Much has been made of the 2% base rate included in the guidelines for the Obama Administration’s “Making Home Affordable” plan. It’s been well documented that the plan is off to a very slow start with current estimates of approximately 50,000 loan modifications in process. Less talked about, at least so far, is that the 2% headline interest rate of the plan may be unavailable to most homeowners seeking loan modifications that follow the plan’s guidelines.

As the saying goes, “The devil is always in the details” and Making Home Affordable has a detail which goes by the name of the “Net Present Value” test. Many of the mortgages which were originated during the boom in real estate, including those considered to be toxic, were sold to investors on Wall Street, from pension funds, and insurance companies (like AIG). These investors didn’t have the infrastructure or experience to collect payments, prepare statements, etc. so they left the handling of those matters to loan servicers like Saxon Mortgage (now a part of JP Morgan Chase). These servicers interface with the homeowner on all matters, including home loan modifications. For that work, they receive a small percentage off of each of the homeowner’s monthly mortgage checks as their fee.

An unintended consequence of the meltdown in real estate prices and skyrocketing default rates is there is now a conflict of interest between servicers and the investors that employ them. The foundation of that conflict is this; with monthly mortgage payments functioning as the lifeline of the servicers, their priority is to keep those payments going. To that end, granting loan modifications, even with drastic cuts in interest rates, is a much better outcome for the servicer than not receiving payments at all and/or having the home go into foreclosure. Aggressive loan modifications which benefit the servicers often hurt the investors by forcing markdowns on value of loans in their portfolio, hence, the conflict of interest.

]]>

Having experienced this conflict prior to the unveiling of Making Home Affordable, investor groups insisted that the net present value test be added to the plan to protect their interests. A net present value (NPV) calculation works this way:

1) Determine the proposed monthly mortgage payment for the life of the modified loan
2) Calculate the total return in dollars over the life of the loan – monthly payment x 12 months x 30 years = total return
3) Estimate the value of what the foreclosed home would sell for at auction
4) The highest number between the total return and the estimated selling price at foreclosure determines what action will be taken.
Motivated to keep properties generating monthly payments and out of foreclosure, servicers will negotiate the highest interest rate possible, within the constraints of the plan and what the homeowner can afford, to generate higher fees and to make sure that the net present value test comes out on the side of loan modification. With higher fees and the net present value test driving the negotiations in a loan modification, granting 2% interest rates becomes a very low priority and in some cases a deal killer for the servicers.  
Congress, hearing the cries from their constituencies, has backed the efforts of the mortgage servicers by passing the “Safe Harbor Law” in May. The law protects servicers from lawsuits filed by investors claiming that the servicers are acting in their own best interests in loan modifications, at the expense of the aggrieved investors. It also gives servicers more autonomy in their structuring their home loan modifications.   
The net present value test can present formidable challenges to the loan modification process due to many factors that are constantly changing. In New York City, for example, overall property values have remained relatively high but income levels have dropped. Limited by Making Home Affordable guidelines, mortgage payments cannot exceed 31% of the homeowner’s monthly income. The cap on payments can result in a net present value outcome that favors foreclosure on a property. Industry watchers have expressed concerns that the relative resilience in real estate values in the city could actually work against homeowners.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are cities such as Las Vegas and Detroit where property values have dropped as a much as 80%. These are areas where the net present value tests favor loan modifications but homeowners are walking away, forcing the properties back to the investors.

The next issue for investors wishing to foreclose is whether they can actually sell properties at auction. In California, approximately 17,000 out of 111,000 foreclosed properties went up for sale at the most recent auctions. Of the 17,000 properties, banks took back 85% of the properties when bids averaged only 59% of the outstanding loan balances. The lack of foreclosure sales across the country has led to a massive backlog of foreclosed properties that are either being kept off the market, put up repeatedly at auction, or for sale to private parties.

With unfavorable outcomes on either side of the net present value test, it’s apparent that investors are deciding not to decide on either action. The advantage of leaving properties in limbo is that they don’t have to be marked to market until action is taken, a necessary concession from Congress granted to investor groups in March. That way they can carry the properties in their portfolios at values that don’t trigger capital requirements. If it all sounds like a house of cards, well, at least it’s house.

Loan modification and stop foreclosure services should be provided by a reputable attorney and NOT a loan modification company that boasts “in house attorneys” or “attorney based”. Most so called Loan modification experts are misleading, giving home owners false promises and misrepresenting their services. We have seen many of these loan modification companies send home owners loan modification examples similar to the way they sold mortgages. Making statements and emailing examples with guaranteed or proposed principal reductions and charging up front fees as well as trying to collect monies at the close if they obtain a loan modification agreement. Honestly, these types of loan modification companies should be reported to the DRE and the Attorney General’s Office.

We have reviewed several loan modification agreements from loss mitigation companies offering to help stop foreclosure and found they all highly recommend you have “your attorney” review ALL documents including their contract before signing. Why would a borrower hire an attorney just to review a loan modification company’s agreement before signing? In addition, why would they then again hire an attorney to review the final loan modification agreement? The simple truth is, this is advised so you fully understand what you are signing. You must read the fine print and know how to interpret the agreement.

Why not just hire an attorney in the first place to negotiate with your lender and review ALL the documents as well as counsel you with a plan of action. Attorneys providing loan modification services and real estate negotiations are not as easy to find. The Feldman Law Center offers a flat fee for loan modification services that is much less than most loan modification companies. We have reviewed several loan modification service agreements from companies that charge up front fees and found them poor at best. DO NOT PAY UP FRONT FEES TO A LOAN MODIFICATION OR LOSS MITIGATION COMPANY THAT OFFERS STOP FORECLOSURE OR LOAN MODIFICATION SERVICES. THESE COMPANIES SEND THEIR FILES TO OUTSIDE LOAN PROCESSING COMPANIES PRAYING FOR A RESULT. OUR LOAN MODIFICATIONS TAKE 3 TO 6 WEEKS, NOT 3 TO 6 MONTHS!

Loan modification services should be provided from a Law Office that has experience negotiating with mortgage loan servicing companies for a multitude of reasons. The Feldman Law Center in California has long standing relationships and a sophisticated approach with all the major lenders and mortgage servicing companies and proven results. To see for yourself or for more information about loan modifications call us today or visit www.feldmanlawcenter.com .

Feldman Law Center – Eileen Ulery wasn’t a real estate speculator. She was an executive assistant at Arizona State University that bought a condo in Mesa, Arizona for ,000 in 1997 where she had lived ever since. Several years and a couple of refi’s later, her mortgage balance was up to 0,000 and then the bottom fell out. University budget cuts resulted in the elimination of her job, which she had held for over twenty years. With some severance pay and social security she was able to keep up but once the severance ran out, her mortgage payment was more than she could handle.
After hearing about the Obama Administration’s new “Making Home Affordable” plan she went to the CountryWide (now part of Bank of America) website which directed her to the official government site for the program, makinghomeaffordable.gov. After taking a test at the site to determine her eligibility she was informed that she might qualify for a loan modification.   
Calling the bank in April to start the loan modification process, the bank’s representative said that the bank was not doing loan modifications for “people like her”. The rep then countered with something the bank could do for her; if she could write them a check for ,000, they would raise her interest rate slightly, and she could save dollars per month. ,000 would go toward her loan balance and ,000 would go to the bank as fees to re-do the loan. The monthly savings would come from the reduction of her loan balance.
Jenni Engebretsen, spokesperson for the Treasury, confirmed that homeowners like Ms. Ulery who are current on their mortgages but struggling with the loss of a job are eligible for loan modifications under the program. Eligibility, however, does not mean anything in terms of getting a loan modification done if the lenders are dismissing every do it yourself borrower that is not on the brink of imminent foreclosure.
Rick Simon a spokesman for Bank of America Home Loans, confirmed as much when he said “The bank is now focusing on modifications only for those borrowers who are already in severe threat of foreclosure.” After acknowledging that Ms. Ulery had been offered a refi instead of a loan modification he said, “We’re still putting the systems in place to handle people who are current on their loans. It’s still very, very early in the program.”
Ms. Ulery’s experience in attempting to modify her own loan is not unusual. In fact it’s quite common that lenders will counter a loan modification request with either an offer to refinance or to set up a payment plan requiring higher monthly payments. Both types of offers do nothing for the borrower while providing the lender with higher interest, fees, and higher principle payments.
Asked whether she took the bank up on its offer to refinance her home Ms. Ulery said, “I just laughed. It was a really good deal for them.”

“We’re still putting the systems in place to handle people who are current on their loans,” Mr. Simon said, declining to say how many loans Bank of America had modified. “It’s still very, very early in the program
President Obama promise that help was on the way for homeowners like her, people who had lost jobs and could no longer make their mortgage payments.
Yes, she was teetering toward delinquency. She was among millions of homeowners rapidly sliding toward danger for whom the Obama administration had devised an aid program — some already in foreclosure proceedings, others headed that way as they ran out of means to make their payments. But unlike those in imminent peril of losing their homes, Ms. Ulery had never missed a payment
More than three months after the Obama administration outlined a new program aimed at rescuing millions of distressed homeowners by compensating banks that modify mortgages, Ms. Ulery’s experience illustrates the mixture of confusion, frustration and limited assistance that now reigns.
Through many months of wrangling over the fate of the financial system, with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars dispensed on bailouts, distressed homeowners have waited for their own rescue amid talk that it was finally on the way. Modifications of so-called subprime and Alt-A mortgages — those made to people with tarnished credit — actually fell by 11 percent in May from April, according to research by Alan M. White at Valparaiso University School of Law.
The bank is now focusing on modifications only for those borrowers “who are already in severe threat of foreclosure,” he said.
 “I just laughed,” Ms. Ulery said. “It was a really good deal for them.”

MESA, Ariz. — She had seen the advertisements for the new government program offering relief. She had heard President Obama promise that help was on the way for homeowners like her, people who had lost jobs and could no longer make their mortgage payments.
But when Eileen Ulery called her mortgage company — Countrywide, now part of Bank of America — the bank did not offer to alter her mortgage. Rather, the bank tried to sell her a new loan with a slightly lower monthly payment while asking her to pay ,000 toward the principal and a fresh ,000 in fees.
Her problem was that she did not yet present a big enough problem to merit aid.
Yes, she was teetering toward delinquency. She was among millions of homeowners rapidly sliding toward danger for whom the Obama administration had devised an aid program — some already in foreclosure proceedings, others headed that way as they ran out of means to make their payments. But unlike those in imminent peril of losing their homes, Ms. Ulery had never missed a payment.
“I don’t know who this bailout is helping,” she said. “We’ve given these banks all this money and they’re not doing what they say they’re doing. Something’s not working right. They keep saying they’re doing all this, but we don’t see it down here at this level.”
More than three months after the Obama administration outlined a new program aimed at rescuing millions of distressed homeowners by compensating banks that modify mortgages, Ms. Ulery’s experience illustrates the mixture of confusion, frustration and limited assistance that now reigns.
Through many months of wrangling over the fate of the financial system, with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars dispensed on bailouts, distressed homeowners have waited for their own rescue amid talk that it was finally on the way. Modifications of so-called subprime and Alt-A mortgages — those made to people with tarnished credit — actually fell by 11 percent in May from April, according to research by Alan M. White at Valparaiso University School of Law.
A Treasury spokeswoman, Jenni Engebretsen, confirmed that homeowners like Ms. Ulery — current on their mortgages yet grappling with a hardship like unemployment — were eligible for loan modifications under the program. She said mortgage servicers had offered to modify more than 100,000 loans since the department announced the program.
But how many loans have been modified? Ms. Engebretsen declined to say, noting that the Treasury was working with mortgage companies to “fine-tune reporting systems.”
A spokesman for Bank of America Home Loans, Rick Simon, confirmed that the bank offered Ms. Ulery refinancing and not loan modification. The bank is now focusing on modifications only for those borrowers “who are already in severe threat of foreclosure,” he said.
“We’re still putting the systems in place to handle people who are current on their loans,” Mr. Simon said, declining to say how many loans Bank of America had modified. “It’s still very, very early in the program.”
Ms. Ulery, 63, is the face of the latest wave of troubled American homeowners, a surge of people in financial danger not because of reckless gambling on real estate, but because of lost income.
Far from being one of those who used easy-money loans to speculate on homes proliferating across the desert soil of greater Phoenix, she has lived in the same modest, stucco-sided condo in suburban Mesa for a dozen years. She bought the two-bedroom home in 1997 for ,500.
For two decades, she worked as an executive assistant at nearby Arizona State University, bringing home more than ,000 every other week — enough to pay the bills.
Round-faced, wry and given to staccato bursts of laughter, Ms. Ulery regularly visits yard sales, seeking out plates and patchwork quilts for her collections. She takes pleasure in her two grandchildren and her beagle. She enjoys an occasional glass of wine, favoring a merlot that comes in a screw-top bottle.
“I’m not an extravagant-type person,” she said. “I see these big houses all around, and they’re beautiful, but I’m comfortable in my little condo.”
Like tens of millions of other American homeowners, she added to her mortgage balance as the value of her condo swelled, at one point exceeding 0,000. She refinanced to pay off some credit cards and settle into a 30-year, fixed-rate loan. Later, she took out a home equity line of credit to buy a new Hyundai. She refinanced again in 2007, borrowing ,000, mostly for a new roof.
Over the years, her monthly payment swelled from about 0 to more than ,000. With planning and self-control — she tracks her monthly expenses on a color-coded spreadsheet — she always came up with the money. “I’ve never been late,” she said.
But the equation broke down last year, when she lost her job in university budget cuts. Ms. Ulery received six months of severance. She arranged a monthly ,500 Social Security check. But when the severance ran out in October, her mortgage finally exceeded her limited means.
With so many people out

Feldman Law Center – News by Feldman Law Center
The whole reason a loan modification becomes necessary is because the borrower needs the loan to be more manageable, so that he or she can continue to pay for it. The purpose of a loan modification is for the borrower, or someone on the borrower’s behalf, to negotiate a more feasible mortgage with the lender. At first glance, this deal seems like a good one for the borrower. And oftentimes it is. But what about the lender?

Because of the current financial crisis, many people are seeing loan modifications as a good deal. The negotiations are usually initiated by the borrowers, and allow them to keep their property, postpone payments, reduce or stabilize interest rates, and sometimes even get a better deal on the house they already live in. Their credit scores are not harmed like they would be by a foreclosure or bankruptcy. Most of all, they do not have to move from their houses, forcing upheaval on their families, during a time of financial hardship and stress.

Society seems to take the side of families and the personal stories broadcast on the nightly news shows. Stories about 50-year old, recently-laid off, single moms who can’t afford their mortgages tend to pull on people’s heartstrings, winning the allegiance of many members of the public. And since so many people are being affected by the mortgage crisis, public outcry seems to be against banks and lenders, who are being blamed for offering such ludicrous loans in the first place.

The government, and specifically groups such as the FDIC, are also increasingly supportive of loan modification programs. The FDIC has even built a “Mod in a Box” loan modification program guide, in order to encourage more and more lenders to offer loan modifications. Obama has plans that involve modifying home loans to keep families in their homes, and countless nonprofits and support groups seem to be cropping up to help people with distressed finances.

So, borrowers, the government, and society at large are supporting the numerous loan modification programs available. One still has to wonder what banks think about home loan modifications.

Although much less loudly proclaimed, many lenders are in support of home loan modifications too. Lenders’ motivations for modifying a loan can vary. If a home is sold in a short sale, the bank agrees to write off the amount the borrower still owes, sells the property, and takes a loss. Foreclosures are much the same. When a bank forecloses on a home, they often make less profit on the property than they would have made through a mortgage, even a mortgage modified through a loan modification. Simply put, banks have a business motivation to modify your loan: they stand to make more profit if you stay in your house. Not to mention the fact that loan modifications make them look better in the eyes of the community and the government, and could potentially help the world’s economy in the long run.

If you need a home loan modification, contact the attorneys of the Feldman Law Center. Consultations are free, and they can help you benefit from staying in your home.

Feldman Law Center – News by Feldman Law Center — A little known aspect of the Obama Administration’s “Making Home Affordable” plan is the “Net Present Value” test which essentially determines whether a loan modification or a foreclosure and sale will provide a better return for the investors behind the mortgage in question. The calculation takes the proposed monthly payment in a home loan modification and multiplies it over the life of the loan (payment x 12 months x 30 years). If that total comes in above what a sale and foreclosure would yield, the calculation would favor a modification. If it falls short, the calculation would lean toward foreclosure and sale.

Foreclosures in many scenarios will favor the investors while a modification often works to the advantage of the servicer. For the investor, a foreclosure and subsequent sale may result in a loss of principle but money coming back to the investor can be re-invested in other vehicles which can provide yield and returns. The disadvantage for the servicers is that, without monthly payments from the property, they lose the fees they were able to charge the investor for handling the payments, billing, and communication with the homeowner. A loan modification, on the other hand, benefits the servicer by keeping the payment stream, and the fees they can charge on it, alive. The modification hurts the investor by forcing a mark to market valuation which reflects the loss on the mortgage (also known as a haircut) due to a lower interest rate and, if applicable, a reduction in principle.  

The third party in the game is the homeowner (Bob) applying for the loan modification. It’s likely that the homeowner has heard of “Making Home Affordable” and is very aware of the 2% interest rates that were part of the headlines generated by the plan. Naturally, that’s the rate he wants. Unfortunately, getting Bob a 2% interest rate is not in the interest of either the investor or the servicer of his mortgage. For the investor, the lower the interest rate goes the bigger the haircut. Memorializing it in a modification will turn a theoretical haircut into an actual loss on the books. For the servicer, an interest rate at that low level can push the NPV score to a point where the test favors foreclosure over modification. If Bob’s property isn’t considered a lost cause it’s extremely unlikely that he’s going to see anything close to that 2% rate.

One of the other variables is Bob’s commission based income. His payments are going to be capped at 31% of his average monthly income, which has dropped considerably. In fact, it’s dropped so much that even by maxing his payment out at 31% of his monthly pay he falls below the estimated foreclosure and sale score. Conditions dictate foreclosure according to the net present value test.

The investor, seeing a score that clearly calls for foreclosure takes a look at sales statistics for Bob’s town and his neighborhood. Nothing is moving and foreclosure backlogs are growing. Average bids at auctions are coming in at less than 60% of the loan amount. Less than 2% of foreclosed houses are selling at auction. The estimate on what the property can realize in a foreclosure and sale is way too high for current conditions. If the house sells, and it’s a big if, it won’t be for anything near the price used in the NPV calculation. The investor decides to pull back on the foreclosure due to the regular hits he’s already taking in his portfolio and his aversion to putting another property into the portfolio. The pullback on the foreclosure doesn’t mean he’s going to allow for a modification, however. There’s a haircut waiting with the modification as well. This property is going to sit in limbo while things work themselves out.

There won’t be any communication regarding this stalemate between Bob, the servicer, or the lender. From Bob’s point of view the servicer’s people aren’t responsive and aren’t calling him back. The truth of the matter is that the servicer’s processors know as much about Bob’s situation as Bob does; not much. The sides settle in to the day to day of nothing happening which stretches to months.

The commentary from homeowners that have tried to modify their mortgages under the guidelines of Making Home Affordable runs along a thread very similar to that of our theoretical Bob. While much of the delay can be attributed to overload, staffing, and training issues at the lenders and servicers, the stalemate between servicers and their investors is bogging things down as well. The Safe Harbor Bill, passed by Congress in May, was aimed directly at this standoff. Its main objective was to remove the threat of lawsuits filed by investors when they felt that the servicers were acting on their own best interests in approving loan modifications.

While there may be a conflict of interest currently, neither side wants to go to war over this issue. Despite the increased autonomy given the servicers, it’s likely that they will still want to be on the same page with investors to preserve long standing relationships that have worked well over time. It therefore looks like limbo, status quo, and homeowners waiting for a knock on the door will rule the day and the near term.

Those homeowners seeking to avoid this quagmire would be best served to hire legal representation familiar with the process to either navigate the Making Home Affordable guidelines or to modify their mortgages independently from the government program. With over 600 successful home loan modifications negotiated on behalf of their clients, The Feldman Law Center is well suited to guide you through your loan modification. Call them today at (949) 544 8224