerned about right now. There are people underwater who aren’t making good on their home equity loans. With job losses increasing, more people aren’t able to make their mortgage payments at all. And REOs (Real Estate Owned properties) are driving down home prices. We really need to be trying some new things.”

Engel’s view was echoed by the Obama administration, which recently chastised lenders for their lack in progress in modifying loans. “We believe there is a general need for servicers to devote substantially more resources to this program for it to fully succeed and achieve the objectives we all share,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said in the letter, which was sent to to 25 mortgage-servicing firms.
Only about 270,000 borrowers have been offered loan modifications under Obama’s Making Home Affordable program, the Treasury Department says — a far cry from its much more ambitious goal of helping 4 to 5 million homeowners rework their loans.

Geither and Donovan weren’t the only ones speaking out. As the Washington Independent has reported, a small band of House Democrats last week urged for more action beyond voluntary loan foreclosures. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and 19 other Senators also petitioned Geithner to adopt a more aggressive strategy for loan modifications specifically for homeowners with option adjustable rate mortgages scheduled to reset to higher payments over the next four years. In addition, the Washington Post reported the Treasury Department also is putting together a “Plan C” – a new strategy – to head off defaults in commercial real estate and to tackle delinquencies tied to job losses.

It seems like a full frontal assault. But it may not be enough.

Slowing down the inevitable

In reality, there’s little political will to force lenders to write down loan balances. Congress defeated mortgage “cramdown” legislation, which would have allowed bankruptcy judges to cramdown, or reduce, the terms of a mortgage to keep a borrower in his home. The Obama administration stood by as the measure failed. Only that small group of House Democrats still wants to revive it. Bailing out homeowners still runs smack into the wall of moral hazard, in the public’s mind, and even the worsening crisis hasn’t changed that. “I don’t know why this is still true, but people are willing to roll over and give billions of dollars to banks, and they get pissed off about the idea of their next door neighbor getting a break,” said Sean O’Toole, president and founder of ForeclosureRadar.com,which compiles foreclosure data for the California market.

Instead of pressing for more loan modifications, it may be time to conclude that all the programs thrown at the mortgage problem haven’t done much to fix it. The most infamous, Hope for Homeowners, intended to help 400,000 borrowers, resulted in just 25 loan closings. Various state and voluntary foreclosure freezes only gave a pause to foreclosures. And most foreclosure prevention programs were created two years ago, when subprime loans were the major cause of foreclosures, not unemployment and a faltering economy.

These days, if you can’t afford your mortgage payment because you just lost your job, it really doesn’t matter whether you have a toxic Option ARM or a standard 30-year fixed loan. You’re still in default.

“The bad economy is what’s driving foreclosures right now,” Cecala said. “Even if there were no Pay Option ARMs out there, many homeowners would still be in deep trouble.”

Foreclosure prevention efforts, at this point, are “just slowing down the inevitable,” he added. “You can take a look at any one of these programs and you won’t find a lot of value in it.”

The Obama Administration, for example, recently expanded the refinancing options available under Making Home Affordable, to include borrowers who are more deeply underwater on their loans. It sounds good -  but it’s unlikely to pan out, Cecala said. Borrowers may not qualify for refinancings, under new underwriting guidelines from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac that are far stricter than when they originally applied for their loans. Or borrowers may have to pay such high fees or rates that it won’t make the refinancing worthwhile. In places like California and Florida, some homeowners are so far underwater they still won’t qualify.

The nuclear option

The big question, as Cecala notes, is whether foreclosures can be stopped at all. Which brings up the nuclear option: Unleash the pent up foreclosures and get the pain over with. Consider the backlog in California alone. More than 3 million households are expected to end up underwater eventually, according to O’Toole. As of now, some 851,000 households are delinquent on their mortgages. Of those, 264,977 already have received a foreclosure notice – but their properties have yet to be sold at auction. Only 22,245 foreclosures were completed in June, Foreclosure.com said.

Given that possibility that half of the the 3 million underwater homeowners or more also will eventually lose their homes, that means that working through the entire backlog could involve between five to 10 years of record high foreclosure levels, O’Toole said.
.
Nationwide, the picture isn’t much better. After hitting a high point of about 900,000 in November 2008, REO inventory, or bank-owned foreclosures, slowly decreased over the last six months, down to about 770,000 in May, according to RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure database.

But don’t get your hopes up just yet.

“We believe the reason for that decline is largely due to the various foreclosure moratoria and state laws extending the foreclosure process that have been in effect in recent months,” said Daren Blomquist, a RealtyTrac spokesman. “As some of those moratoria were lifted in March and April we saw a substantial spike in initial foreclosure notices and we believe that will translate into a spike in REOs as well over the next several months.”

The bad news continues:  “In addition, we believe there is still a pent-up supply of delinquent loans that have not even hit the foreclosure process yet because banks are taking longer to start the foreclosure process after a loan goes delinquent – probably partly because they are overwhelmed with the volume of delinquent loans and partly because they are more aggressively trying to modify or refinance loans rather than foreclose.”

Blomquist added that the “twin threats” of risky loans and high unemployment will ensure a steady drumbeat of high foreclosure activity, for at least the remainder of this year.

The radical approach would be to stop staving all this off, take the pain, push the foreclosures through the system without delay, and get to the bottom. In California, at least, that could clear out the foreclosure backlog in about two years, O’Toole estimated.

“I’m not necessarily advocating that we should simply dump all the foreclosures at once – I actually think that could be disastrous,” he said. “But I think dragging them out over the next 5 to 10 years is an equally bad choice.”

But if there’s little political will to bail out homeowners, there’s even less stomach for announcing a strategy to bail on them entirely. It’s not the sort of thing that can be said in pubic. Even if there’s some logic to it.

An entirely new direction

And that opens the door for a third way.

Alan Mallach, a senior fellow at the National Housing Institute and the Brookings Institution, took a close look at the housing market in Phoenix, where prices have declined by as much as 60 percent in the past few years.  Houses that sold for a quarter-million dollars now go for $90,000 or so in the booming REO market. Buyers – both investors and individuals – are realizing that at those prices, they have options, if they are willing to be patient. They can hold on to those homes for six or eight years, rent them out until they earn their money back, and wait until they can possibly sell them at a profit.

Most importantly, the new owners often are more than willing to rent back the homes to their former owners, a situation that benefits both sides. Borrowers can stay in their homes, with rent payments they can afford. The homes don’t sit vacant, abandoned, or vulnerable to vandalism, which can drive down surrounding property values. “You don’t kick the person out,” Mallach said. “And many of the investors say it’s an advantage not to have to look for a new tenant.” The situation, he said, provides evidence of “the beginning of some sort of leveling off that’s going on” in neighborhoods hit with foreclosures, at least in Phoenix.

Based in that experience, Mallach these days reminds local governments and neighborhood development groups not all investors are enemies, despite their reputations. Communities can both encourage investors as partners in buying and fixing up bank-owned houses – and warn them they’ll come down hard if they sink too far into speculation. And there are more encouraging signs at the local level. As Philadelphia, and some other cities have found, mandatory face-to-face foreclosure mediation between borrowers and servicers has proven to help avoid foreclosures, without dragging out the process.

A combination of these kinds of ideas – smaller scale, targeted to the needs of particular markets – may a quicker and more effective blueprint for tackling the crisis, especially in the absence of an aggressive government approach.

“Maybe we’re coming to the realization that we can’t loan mod our way out of this,” Mallach said. “There’s no magic solution. There’s no government riding in on a white horse to buy up all the bad assets.”

The wild card

Congress and the administration, in fact, haven’t exactly come up with anything “radical and bold” yet to tackle the crisis – and it’s unlikely they will turn around and do so now. Instead, Mallach noted, Realtors, the real estate industry, and some economists are spending unnecessary time and energy trying to declare a bottom to the crisis and look for any evidence of good news. It’s a great time to buy a house, they insist.

But there are still 9 million foreclosures expected by 2012, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Goldman Sachs estimates 13 million foreclosures on all types of loans by 2014. And a continuing decline in home prices for the majority of housing markets is predicted for at least the next two years, says a report by mortgage insurer PMI.

As Malllach noted, policies to encourage renting are one option to counter all this. Even with all their limitations, loan modifications could be another. It’s “a really crucial time” to jumpstart them right now, said Cleveland State’s Kathleen Engel. Servicers finally have gotten fully staffed and up to speed, after a slow start. Clearing away potential tax liabilities for trusts due to aggressive loan modifications could help, she said. So could ratcheting up the pressure on lenders and servicers alike to complete more of them.

But challenges remain. REOs are driving away other sales, keeping downward pressure on home prices, Mallach noted. Stronger markets that have been immune so far to plunging home prices, such as New York City, New Jersey, and the Philadelphia suburbs, still remain at high risk for a downward spiral. Frustration keeps growing over a lack of progress in anything being done to stem foreclosures, creating anger in neighborhoods, and even a movement to put squatters in vacant homes.

Beyond that, underwater homeowners remain a huge wild card, with the chance that a significant number of them will stop paying their mortgages in the near future clouding any hope for a quick recovery.

When it comes to the foreclosure machine, things are probably even worse than they seem. That’s a starting point for any strategy to challenge a housing crisis isn’t ending anytime soon.

Mary Kane is an economy reporter for the Washington Independent.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) (WDCpix)

Not long after foreclosures started to take off in 2007 and the mortgage market’s collapse began to cripple the economy, one lesson seemed obvious: The predatory lending practices that led to the crisis had to be reined in.

But despite massive government bailouts of banks and lenders due to losses from toxic mortgages, that reform still hasn’t happened. As the Obama administration urges lawmakers to quickly enact sweeping health care legislation this summer, the momentum to halt abusive lending practices and overhaul mortgage lending, by contrast, has stalled. A mortgage reform bill that passed the House in May was so complicated and contradictory it wound up angering some of the same consumer advocates who have been battling predatory lending. And – flaws and all – the measure isn’t likely to be taken up in the Senate anytime soon. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) told reporters recently that mortgage reform will have to wait: “We’ve got a lot on our plate. We’ve got other things to do.” Dodd added that “There isn’t a lot of predatory lending going on right now… I’m not minimizing what happened before, and I don’t want to see a repetition of it, but there’s not subprime lending going on today.”

To many housing activists, the lack of action on the predatory lending bill is the final insult of a failed campaign to rapidly reform mortgage lending – something that once seemed like a slam dunk. First, a mortgage cramdown measure that would have forced lenders to write down loan amounts for borrowers in bankruptcy failed, after 12 Senate Democrats joined Republicans in refusing to support it. Then came dashed hopes for a more comprehensive predatory lending bill, and for quick action on it. To some, the window to tackle mortgage reform is open right now, and the time to act is before the housing market recovers and lending picks up again. The failure so far to do so, they worry, means little is being learned in Congress from the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression – and even less progress is being made to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

“If there was anything that seemed like a sure bet, it was reforming mortgage lending,” said Alan White, a Valparaiso University law professor who studies subprime lending and foreclosures. “But the momentum seems to be fizzling. It’s certainly possible the subprime market could come back in some form someday, and I am surprised there hasn’t been more movement for real mortgage reform. The Blue Dog Democrats are being strong advocates for for the banking industry, and that makes it difficult for the more consumer-minded Democrats to get some kind of regulation passed.”

It gets even more complicated. Housing advocates aren’t eager to launch a high-profile campaign against Dodd over his relegation of the predatory lending bill to the back burner, given that Dodd is in the midst of a tough re-election battle. Should he lose, the next in line to head the Senate Banking committee would be Sen. Tim Johnson (S.D.), the only Senate Democrat to vote against Dodd’s credit card reform bill.

Beyond that, the House bill seems to have split the housing advocacy community, with some supporting it despite its drawbacks, and others strongly opposing it. The controversy is surprising, considering the measure was co-sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who has a history of consumer advocacy. As has been pointed out, Frank is trying to promote lending reforms without totally alienating the financial industry.

But it’s the housing advocates who are angry this time. Nine consumer, housing and civil rights groups, including the National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, criticized Frank’s bill, saying it undermines existing state consumer protection laws. The NCLC said the bill would “do more harm than good” by pre-empting the state anti-predatory measures and by limiting the ability to sue Wall Street investment firms that buy up risky mortgages.

“The bill is complex, convoluted, and simply will not accomplish its main goal – to fundamentally change the way mortgages are made in this country,” the NCLC said in a statement.

The bill still won praise from some other consumer groups for prohibiting lenders from steering borrowers into higher cost loans and for requiring lenders to verify that borrowers have the ability to repay their mortgages, a long-sought goal of many housing advocates. And it bans pre-payment penalties, another fixture of subprime lending. But the bill doesn’t apply strong penalties for violating the law, and it includes the limits on legal challenges. The measure seems to have something in it for both mortgage lenders and consumer advocates, which only served to make everyone unhappy, Valparaiso’s White said.

Explained one advocate, who declined to go on the record in order to speak freely: “It’s the most complicated, arcane, ridiculous, confusing piece of crap any of us has ever seen.”

Other mortgage reforms also are running into complications. The National Association of Mortgage Brokers, for example, plans to restart a legal challenge to a new government approved code of conduct for appraisals, which is aimed at keeping lenders and brokers from pressuring appraisers to inflate home values. The new regulation stems from a mortgage fraud lawsuit by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. It went into effect May 1 and requires mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to only buy loans appraised under the new standard.

The NAMB and other industry groups, however, contend the regulation isn’t needed and only adds to the cost of buying a home. The NAMB plans to file another legal challenge soon to overturn the rule, after withdrawing an earlier attempt, said NAMB President Marc Savitt.

His group also continues opposing any changes in the way brokers get paid for making loans – something once considered an obvious target for reform.

An industry practice known as the yield spread premium, a form of sales commissions for mortgage brokers, has long been controversial, with consumer advocates contending some brokers misuse it to con borrowers into higher-rate mortgages. Frank’s bill appears to outlaw the yield spread premium – but no one’s entirely sure. “There are four different interpretations of the language right now,” Savitt said. Regardless, he said, “the yield spread premium and mortgage brokers are being used as scapegoats right now. Mortgage brokers don’t develop loan programs and don’t underwrite and approve loans, so how could this all be our fault?”

The problem for mortgage reform, said Margot Saunders, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, is that with mortgage brokers and mortgage originators in every congressional District, Congress has plenty of financial incentive to listen to arguments like that from the lending industry – and already does so. As the New York Times noted in an editorial on passage of the House anti-predatory lending measure: “The Senate needs to improve on the legislation and ensure that stronger reforms quickly become law. To do that, Senators will finally have to stand up to the mortgage industry and its all-too-well-paid lobbyists.”

Saunders and others say they’re trying to remain hopeful the Senate will take up mortgage reform again in the fall – but they’re not counting on it. “Congress,” said Saunders, “just acts like homeowners don’t matter.”

None of the current proposals, for example, even addresses the possibility of linking compensation to a loan’s performance, which would cut out incentives for brokers and lenders to make high-rate mortgages that borrowers can’t repay, Saunders said.

But some see some positive signs on reform. Both the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission are working on new rules for mortgages and other types of lending, which are expected to require greater disclosures of terms and rates. The Obama administration is backing a proposal to create a Financial Products Safety Commission, which would regulate mortgages, credit cards, and other kinds of lending by requiring more consumer protections.

And Congress may be slow to act on mortgage reform not because of lending industry opposition, but because “it’s incredibly complicated” to do so, and “Congress is running out of time” with so many other issues on its plate, said Bert Ely, a banking industry analyst.

Whatever the reason, Congress’ plate is full – and mortgage reform isn’t on it, at least in the near future. In the meantime, 5.4 million mortgages are delinquent or in some stage of foreclosure, and home prices continue to fall.

Mary Kane is an economy reporter for the Washington Independent.

(Respres, Flickr)

When U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan announced last week that first-time homebuyers soon will be permitted to turn their $8,000 tax credit for purchasing a property into downpayment money, he called the development “exciting” and “a real win for everyone.”

But his enthusiasm isn’t universal.

Amid the buzz the program has generated over the possibility of jumpstarting the sluggish housing market, some worry that “monetizing” a tax credit – which means providing homebuyers with short-term loans secured by their expected tax refunds, so they can gain quick access to the money – isn’t quite as simple as it sounds.

It could make borrowers vulnerable to the same predatory abuses that plague the Earned Income Tax Credit program, an anti-poverty government effort. That program remains a regular target of tax preparation companies, which partner with banks to aggressively market short-term, high-rate Refund Anticipation Loans secured by the refund. Recipients – the working poor – often fork over as much as one-third of their refunds in charges and fees, in order to get their money a week or two earlier. The loan is repaid when the actual refund arrives.

It’s possible that unscrupulous lenders could launch homebuyer tax-credit programs of their own, profiting from the publicity over HUD’s initiative. It’s not clear if the Federal Housing Administration, which has seen its share of the mortgage market explode from less than three percent to more than 30 percent in the past few years, will have the resources to police the program adequately. And with government the largest source of mortgage money in a tight credit environment, “people are going to try to take advantage of it” through fraud, said Ann Fulmer, of vice president of business relations for Interthinx, a provider to lenders of fraud prevention services.

Beyond all that, some decry the idea of helping people buy homes who can’t come up with downpayment money on their own, calling it the kind of thinking that led to the mortgage crisis in the first place. Congress approved the credit as part of the stimulus package approved in February.

At Minyanville, a financial information Website, real estate consultant Andrew Jeffery declared that “subprime lending has come roaring back,” noting that a few states already have started similar tax credit programs. Financial recklessness, he said, isn’t coming from Wall Street this time around, but from the government itself. As Jeffery put it, federal and state governments are “in a rush to prop up home prices and delay the ultimate day of reckoning” by insisting on “coercing taxpayers to over-leverage themselves” and take on debt they can’t afford.

Peter Morici, an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, was equally blunt. “If you can’t save for a downpayment, should you be buying a house? It’s like we’re saying, ‘People who can’t save a cent and who can’t let go of their credit cards should get downpayment assistance.’”

Morici also called the program a “total payoff to builders,” who lobbied heavily for the tax credit.

But others aren’t so quick to criticize. They point out that the government is just trying to balance helping out a housing market desperate for buyers with avoiding the kind of risky lending that created the crisis. Fulmer, of Interthinx, noted that the FHA is working hard to “walk a tightrope” – making sure that moderate income buyers still have a shot at buying homes, given steep new downpayment requirements, while backing responsible and sound lending.

“There are competing goals,” said Brian Chappelle, a former FHA official and founding partner of Potomac Partners, a Washington mortgage industry consulting firm. “They want to stimulate housing and economic activity and they also want the borrower to “have skin in the game.”‘

The downpayment idea has attracted widespread interest, with the Wall Street Journal calling it a possible “game changer” for the moribund housing market. In the end, said Chappelle, “our economic problems trump risk concerns.”

In his speech to the National Association of Realtors, HUD’s Donovan said that “we all want to enable FHA consumers to access the tax credit funds when they close on their home loans so that the cash can be used as a downpayment.” He said the FHA will allow “trusted FHA-approved lenders,” as well as HUD-approved nonprofits, and state and local government entities, to monetize the credit through short-term bridge loans.

HUD spokesman Brian Sullivan said he couldn’t comment further, except to say that the FHA is continuing to work out final details.

The program is expected to mirror efforts already in place in a handful of states, including Missouri, Delaware, New Jersey, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Under those programs, the states offer bridge loans that allow buyers to borrow against their tax credit for down payment and closing costs, then repay it when their tax refunds arrive. If the borrower doesn’t pay, the unpaid loan becomes a lien on the property, at a slightly higher interest rate, which means the borrower faces higher monthly payments over the next decade.

The FHA has run into trouble in the past with down payment programs. Congress last year banned a seller-funded down payment assistance program that led to high default rates on FHA loans. As TWI reported recently, supporters of the banned program, including builders, Realtors, mortgage brokers, and some in Congress, are trying to revive it.

Under the seller funded program, the FHA allowed homeowners to get down payment help from nonprofits or charities funded in part by sellers. But sellers often raised the sales price of a home to cover the cost of the down payment “gift.” 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 paid for it all, whether they realized it or not. The Internal Revenue Service called the whole thing a scam and revoked the charitable status of seller-funded providers.

Aaron Krowne, founder of the Mortgage Lender Implode-o-Meter, a website that tracks the mortgage industry and is leading a campaign in the blogosphere to block any reinstatement of the seller-funded down payment assistance program, said he doesn’t have the same concerns about the homebuyer tax credit idea.

“It differs significantly from SFDPA (seller funded down payment assistance) in that the seller has no specific inducement to inflate the price, nor is there any third party who earns a fee for laundering a “contribution” from the seller,” he said. “So, in my opinion, it is a bad macroeconomic inducement and is bad policy — but it isn’t criminal and dishonest with likely knock-on effects like SFDPA.”

In addition, the FHA is likely to keep a close watch on the entities it approves to make the short-term loans, and will limit the costs and fees that can be charged, noted Robin Medecke, a researcher at the Mortgage Lender Implode-o-Meter.

Her worries about the program, she said are different.

“Where I would be concerned is the possibility of Fannie and Freddie adopting similar guidelines with limited or no power to dictate or enforce similar restrictions,” she said. “That’s the real as-yet-unopened can of worms, in my opinion, and if it’s further extended to the secondary market, thereby opening up the tax credit advance to private investors, the potential for abuse increases exponentially.”

HUD’s goal in developing the program was to encourage lenders issuing the mortgages to also make the short-term loans to the borrowers, noted Chappelle, the former FHA official. But Chappelle spoke with several small and regional lenders last week, who said they aren’t interested in doing so. Only government agencies and approved nonprofits can issue a lien on the property if the loan goes unpaid, he said.

“While the lender can make the loan, I hear that most won’t do it because it must be unsecured,” Chappelle said. “It can’t be attached to the property. No question some of the tax credit could be abused by entities that will step-in and make these loans.”

Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, which covers the lending industry, agreed, saying an “obvious problem” is that predatory lenders will start marketing similar homebuyer tax refund anticipation programs, “piggy backing on the publicity surrounding the non-profit products authorized by HUD.”

While Donovan referred to “trusted” FHA-approved lenders that will be allowed to participate, Cecala also questioned that assurance. “It gets a little trickier when you bring FHA-approved mortgagees into the mix since that group includes brokers – and probably former subprime lenders,” Cecala said.

Business Week magazine reported last year that subprime lenders with histories of abuses were turning to FHA-backed loans.

The biggest question about the program is whether of the agency has the ability to monitor it for fraud, said Sonia Garrison, a senior researcher with the Center for Responsible Lending. The FHA was downsized over the past decade as it played a smaller role in the mortgage market.

“We’ve got to be able to get the FHA the resources it needs to police the program properly,” she said.

And to draw the fine line between helping the housing market, and keeping a lid on risky lending.

Mary Kane is an economy reporter for the Washington Independent.

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

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 Mortgage Bankers Association, 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

Spokesmen for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac confirmed the ban ended March 31, in a response to an inquiry from TWI. The agencies made a major announcement in November to roll out the ban, garnering headlines and extensive news coverage. Freddie Mac CEO David Moffett issued a statement at the time, saying the ban “provides a new measure of certainty” to families facing foreclosures during the holidays.

But its expiration didn’t seem to merit the same level of fanfare, with some housing advocates caught by surprise, scrambling for information today and Wednesday on listservs and in phone calls.

Danilo Pelletiere, research director for the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the ban’s eventual expiration wasn’t unexpected – but it also wasn’t clear specifically when it was supposed to end. Some housing attorneys and advocates were confused because they were in the middle of cases that would be affected by the expiration. Fannie and Freddie have repeatedly extended the ban, which was originally expected to expire on Jan. 9.

Fannie Mae said in a brief statement from spokesman Brian Faith that “Fannie Mae’s suspension of foreclosure-related evictions concludes as of March 31, 2009. The company has in place special foreclosure sale requirements that take into account the Making Home Affordable program. A foreclosure sale may not occur on any Fannie Mae loan until the loan servicer verifies that the borrower is ineligible for a Home Affordable Modification and all other foreclosure prevention alternatives have been exhausted.”

Since the ban started, both Fannie and Freddie have developed rental programs to keep tenants from being evicted from foreclosed properties owned by the two agencies.

In addition, the Obama administration in March unveiled its plan to help troubled borrowers either refinance their homes or modify their mortgages.

Housing advocates aren’t exactly cheering about the ban being lifted. But they are hoping the new programs succeed, and plan to keep a close eye on their progress, Pelletiere said.

The lifting of the ban will be a testing ground for the administration’s approach to foreclosures. A bill to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages has stalled in Congress. Money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program has gone to banks and bailout efforts. The ban, enacted as foreclosures soared and the holidays approached, was the government’s first dramatic step to help homeowners. The housing rescue plan was developed and announced only after the Treasury Department first unveiled its plan to buy toxic assets from banks.

“A perpetual moratorium is not a solution to how we do foreclosures in the future,” Pelletiere said. “It’s a holding pattern. We need to break that holding pattern to allow for something else positive to happen.”

Brad German, a spokesman for Freddie Mac, said he was “mystified” as to how anyone could be surprised by the ban’s expiration. The idea behind it was to give the government time to create homeowner rescue plans, and that’s been done, he said. Neither agency also expects a flood of homeowners out on the street because the ban is being lifted, he added.

“For all practical purposes, people will be in their homes for a while,” despite the ban’s expiration, German said. Fannie and Freddie will need time to approach tenants and homeowners and figure out whether they are qualified for help, he said.

Separate programs launched recently by Fannie and Freddie to allow tenants to stay in Real Estate Owned (REO) foreclosed properties owned by the agencies and lease them on a month by month basis at market rents, until they can be sold again, are not affected by the ban’s expiration, German said. Those programs will continue, with no expiration date scheduled. Fannie’s program covers renters of foreclosed properties, while both former owners and renters can qualify for Freddie’s program.

The REO rental programs aim to reach out to those no longer covered by the foreclosure ban and see if they can qualify, German said – which mitigates the effect of the ban being lifted. For example, under Freddie Mac’s program, a homeowner currently facing eviction could stay in his house as a renter until it is sold, if he meets the program’s guidelines.

But with little information to go on today, housing advocates found themselves in confusion and concern over whether the REO program was ending, and whether all renters would be subject to evictions again.

Even when the Fannie and Freddie ban was active, however, it sometimes failed to reach people before they got evicted, said Judith Liben, a senior housing attorney with the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, a nonprofit legal services advocacy group. Only the District of Columbia and a few states have no-fault eviction laws requiring that a lease survives foreclosure, and that tenants can’t be automatically evicted. And the new REO policy by Fannie and Freddie, while laudable, takes time to reach the neighborhood level, Liben said.

Expanding no-fault eviction laws could be one answer to the problem of renters facing evictions, Liben said. Other states are moving to require more foreclosure notice for tenants.

The vulnerability of tenants to foreclosure evictions, along with falling property values of vacant and foreclosed homes, are prompting Liben and others to question the banking industry’s reluctance so far to move toward allowing people to stay in foreclosed houses and pay rent. Many are hoping the rest of the mortgage industry will follow Fannie and Freddie’s lead in establishing REO rental programs.

“Very few people have reached the stage where they are looking at renters as part of the solution,” Pelletiere said. “There’s almost a resistance to it. Bankers in particular still have this mindset that ‘I need to get those people out and sell the house right away.’ But rental housing really is part of the solution to this crisis.”

An oversupply of housing, combined with a weak economy that often requires people to move to find new jobs – and not tied down to a house they can’t sell – makes renting an especially worthwhile option, Pelletiere added. “Until the economy finds its footing, we don’t want to put pressure on people to settle down,” he said. “In the past we’ve had a very significant bias toward homeownership that has been to the detriment of rental housing. And that has to stop. Housing policy going forward really has to balance out a little more. In the long term, rental housing can be good for communities.”

Problems with bank-owned foreclosed properties that sell for way below market value, for example, could be addressed by keeping renters in the houses.

Community groups last month urged Congress to crack down on the practice of Broker Price Opinions , which are cheaper substitutes for full appraisals and are used to determine a property’s value. BPOs often are performed by real estate agents with minimal training and cost as little as $50, compared to $300 and above for a traditional appraisal. They are increasingly employed by lenders for sales of bank-owned foreclosed properties, known as REOs, or Real Estate Owned properties, and for short sales, in which owners sell their homes for less than they are worth. The bank forgives the difference, and takes a loss.

Using a BPO is illegal in more than 20 states, but the practice has become widespread, said David Berenbaum, executive vice president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. The BPOs frequently result in lowball estimates of a property’s value, with lenders using them to unload REOs and short sale properties. Agents who perform BPOs have an inherent conflict of interest, because they are working for lenders who want to quickly dispose of properties. Speculators and other investors scoop them up at the fire sale prices, dragging down property values overall.

“Right now, it’s a race to the bottom,” Berenbaum said. “They’re having a terrible impact on property values.”

Whether or not they use BPOs, banks increasingly are selling off REOs at low prices, even in stronger housing markets. In Temecula, Calif., for example, Citigroup sold a foreclosed house for just $139,000, when comparable houses in the area were going for $240,000 to $260,000, the North County Times reported – meaning the bank left some $100,000 on the table.

In markets where the REOs don’t sell and lenders fail to maintain their properties, other problems persist, with neighborhoods facing a glut of abandoned homes and blight, as TWI has explained. RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure database, predicts a record 1.5 million REOs this year, meaning more trouble ahead.

Given all this, some housing advocates can’t understand why lenders aren’t allowing more former homeowners or current tenants to pay rent and live in foreclosed houses until they can be sold. The new REO rental programs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac marked a major step toward that goal. But there’s been no major private industry initiative to move beyond the model of getting owners and tenants out ASAP, Berenbaum noted, despite the obvious benefits of doing so.

“Frankly, if the mortgage industry would allow homeowners facing foreclosure to remain in the properties as tenants, it would stabilize their investments and stabilize the communities,” Berenbaum said.

But bloated REO inventories are proof of how overwhelmed servicers and lenders due to record numbers of foreclosures – and they’ve said repeatedly they don’t want to be in the property management business. They also contend they’re not always the ones responsible for the vacant homes problem. In a magazine published by the Housing Wire mortgage blog, Robert Klein, CEO of Safeguard Properties, a major servicer, put it this way:

“The fact is, as an industry, mortgage servicers spend in excess of $2 billion annually to take care of vacant properties so they don’t become nuisances to neighbors and communities. Unfortunately, servicers who are the ‘good guys’ get lumped in with property flippers and Internet investors whose irresponsible practices have been major contributors to urban blight.”

Despite that blight, lenders and servicers seem to be closing their eyes to the possibility of economic benefits from filling empty houses with renters, said Liben said.
“I think that the mortgage industry and the banking industry are very slow to catch on to why things are different in this particular crisis,” Liben said. “They aren’t even trying to be creative. It’s like “This is the way we’ve always done it. Get people out and sell the house and get new people in and that’s that.’” Or, “We don’t want to be landlords.’” That’s all they ever say. ”

Foreclosed and vacant houses often lose 50 percent of their market value by the time they are sold out of bank REO inventories, Liben said. Those kind of losses should be spurring the industry to at least undertake a cost benefit analysis to figure out whether it might be more financially advantageous to rent out the properties, she said.
“Maybe those properties wouldn’t have declined by 50 percent if they had people in them,” Liben said.

Creating policies to encourage lenders to rent their foreclosed properties remains an uphill battle, said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. The mortgage industry just isn’t interested in getting involved in the rental market. And some of the nonprofit development groups that overreached in promoting homeownership during the boom, putting people in houses they couldn’t afford, aren’t taking the lead on initiating rental options, he said.

“They don’t want to own up to what they did,” Baker said. “They’ve pretty much put their heads in the sand.”

Pelletiere, of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the rental issue remains a “tense” one for some nonprofits, because of the bitter controversy over whether the Community Reinvestment Act, an anti-redlining law, played a role in the housing crisis. Conservatives have blamed the CRA and poor and minority borrowers for the foreclosure crisis, saying the government forced lenders to make risky mortgages to them to meet CRA requirements.

Nonprofits fought that campaign by pointing out that most subprime loans were made by independent mortgage brokers and firms not covered by the CRA. Nonetheless, the belief persists, and nonprofits are wary of ceding any ground on the issue by changing their focus to promoting renting, Pelletiere said.

For the lending industry, the issue is far less complicated, Liben charged. The savings and loan crisis should have prepared them to better manage their REOs, she said. “They have no excuses,” she said. “They should have seen this coming.”

In the absence of industry initiatives, economists and housing experts have been floating various rental ideas, including allowing a delinquent homeowner to give the property back to the bank, in return for having his credit wiped clean. Rent-to-own programs, in which a portion of rent goes toward a downpayment, also are being revived in some communities with too many foreclosed homes.

But none of those efforts will gain a foothold until the mindset that renters are a detriment to a neighborhood begins to change, Pelletiere said. Or until renting is seen as one of the answers to the problem of foreclosures and vacant homes. For those reasons, he and others will watch closely as Fannie and Freddie run their REO rental programs, and try to keep people in their homes as a ban on foreclosure sales and evictions finally ends.

Mary Kane is an economy reporter for the Washington Independent.