Archive for 'Investors'

Landlord Training – Tenant Challenges Part VI

This is a on demand preview 

 

Click Here for Full Video/Article (Members Only)

Real Estate marketing tips made simple for your real estate business and any business you own.

This is an On Demand Video PREVIEW

Click Here for Full Video/Article (Members Only)

Question:

Mike, there are some foreclosures we can not bid on because it goes to potential homeowners first. Isn’t that discrimination? Can they get by with it?

Thanks Mike,
Farril

 

ANSWER:

Great Question Farril. Sorry, but you lose on this one.

HUD has been doing since I started investing decades ago.

“Investors Are NOT a Click Here for Full Video/Article (Members Only)

STARTING April 1, under a new compensation rule from the Federal Reserve, borrowers who get their mortgages through brokers will most likely pay less for their services and must be offered the lowest possible interest rate and fees for which they qualify.
The new rule also affects those dealing with small banks and credit unions, which typically do not fund loans from their own resources. But most banks and other direct lenders, including the few mortgage companies that function like banks, are exempt.
The new rule is known as the Loan Originator Compensation amendment to Regulation Z, part of a strengthened Truth in Lending Act passed by Congress in 2008.
Designed to prevent consumers from being steered into high-cost, risky loans, it covers how a loan originator — or any person or company that arranges, obtains and/or negotiates a mortgage for a client — is paid.
Under the new rule, a lender can no longer pay a loan originator a lucrative rebate known as a yield-spread premium, which is tied to the rate or terms of the mortgage. Banks and other lenders can continue to pay commissions to brokers, but these payments must now be based solely on the loan amount.
In the past, the higher the interest rate and points, the more money a broker stood to earn.

Brokerage firms typically earn a yield-spread premium of 1.5 to 2.5 percent of the loan amount, with higher-rate loans paying closer to 2.5 percent. The brokerage and its broker, or loan officer, typically split the rebate.
On a $400,000 loan at 5.25 percent, that might total $8,000, based on two points paid, with a point being 1 percent of the loan amount.
In the new system, the brokerage can earn a fixed commission from the lender, but the amount is not tied to the loan terms.
Also, the brokerage cannot pass on a part of the commission to the broker, who must now be paid an hourly wage or salary.
The exception is for loans where the lender pays the borrower’s points to the brokerage, typically for higher-rate loans. (The commission range is expected to be 1.5 to 2.5 points.)
It is also forbidden for a loan originator to collect payments from both the consumer and the lender in a single transaction.
If a broker is paid a commission by a lender (based on the loan amount), he or she cannot also charge the consumer points, or fees for application or processing.
The consumer will still, however, need to pay the broker for third-party services like appraisals.
An exception to the new rule involves lenders who finance mortgages in their own names from their own resources, a practice known as warehouse-lending, and then sell the loans to investors like Fannie Mae. The exception also applies to other companies that fund mortgages from their own resources.
Some mortgage companies originate and close mortgages in their own names through funds from third parties, typically other banks — a practice known in the industry as table funding. The new rule applies to them as well.
Thomas Martin, the president of America’s Watchdog, called the rebates “a rip-off” and said the Fed rule was “very welcome.”
Brokers who match consumers with lenders argue the rule undercuts the value they offer consumers. “It unfairly makes these brokers less competitive” against the big banks, said Mark Yecies, an owner of SunQuest Funding, a mortgage broker and lender in Cranford, N.J. “I will now get paid the same amount to process a plain-vanilla loan as I will a complex loan of equal size that requires more work.”
He added that “bigger banks will capture a bigger percentage of the origination market, and they will raise rates.”
Mike Anderson, a director at the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, said that the rule would “likely put a lot of independent brokers out of business.”

But the Mortgage Bankers Association says brokers would still be competitive with banks because many consumers like to work with brokers, and banks cannot handle all of the business.
by Lynnley Browning
For more: http://nyti.ms/gS6OHz

New Fed Rule for Mortgage Brokers
STARTING April 1, under a new compensation rule from the Federal Reserve, borrowers who get their mortgages through brokers will most likely pay less for their services and must be offered the lowest possible interest rate and fees for which they qualify.
The new rule also affects those dealing with small banks and credit unions, which typically do not fund loans from their own resources. But most banks and other direct lenders, including the few mortgage companies that function like banks, are exempt.
The new rule is known as the Loan Originator Compensation amendment to Regulation Z, part of a strengthened Truth in Lending Act passed by Congress in 2008. Designed to prevent consumers from being steered into high-cost, risky loans, it covers how a loan originator — or any person or company that arranges, obtains and/or negotiates a mortgage for a client — is paid.
Under the new rule, a lender can no longer pay a loan originator a lucrative rebate known as a yield-spread premium, which is tied to the rate or terms of the mortgage. Banks and other lenders can continue to pay commissions to brokers, but these payments must now be based solely on the loan amount.
In the past, the higher the interest rate and points, the more money a broker stood to earn.
Brokerage firms typically earn a yield-spread premium of 1.5 to 2.5 percent of the loan amount, with higher-rate loans paying closer to 2.5 percent. The brokerage and its broker, or loan officer, typically split the rebate. On a $400,000 loan at 5.25 percent, that might total $8,000, based on two points paid, with a point being 1 percent of the loan amount.
In the new system, the brokerage can earn a fixed commission from the lender, but the amount is not tied to the loan terms. Also, the brokerage cannot pass on a part of the commission to the broker, who must now be paid an hourly wage or salary. The exception is for loans where the lender pays the borrower’s points to the brokerage, typically for higher-rate loans. (The commission range is expected to be 1.5 to 2.5 points.)
It is also forbidden for a loan originator to collect payments from both the consumer and the lender in a single transaction. If a broker is paid a commission by a lender (based on the loan amount), he or she cannot also charge the consumer points, or fees for application or processing. The consumer will still, however, need to pay the broker for third-party services like appraisals.
An exception to the new rule involves lenders who finance mortgages in their own names from their own resources, a practice known as warehouse-lending, and then sell the loans to investors like Fannie Mae. The exception also applies to other companies that fund mortgages from their own resources.
Some mortgage companies originate and close mortgages in their own names through funds from third parties, typically other banks — a practice known in the industry as table funding. The new rule applies to them as well.
Thomas Martin, the president of America’s Watchdog, called the rebates “a rip-off” and said the Fed rule was “very welcome.”
Brokers who match consumers with lenders argue the rule undercuts the value they offer consumers. “It unfairly makes these brokers less competitive” against the big banks, said Mark Yecies, an owner of SunQuest Funding, a mortgage broker and lender in Cranford, N.J. “I will now get paid the same amount to process a plain-vanilla loan as I will a complex loan of equal size that requires more work.”
He added that “bigger banks will capture a bigger percentage of the origination market, and they will raise rates.”
Mike Anderson, a director at the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, said that the rule would “likely put a lot of independent brokers out of business.”
But the Mortgage Bankers Association says brokers would still be competitive with banks because many consumers like to work with brokers, and banks cannot handle all of the business.

by Lynnley BrowningFor more: http://nyti.ms/gS6OHz

How to Buy Real Estate without Banks, Money, or Credit… nor Hard Money or Private Lenders either.

Click Here for Full Video/Article (Members Only)

This is NOT New for those who attended the Great Investor Cruise or attend our POWER LUNCH Series.
My CPA, Mike Grinnan shared this troublesome news several months ago.  (another reason to stay tuned to AskMikeButler.com) The most disappointing aspect of this new tax law is the “targeting” of landlords and real estate investors.
The rest of the world has an effective date of Jan 1, 2012; however, real estate investors and rental property owners effective date is Jan 1, 2011. NOW!
Every “anything or anybody” that gets paid more than $600 by you in the calendar or tax year, you must now send them a 1099.
But hold on, this includes utility companies, Home Depot,… Click Here for Full Video/Article (Members Only)

The Power of Rent Talk

Rent Talk System and DVD is an absolute must for every investor and landlord. This is your New Tenant Welcome and Orientation Video. It Works!

 

 

On Demand Video Insurance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Mortgage Mess May Cost Big Banks Billions

 
“I don’t see how it can be cleared up in a short period of time,” said Richard X. Bove, an analyst with Rochdale Securities. “The moratorium won’t last that long but the problem will last at least four or five years, maybe a decade.” In the short term, he said, “it could easily cost $1.5 billion per quarter.” 
 
After scratching their heads for weeks over how much the foreclosure mess will hurt banks’ bottom lines, investors got out their calculators Thursday to tally the potential costs — and sent bank stocks plunging.
 
Analyst estimates of the possible toll varied widely, but the fear was evident in the stock market. The share price of Bank of America fell 5.2 percent, while shares of JPMorgan Chase sank almost 2.8 percent.
 
“The market never likes uncertainty, and it seems like every day we’re adding to the list of things we need to worry about with the financials,” said Jason Goldberg, an analyst with Barclays Capital. “The industry needs to work quickly to put this issue behind them.”
 
Wall Street initially hoped the banks would do just that but as the political furor grew, a quick end to the crisis was looking less and less likely. On Wednesday, 50 state attorneys general announced they were investigating the practices of the mortgage servicing industry, while Florida’s attorney general subpoenaed the nation’s largest mortgage processor, L.P.S., as part of a broader investigation.
 
In some cases, officials at mortgage servicers signed hundreds of documents a day with barely a chance to review them — the so-called robo-signers — while doubts have arisen about the veracity of the original documents compiled as part of the foreclosure process.
 
“I don’t see how it can be cleared up in a short period of time,” said Richard X. Bove, an analyst with Rochdale Securities. “The moratorium won’t last that long but the problem will last at least four or five years, maybe a decade.” In the short term, he said, “it could easily cost $1.5 billion per quarter.”
 
Meanwhile, the foreclosure machinery in many states has ground to a halt. Major institutions like Bank of America, JPMorgan and GMAC Mortgage have halted foreclosures in many states, and have not said when they would resume. As a result, foreclosed homes will remain on the bank’s books while racking up thousands of dollars a month in extra costs.
 
Until Thursday, Wall Street regarded the foreclosure issue as a risk to the banks’ reputations, rather than their bottom lines. Indeed, some analysts insisted it was unlikely that wide-scale abuses would be found.
 
“It’s inexcusable that the banks didn’t staff up to meet the surge in foreclosures,” said Christopher Kotowski, an analyst with Oppenheimer. “On the other hand, we need to look at whether they are filing foreclosures on a massive basis against people who are not delinquent. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that they are.”
 
Inside the investment houses, several traders said nerves were frazzled further by worries that banks could face much bigger mortgage related losses, not from foreclosures, but because of questions about how the money was lent in the first place. If it turns out that mortgages were bundled together and sold improperly, more holders could sue the banks and force them to buy back tens of billions in mortgage-backed securities.
 
An alarming report on Bank of America, compiled by Branch Hill Capital, a San Francisco hedge fund, circulated widely on Wall Street on Thursday. Branch Hill suggested that the bank, the nation’s largest, could be facing more than $70 billion in losses from mortgage securities that it may have to repurchase from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as private investors.
 
“We think this is a very important issue, and the liability will be substantial,” said Manal Mehta, a partner at Branch Hill. “There has been pervasive bad behavior throughout the system.” The fund is betting that Bank of America shares could decline because of the potential liability.
 
Bank of America declined to comment Thursday. But the company’s chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, said last month at an investor conference that adequate reserves had been taken to protect against any losses that could materialize if it was forced to repurchase mortgage securities. “This will be manageable over time, but it has cost us a lot of money so I’m not making light of it,” he said. “We’ll continue to manage it.”
 
On Wednesday, JPMorgan said it had added $1 billion to its reserves to cover faulty home loans that it was obligated to repurchase from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and private insurers. It has set aside a total of $3 billion for potential repurchases.
 
Even if the larger losses envisioned by Mr. Mehta do not materialize, the foreclosure issue remains a worry. In a report, Paul Miller, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets, forecast that the controversy would cost the banking industry $6 billion to $10 billion. He estimated that each month’s delay cost the banks $1,000 per home loan, so if there was a three-month delay on the roughly two million homes currently in foreclosure, that translated into a $6 billion hit.
 
In addition to the losses directly caused by the delay, Mr. Miller foresees additional charges totaling $3 billion to $4 billion to cover lawsuits stemming from faulty foreclosure procedures.
 
For now, bank executives are not making any predictions how long the foreclosure halt will last.
 
“If you’re talking about three or four weeks it will be a blip in the housing market,” said Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, in a conference call on Wednesday. “If it went on for a long period of time, it will have a lot of consequences, most of which will be adverse on everybody.”
 
For more: http://nyti.ms/diFs2w

This keeps getting uglier and uglier. I’m not trying to promote "doom and gloom" so don’t shoot the messenger. My objective is to keep  you on top of today’s insane turbulent real estate market.

"He Who Masters The New Rules Firstest, WINS The MOSTEST"

 

 

Foreclosure Furor Rises; Many Call for a Freeze

By DAVID STREITFELD and GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: October 5, 2010
 
The uproar over bad conduct by mortgage lenders intensified Tuesday, as lawmakers in Washington requested a federal investigation and the attorney general in Texas joined a chorus of state law enforcement figures calling for freezes on all foreclosures.
 
Flawed Paperwork Aggravates a Foreclosure Crisis (October 4, 2010)
 
Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and 30 other Democratic representatives from California told the Justice Department, the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency that “it is time that banks are held accountable for their practices.”
 
In a request for an investigation into questionable foreclosure practices by lenders, the lawmakers said that “the excuses we have heard from financial institutions are simply not credible."
 
Officials from the federal agencies declined to comment.
 
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, sent letters to 30 lenders demanding they stop foreclosures, evictions and the sale of foreclosed properties until they could provide assurances that they were proceeding legally.
 
Both developments indicated that scarcely two weeks after the country’s fourth-biggest lender, GMAC Mortgage, revealed that it was suspending all foreclosures in the 23 states where the process requires judicial approval, concerns about flawed foreclosures had mushroomed into a nationwide problem.
 
Some of the finger-pointing was also being directed back at Congress. The Ohio secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, suggested in a telephone interview on Tuesday that a bill passed by Congress last week about notarizations could facilitate foreclosure fraud.
 
Dubious notary practices used by banks to justify foreclosures have come under scrutiny in recent weeks as GMAC and other top lenders suspended homeowner evictions over possible improper procedures.
 
Ms. Brunner, who has recently referred possible cases of notary fraud in her state to federal authorities, worries that the legislation would allow the lowest standard for notaries to become a nationwide practice. She said she also worried that the changes were coming in the middle of a foreclosure storm where people could lose their homes improperly.
 
“A notary’s signature is that of a trusted, impartial third party, whose notarization bolsters the integrity of the document,” Ms. Brunner said. “To take away the safeguards of notarization means foreclosure procedures could be more susceptible to fraud.”
 
As banks’ foreclosure practices have come under the microscope, problems with notarizations on mortgage assignments have emerged. These documents transfer the ownership of the underlying note from one institution to another and are required for foreclosures to proceed.
 
In some cases, the notarizations predated the preparation of the legal documents, suggesting that signatures were not reviewed by a notary. Other notarizations took place in offices far away from where the documents were signed, indicating that the notaries might not have witnessed the signings as the law required.
 
Notary practices vary from state to state and the bill, sponsored by Representative Robert B. Aderholt, a Republican from Alabama, would essentially require that one state’s rules be accepted by others. If one state allows its notaries to sign off on electronic signatures, for example, documents carrying such signatures and notarized by officials in that state would have to be recognized and accepted in any state or federal court.
 
Ms. Brunner pointed out that some states had adopted “electronic notarization” laws that ignored the requirement of a signer’s personal appearance before a notary. “Many of these policies for electronic notarization are driven by technology rather than by principle, and they are dangerous to consumers,” she said.
 
Mr. Aderholt had introduced the bill twice before and both times it passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate. Mr. Aderholt reintroduced the bill last October and it passed the Senate on Sept. 29. It is awaiting President Obama’s signature.
 
Mr. Aderholt’s press secretary, Darrell Jordan, said there was no connection between the timing of the bill and the current notarization problems with foreclosures. In a statement announcing the bill’s passage, Mr. Aderholt said: “This legislation will help businesses around the nation by eliminating the confusion which arises when states refuse to acknowledge the integrity of documents notarized out of state.”
 
Last week, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America joined GMAC in suspending foreclosures in the states where they must be approved by a judge. The judicial states do not include California or Texas. But Mr. Abbott, the Texas attorney general, told lenders in letters dated Oct. 4 that if they used so-called robo-signers — employees who signed thousands of foreclosure affidavits a month, falsely attesting that they had reviewed the material — it would be a violation of Texas law.
 
As a result, he wrote, “the document and therefore the foreclosure sale would have been invalid.”
 
The three lenders who are at the center of the controversy, GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, declined to comment. Other lenders singled out by Mr. Abbott include Wells Fargo, CitiMortgage, HSBC and National City.
 
Meanwhile, shares of a major foreclosure outsourcing company, Lender Processing Services of Jacksonville, Fla., fell 5 percent on Tuesday, adding to a slide that began last week.
 
The company’s documentation practices are stirring questions, including how the same employee can have wildly varying signatures on mortgage documents. L.P.S. blamed a midlevel manager’s decision to allow employees to sign forms in the name of an authorized employee. It says it has stopped the practice.
 
The United States Attorney’s Office in Tampa began investigating L.P.S. in February. An L.P.S. representative could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
 
Other calls for investigations came from Senators Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, and Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey.
 
 

 This article from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/business/06mortgage.html

 Page 1 of 2  1  2 »