Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Prudential Report Paints Positive Picture
Thursday, May 5th, 2011Commercial foreclosures and short sales (w/ photos)
Monday, April 26th, 2010Just returned from an interesting four day conference in Chicago on commercial foreclosures and short sales, organized by Karen Hanover. It featured several speakers who specialize on government money sources, student housing, private money, hard money, and hedge funds financing and acquisitions of commercial real estate. You can view some of the photos at our Facebook page with Karen Hanover, Sal Buscemi, Mark Walters, Patrick Riddle, and others.
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=10265&id=100000714554885&ref=mf
Is Freddie Mac reversing its policy on short sale investors?
Wednesday, April 21st, 2010A disturbing news from Freddie Mac targeting short sale investors: http://www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/news/2010/0412_payoff_fraud.html
Lawyers, such as Ron Ballard, Jeff Watson and Chris McLaughlin, addressed it yesterday, and re-assured all investors to not worry too much, that it is not a policy set in stone, it is not a law or regulation, and that it will be clarified by Freddie Mac since it contradicts its own published policy from October 2009. So good investing!
more articles from Brookings on light rail and metropolitan areas in US
Tuesday, April 20th, 2010MONDAY APRIL 19, 2010
Intermetropolitan Passenger Rail: Considerations for State Legislators
Transportation, Infrastructure, Cities
Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program
National Conference of State Legislators
In his remarks to a special committee of the National Conference of State Legislators, Robert Puentes argues that American high speed rail represents the kind of potentially game changing, market-shaping investments in the next economy that the country has long deferred.
Since its inception, the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program has used innovative research and policy ideas, as well as close working relationships with corporate, civic, and political leaders, to advance systemic reforms that empower metropolitan areas to compete and prosper in the new century. As we engage with elected officials on the state level few new ideas have generated as much interest an enthusiasm as America’s high speed passenger rail program.
This program was given a tremendous boost last January with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). That law dedicated $8 billion to jump start a new high speed rail network and is one of the clearest examples of how the stimulus package—for all its flaws and business-as-usual approaches—really did introduce a few bits of true program creativity.
Clearly there is palpable demand as the high speed rail program has been hugely over-subscribed by state and local applicants who are clamoring for new approaches. For the $8 billion in grants, the federal government received $102 billion in pre-applications and $55 billion in final applications. In the end, 38 projects were awarded to 31 states, with most funds flowing to 13 specific corridors. Annual appropriations in the FY 2010 and FY 2011 budgets will augment the federal investment.
These are the kind of game changing, market-shaping investments in the next economy that we have long deferred. The United States operates in a fiercely competitive world where established nations like Germany and rising nations like China, India, and Brazil are moving forward. These and other countries are making seismic and ultimately transformative investments in rail, and other kinds of infrastructure such as renewable energy, modern ports, and metropolitan transit.
Yet while the high speed rail effort is a national program, it is important to note that this is not representative of the late 20th century federalism model in transportation with the federal government providing resources that rain down unencumbered to the state and metropolitan level. Rather, what we’re seeing is a new 21st century model that challenges our nation’s state and metropolitan leaders to develop deep and innovative approaches to solve the most pressing transportation problems. (Indeed, unlike the earlier high speed rail grants the latest round of funding requires a state/local match.)
With that in mind, I would like to offer the following points to frame the major questions and decisions that state legislators should consider as we move our transportation system into a new era.
First, while interest in superfast bullet trains is strong, between many metropolitan areas the initial focus should be simply on getting to regular, reliable, and competitive passenger rail service. Of the 13 corridors that received the initial $8 billion in federal investment, only the California and Florida projects represent the kind of service many consider to be high speed rail.
For that reason the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) near-term investment strategy takes an iterative approach. There are the investments in high speed express trains between metropolitan areas 200–600 miles apart with few intermediate stops and top speeds greater than 150 mph. Tracks are grade-separated and not shared. The Tampa-Orlando project is intended to reach 168 mph in this fashion and California’s plan is for speeds up to 220 mph. Other FRA grants will work to develop emerging and regional service operating speeds up to 90–110 mph and 110–150 mph respectively, on either shared or dedicated track. The Northeast Corridor’s Acela is an example of the former and the planned Chicago—St. Louis line of the latter.
But for many other parts of the country the policy is to upgrade reliability and service on conventional intercity rail services operating at top speeds probably around 80 mph. This covers most of the other Amtrak service that exists in the U.S. today. The overall strategy appears to be “walk before you run” and is consistent with the approach in other countries such as France.
Therefore, in order to get to reliable passenger rail service relatively minor augmentations may be just as important as major capacity improvements. This is especially true as a preparation for high speed investments. For example, while the long term vision for the Portland-Seattle corridor is true high speed service, in the interim the two states are focusing on smaller investments with short term returns in order to reduce travel time, improve on-time performance, and enhance safety.
Such projects include bypass tracks, grade separations, upgrades to electronic signals, technology improvements to the trains, and upgrades to stations and other passenger areas. These are not necessarily the kind of projects in front of which officials like cutting ribbons, but they are critical to building institutional support, and building a reliable network for the future. It is also important to move forward with environmental review and preliminary engineering exercises in order to prepare projects for construction. One thing the Florida project had going for it was that it was relatively shovel-ready in that key procedural hurdles have been cleared.
The next point is that if a particular corridor extends beyond individual state borders, close coordination—both formal and informal—with your neighbors is essential. More than just backroom deals, these are lengthy relationships that bear real fruit in the form of finalized plans, environmental reviews, and dedicated shared funding agreements. This appeared to have been a significant advantage for those who received ARRA funding and a hindrance for those who did not as, by design, several of the award-winning corridors involved multi-state compacts.
For example, the eight-state Midwest Regional Rail Initiative was established as far back as the mid-1990s. In consultation with the federal government, the states worked to develop a rail plan that was released in 1998 and updated in 2004. Last summer, the eight governors, along with the mayor of Chicago, signed a Memorandum of Understanding in anticipation of joint applications for ARRA funding that laid out plans for collective high-speed rail priorities and planning. Partly as a result, the projects in and around the Chicago hub received nearly as much funding ($2.16 billion) as did California ($2.34 billion.)
Similarly, the Virginia-North Carolina Interstate High-Speed Rail Commission, created in 2001, agreed to recommend to its respective parent legislatures the enactment of an interstate rail compact. Both state legislatures passed laws establishing the Compact in 2004. The North Carolina—Virginia corridor received a total of $620 million spread among three investments.
At the same time, several of those that missed out on awards did not have their multistate houses in order. For example, the corridor connecting Southern California with metropolitan Las Vegas suffered from having no dedicated funding and two competing alternatives. A southeastern agreement for a plan to connect Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, and North Carolina was formed only weeks before the announcement. New England’s multi-state vision for high speed rail has been described as merely an aggregation of disconnected projects, rather than a coordinated campaign.
Lastly, state legislators need to understand the importance of merits and measures when it comes to new federal transportation initiatives like the national high speed rail program. This is not a legacy program that has languished in the bureaucratic halls of the transportation department or one that was earmarked to death by Congress. Rather these funds were designed to be awarded on a competitive basis. States sent in requests for the grants and those applications were evaluated based on quantitative metrics including economic, social, and sustainability benefits. Projects also had to be far enough along in their development, take advantage of innovative technology, and promote a range of public and private partnerships.
This is nothing short of a sea change for how Washington thinks about infrastructure investments. Look no further than the Florida high speed rail project as an example. While many eyebrows were raised when that project was announced, the corridor hits a couple key conditions laid out by the U.S. DOT. It is relatively “shovel ready” in that key environmental impact assessments and other procedural hurdles have been cleared. It leverages private sector funds as the Disney Corporation donated $25 million in land for one of the station locations and a private partner, not the state, will assume the risk of ridership revenue to cover the costs of the system.
Making sure these investments are made in the best possible projects is critical. One lesson our European competitors have taught us is that it is important to get the initial investment right. Then demand for additional investments increases, political and public support follows, and the national system is built incrementally. State legislators have a primary role in that.
MONDAY APRIL 19, 2010
Revitalizing America’s Metro Areas
Competitiveness, Growth through Innovation, Jobs and the Economy, U.S. Economy, Innovation
Bruce Katz, Vice President and Director, Metropolitan Policy Program
The Economist
In the latest installment of The Economist’s video series “Tea with The Economist,” Bruce Katz discusses the primary ways that metropolitan areas in the United States can collectively propel the country back toward prosperity. Katz emphasizes the need for smarter investments from the public and private sectors and how a shift to a low-carbon economy is vital for maintaining the country’s competitiveness.
Host: Why the focus on metros?
Bruce Katz: Metropolitan areas in the United States and here in Europe really concentrate all the assets that drive prosperity and will drive economic recovery. So the top 100 metropolitan areas in the United States — these are the big cities and the suburbs that surround them — sit on only 12 percent of the land mass, they house two-thirds of the population, they generate about three-quarters of the gross domestic product.
But when it comes to the assets that drive prosperity, they’re about 94 percent of venture capital in the United States, they’ve got all the talented workers, those with graduate degrees, the engineers, the scientists. They’re our freight hubs, rail and air, and they have that quality of place that really attracts, particularly, the younger generation. So they pack a really powerful punch. But the United States tends to think of itself as a network of small towns. It really doesn’t think of itself as a powerful metro nation. So to a large extent the country nor the states, because we are a union of states still in many respects, don’t really leverage the assets in these places.
Host: And what’s the evidence of that? Do they get a disproportionately low amount of state interventions, federal interventions? Do you think, you know, when Washington and state capitals hand out the goodies, they are not focused as much as they should be on what’s best for the metros?
BK: If you take infrastructure and surface transportation, for example, states for the most part spread transportation funding around like peanut butter across a slice of bread. There’s a political logic. You try to meet the political needs of state representatives or state senators rather than focusing on those places where your economy is concentrated, where you’ll get a high return on investment, if you make transformative investments.
So we tend to think that the major ports in the United States like L.A.-Long Beach, the major rail hubs like Chicago, the major air hubs like Memphis and Louisville, they’re on their own. If they’ve got to make major market-shaping investments, don’t look to Washington or your state capital to be your friends, figure it out yourself for the most part. That’s changing a little with the Obama administration, but it’s a slow change.
Watch Video of the Full Interview »
The Metro Moment
Regions and States, Cities, Governance, Bureaucracy, Competitiveness
Bruce Katz, Vice President and Director, Metropolitan Policy Program
The Wall Street Journal
Amid recent calls that government needs to be put in the hands of the states, people seem to be forgetting that many state governments are bordering on dysfunctional. Albany is a national laughing stock. California has given new meaning to the term “ungovernable.” Governors Sanford, Blagojevich and Paterson are late-night talk show punch lines.
In November, 37 states will hold elections for governor. State candidates will likely hit the campaign trail calling for a heavy dose of reform: Tighter ethics rules for legislators and more aggressive enforcement of those rules. New codes for lobbyists and lobbying. A commitment to transparency in decision making.
Yet the Great Recession and the fiscal meltdown require states to do more. Most critically, they must do the hard work of overhauling their bloated networks of local governments (all created by state law) so that they align more closely with the metropolitan geography of the economy and set the conditions for market growth and innovation.
States are super-powered by and dependent on powerful metropolitan economies, which are the nation’s hubs of trade and commerce and centers of talent and innovation. Yet these same metropolitan areas are ruled by a hodgepodge of cities, counties, towns, villages, school boards, fire districts, library districts, workforce boards, industrial development authorities, water and sewer districts and a host of other special entities. America has a fragmented system of government more suited to the localism of the 18th century than the globalism of the 21st.
Pennsylvania, for example, has 3,133 local governments, including 67 counties, 56 cities, 1,547 townships and 501 school districts.
The result in most states is a fundamental mismatch between the real metro-scaled economy of innovative firms, risk-taking entrepreneurs and talented workers, and the inefficient administrative geography of government. The economic, fiscal, environmental and social price of this fragmentation is too high to bear any more.
The good news is that change is already happening. An unintended legacy of the Great Recession may be the most significant government restructuring in the United States since the modernization effort of the 1930s.
The real heart of the American economy lies in the top 100 metropolitan areas—from New York City to Modesto, Calif.—that take up only 12 percent of our land mass, but harbor two-thirds of our population and generate 75 percent of our gross domestic product.
These metropolitan areas dominate the economy because they gather and strengthen the assets—innovation, human capital and infrastructure—that drive economic growth and productivity. The Chicago metropolis is home to 67 percent of the population of Illinois, but contributes 78 percent of that state’s GDP. Even smaller metros make powerful contributions to state economies: In Ohio, all 16 metros—ranging in size from Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati to Lima, Springfield and Sandusky—constitute 81 percent of the state’s population, 84 percent of the state’s jobs and 87 percent of the state’s GDP.
The true economic geography, here and abroad, is a metropolitan one, enveloping city and suburb, exurb and rural town. Goods, people, capital and energy flow seamlessly across the metropolitan landscape. Labor markets are metropolitan, as are housing markets and commuter sheds. Sports teams, cultural institutions and media all exist in metropolitan space.
The geography of local government could not be more out of synch. New York State, for example, is a balkanized, fragmented mess. As the New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness found in its superb April 2008 report, there are “some 4,720 local government entities, that is, independently managed organizations that can make decisions affecting local taxes either directly or indirectly.”
The list defies credulity and includes: 57 counties, 62 cities, 932 towns, 556 villages, 685 school districts, 867 fire districts, 181 library districts and 993 local public authorities.
A full and definitive count of all the local governments in the state (including those without taxing power) has never been done, so no one really knows how many local governments there are in New York State. The office of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo estimates that the number may exceed 10,500.
There are benefits associated with intense localism. Citizens feel a closer connection to their local officials (although does anyone really know the boundaries of their local library district?). And, in theory, individuals and firms can shop around for the government that most closely matches their preferred mix of efficiency, service and taxes.
Yet the drawbacks of fragmented governance far outweigh the benefits.
Fragmentation keeps government weak. With the landscape chopped into thousands of municipalities and special bodies, most local governments remain tiny, nearly amateur concerns, unequal to the widening challenges of global competition, suburbanization, revitalization and economic development.
Many states are bedeviled by what David Rusk, the former mayor of Albuquerque, N.M., has called a crazy quilt of “little box governments and limited horizons.” In geographical terms, little boxes ensure that in almost every region scores of archaic boundaries artificially divide areas that otherwise represent single, interrelated social, economic and environmental communities. Such divisions complicate efforts to carry out cross-boundary visioning, plan cooperatively or coordinate decision-making across large areas.
At the same time, with the vast majority of municipalities essentially small towns, many if not most have limited tax bases and struggle to provide even the most basic services.
Little box governments create a problem of scale. More and more the geographical reach of local and metropolitan challenges exceeds the reach and capacity of its governmental machinery.
Second, fragmentation increases the cost of government. Political fragmentation often leads competing jurisdictions to duplicate infrastructure, staffing and services that could otherwise be provided more cost effectively.
The issue is not just about higher absolute costs; it is about the crowding out of critical investments. Ohio, for example, is saddled with 611 school districts. As a recent Brookings study found, the state ranks 47th in the nation in the share of elementary and secondary education spending that goes to instruction and ninth in the share that goes to administration. The proliferation of school districts, in short, is diverting scarce resources to bureaucrats rather than the classroom.
Finally, and this may be the most important finding in the current environment, metropolitan fragmentation exerts a negative impact on competitiveness and weakens long-term regional performance. This is partly because the sprawl and decentralization that naturally follows fragmentation weakens the downtown cores that attract young workers and foster greater access to ideas and technologies.
But it’s also because jurisdictions are spending their time competing against each other rather than working together to compete in the global economy. Municipalities routinely expend scarce resources on tax incentives to lure firms from nearby jurisdictions, adding not one job or tax dollar to the overall economy in the process. In addition, fragmented regions often fail to recognize their distinctive clusters of strength in the global marketplace and take the actions, large and small, to leverage their competitive advantages.
The implication is troubling: Fractured metropolitan areas compete for growth and jobs at a deficit.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Local governments are creatures of state law. What messes state law creates, state reforms can resolve.
Here is a three-part playbook for recovery, with relevance for every state in the nation.
First, states should move to consolidate units of local governments, starting with school districts and special-purpose authorities.
In 2007, Maine moved to consolidate its number of school districts from 290 to 215, with an ultimate goal of 80, saving $36 million a year in the process. Now, Maine is second among states in the share of educational spending that goes to instruction, and 41st on the share that goes to administration. Other states are following suit. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, recently proposed that the state go from 500 school districts to 100. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, aims to reduce the state’s 152 school districts by a third.
But why stop at school districts? Global competition requires metropolitan areas to speak with a unified voice on economic development, rather than add up the disparate strategies of dozens of tiny economic development agencies. The competition today is between U.S. metros and metropolitan areas in established nations like Germany and Japan and rising nations like China and Brazil, not between little jurisdictions within larger metros.
Second, states should move to delegate traditional state functions to entities that govern at the metropolitan scale. California, for example, allocates 75 percent of its federal transportation funding directly to metropolitan planning organizations, enabling these organizations (usually governed by city and suburban elected leaders) to make transportation investments in the service of metro housing, land use and economic development priorities. Other states should replicate this example and perhaps apply it to other policies like skills training, housing or welfare-to-work that naturally cross jurisdictional lines.
Third, states should promote a new generation of inter-jurisdictional collaboration to gain efficiencies. In New York, for example, the Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness urged that municipalities be allowed to share the tax benefits of economic growth and create partnerships to deliver services, in order to lower expenses.
Some metropolitan areas aren’t waiting for state laws to change. In Chicago, a metropolitan mayors caucus, formed by Mayor Richard Daley, meets regularly to develop consensus on shared, cross-border challenges such as air quality, transportation funding and workforce development. The Chicago model of city/suburban collaboration has been exported successfully to the Denver metropolis, where the metropolitan mayors’ caucus advanced support for a metro-wide light rail transit system. States should establish mechanisms for disseminating these kinds of innovations quickly and effectively.
In the end, these concepts—consolidate, delegate and collaborate—are simple to describe and relatively easy to design and implement. The November gubernatorial elections offer a rare opportunity for states to regain their time-honored role as the nation’s laboratories of democracy, vehicles for policy innovation and governance reform. Restoring order to local government chaos can enhance competitiveness, promote growth, cut waste and shift investments to what matters. Who will lead this governance revolution?
The Latest Data on the Home Affordable Modification Program (with graphs)
Monday, April 19th, 2010MONDAY APRIL 19, 2010
The Latest Data on the Home Affordable Modification Program
Housing, Mortgage Market, Fiscal Policy, Real Estate
Ted Gayer, Co-Director, Economic Studies
The Brookings Institution
In order to be eligible, the property must be a primary residence, the mortgage must have been originated on or before January 1, 2009, and the unpaid principal balance on the mortgage must be no greater than $729,750. Also, the debt-to-income ratio for the first mortgage for the borrower must be greater than 31 percent of pretax income.
For eligible borrowers, the mortgage servicer will take steps to adjust the debt-to-income ratio for the first mortgage down to 31 percent of pretax income. The steps include first reducing the interest rate to as low as 2 percent, then extending the loan term to 40 years and, finally—if necessary—deferring a portion of the principal, interest-free, until the loan is paid off. The borrower is given this modification for a three-month trial period, and the modification becomes final after the borrower makes all three trial period payments on time.
According to the latest report, there are about 780,000 active trial modifications and about 230,000 active permanent modifications. The figures below show the cumulative monthly trial and permanent modifications started. Treasury’s expectations were that HAMP would “help as many as 3 to 4 million at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure.” If the “help” that Treasury suggested refers to permanent modifications, then the program is far short of reaching of its goal. Even if the goal applies to trial modifications offered, the declining rate of increase of trials indicates that this, too, likely won’t be achieved.


A key policy question is whether HAMP is just delaying inevitable foreclosures. A HAMP modification will indeed reduce monthly payments, thus making a mortgage more affordable. But a reduced payment may not be enough incentive for someone who has a principal balance far greater than the market value of the house. According to First American CoreLogic, about 24 percent of residential properties with mortgages had negative equity—that is, mortgage loan balances greater than the value of the house—at the end of 2009. Indeed, the latest HAMP report shows some signs that even those who qualify for the permanent modifications might wind up re-defaulting on their loans. Over 2,800 of these loans have been ended since the program began, and the rate of these re-defaults seems to be increasing.
The Calculated Risk blog points to an alarming statistic from the HAMP report. As shown in the table below, the median borrower who received a permanent modification had a back-end debt-to-income ratio of 77.5 percent before the modification. (The “back-end” ratio includes all mortgage principal and interest payments – including from second mortgages – plus such things as property taxes, homeowner insurance, and condo fees.) Even after receiving the modification, this ratio drops only to 61.3 percent, which is still a large burden to sustain (especially if the value of the house is far below the loan balances), and could continue to lead to more foreclosures, delayed but not prevented by HAMP.

The Hill: Treasury falls short on housing
Monday, April 19th, 2010The Obama administration is falling short of its goals to stabilize the housing market and halt foreclosures, a congressional watchdog said.
The Congressional Oversight Panel, tasked with overseeing the $700 billion financial bailout, said in a report released on Wednesday that the administration’s programs “will not reach the overwhelming majority of homeowners in trouble.”
“Treasury’s response continues to lag well behind the pace of the crisis,” the panel said.The housing bubble burst more than three years ago, and the decline in housing prices and securities based on mortgage loans helped drive the economy into a deep recession.
The Obama administration has unveiled a series of programs over the last year to help stabilize the housing market and keep people in their homes by reducing their mortgage payments.
The programs have had limited results so far, although they are starting to have a bigger impact this year, according to recent Treasury data.
The administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program resulted in 170,000 permanent loan modifications by February.
The pace of modifications has increased this year. Still, the total represents only 13 percent of all mortgage fixes extended to homeowners.
The congressional panel said the administration’s goal for the housing program overall may even be too small.
“In the final reckoning, the goal itself seems small in comparison to the magnitude of the problem,” the report said.
Congressional Democrats and Republicans have strongly criticized the administration, saying Treasury and Obama need to consider additional efforts and act faster.
While sub-prime and risky loans triggered the housing crisis, the recession and high unemployment rates are behind the more recent growth in foreclosures. Millions of homeowners are “underwater,” meaning they owe more on their homes than the homes are worth.
The administration announced a series of new programs in March to encourage lenders to reduce the amount of money homeowners owe and to deal with an issue regarding secondary mortgages that was seen as holding up modifications.
But many of the programs are voluntary and have not yet begun.
“Even if Treasury’s recently announced programs succeed, their impact will not be felt until early 2011 — almost two years after the foreclosure mitigation program was first launched — and more than three years after the first foreclosure mitigation program was undertaken,” the panel said.
Big banks may take a tough hit, particularly with the new program to reduce second liens, or home equity lines of credit.
The House Financial Services Committee held a hearing Tuesday on second liens, which are held primarily by Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase Co.
Each bank has more than $100 billion in exposure to those home equity loans, according to a report from Credit Sights.
The second liens are seen as holding up the modifications of mortgages because the banks continue to receive payments from the second loans.
Banks pushed back on that notion on Tuesday. David Lowman, chief executive of home lending at JPMorgan Chase, said the second-lien issue is not the main problem.
“Our data also show that second-lien modifications are not an impediment to first-lien modifications,” he said.
The rate of modifications under the administration’s program is “virtually the same” regardless of whether there is a second lien, Lowman said.
The congressional panel said that the range of new programs from the administration might result in lenders waiting to participate in the program that benefits them most.
“Although Treasury should be commended for trying new approaches, its pattern of providing ever more generous incentives might backfire, as lenders and servicers might opt to delay modifications in hopes of eventually receiving a better deal,” the report said.
Source:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/92049-treasury-falls-short-on-housing-
The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.
Federal aid is forestalling only a fraction of foreclosures, report says
Wednesday, April 14th, 2010Federal aid is forestalling only a fraction of foreclosures, report says
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 15, 2010; A16
The government’s foreclosure prevention efforts are struggling to make an impact on millions of borrowers who are in trouble on their mortgages, according to a report issued Wednesday by a congressional watchdog panel.
The program, known as Making Home Affordable, is on course to prevent only about 1 million foreclosures, aiding a small fraction of the homeowners who are in trouble with their mortgages nationwide, according to the report by the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitors spending on financial bailout efforts.
About 230,000 U.S. homeowners had secured permanent loan modification under the program through last month, according to Treasury Department data also released Wednesday. That includes about 14,000 borrowers in the Washington region.
But many borrowers who have signed up for the program are in limbo, waiting to prove they qualify for permanent mortgage relief. And more than 150,000 have been dropped from the program because they didn’t keep up with their payments or their lender determined they did not qualify after all, according to the Treasury data.
“Treasury’s response is lagging behind the pace of the crisis,” said Elizabeth Warren, head of the watchdog panel. “It also seems clear that Treasury’s programs will not reach the overwhelming majority of homeowners in trouble.”
Treasury officials said Wednesday that the federal program was never meant to prevent all foreclosures. “It’s still going to be a very painful process for millions of Americans, but we’re going to keep working to make sure this program reaches as many people as we can reach,” said Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.
Last month, the administration announced that it was revamping the program, adding features to encourage lenders to slash the loan balances of borrowers who owe more than their home is worth, a situation known as being underwater. About 75 percent of the homeowners helped under the federal program were underwater on their mortgage, according the watchdog group’s report.
In the Washington region, foreclosures continue to be a problem. On Wednesday, local nonprofit groups and government officials announced the creation of the Capital Area Foreclosure Network to coordinate outreach efforts to distressed borrowers.
The network, which includes the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and the Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington as well as Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac, will share information among nonprofit groups and banks while coordinating a regional response to the foreclosure crisis.
“People walk into nonprofit housing counseling organizations every day seeking to prevent foreclosure. But these are really complex challenges, and the work is hard,” said Chuck Bean, executive director of the Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington. “Now, by bringing together all the players . . . we hope to better support the staff that are on the ground doing the work.”
Meanwhile, a report by the Urban Institute, a District-based nonprofit policy research group, to be released Thursday found that by the end of last year, nearly 3 percent of outstanding mortgages in the Washington region were in the foreclosure process and 9 percent were delinquent. There are signs that the region’s housing market is starting to improve, the report says. But in the far suburbs and eastern areas, many homes are languishing on the market before selling, according to the report. About 27 percent of homes for sale in the Washington region stay on the market for at least three months. But in Charles County, about 42 percent of homes on the market take at least four months to sell.
“The region still faces a substantial challenge from the foreclosure crisis. There are still a lot of homeowners behind on their mortgage,” said Peter Tatian, senior research association for the Urban Institute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404336.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/business/15mortgages.html?src=me&pagewanted=print
|
Bloomberg |
Treasury, Watchdog Panel Spar on Foreclosure Efforts (Update1)
April 14, 2010, 3:07 PM EDT
(Adds comment from panel’s report in the second paragraph, Treasury data starting in the eighth paragraph.)
By Lorraine Woellert
April 14 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Treasury Department’s efforts to avert foreclosures are helping few troubled borrowers and sending mixed signals to lenders, a congressional panel overseeing the financial bailout said.
“It now seems clear that Treasury’s programs, even when they are fully operational, will not reach the overwhelming majority of homeowners in trouble,” the Congressional Oversight Panel on the Troubled Asset Relief Program said today in a report.
The panel’s report is its third on Treasury’s foreclosure efforts. All three have criticized the agency as being too slow to respond to the housing crisis.
As of February, 168,708 homeowners had received five-year loan modifications, out of 6 million borrowers 60 days late or more on mortgage payments, the panel said. For every borrower who avoided foreclosure last year through Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, 10 lost their homes, according to the panel.
“Treasury is still fighting to get its foreclosure programs off the ground,” panel chairwoman Elizabeth Warren said, speaking to reporters yesterday.
Treasury said the oversight panel relied on outdated information and today released a monthly progress report.
At the end of February, 1.1 million households have benefited from trial loan modifications under HAMP with a median savings of $500 a month, Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said in a written statement.
Modification Offers
More than 1.4 million homeowners have received offers for trial modifications and more than 230,000 homeowners have received permanent aid, the Treasury reported.
Homeowners have saved a total of $3 billion in lower monthly mortgage payments under the plan, the agency said.
The loan servicing arms of GMAC Inc., Citigroup Inc. and Bayview Asset Management had the highest rate of mortgage modifications among lenders, Treasury reported, with at least 45 percent of 60-days-past-due loans being processed.
More than 59 percent of borrowers seeking modifications say they have lost jobs or income.
“It’s critical to point out that many of the foreclosure starts that are referenced in this report will in fact never become foreclosure sales,” thanks to HAMP and other Treasury programs, Reilly said.
HAMP, a $50 billion program authorized by Congress, pays mortgage servicers to rewrite loan terms to reduce borrowers’ monthly payments. President Barack Obama has said he wants HAMP to offer loan modifications to as many as 4 million borrowers.
Treasury Criticized
Warren criticized the Treasury for changing terms of foreclosure programs. The oversight panel said a “pattern of providing ever more generous incentives might backfire” as lenders delay modifications in hopes of receiving a better deal.
“Treasury has launched no fewer than half a dozen foreclosure programs,” Warren said. “An incentive-based program in which the incentives keep changing can cause its own problems.”
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan defended the administration’s efforts while casting some blame on an overwhelmed system.
“Did the administration underestimate how prepared servicers would be to respond to the volume of homeowners needing assistance? Absolutely,” Donovan told a meeting of the Mortgage Bankers Association yesterday. “But while the complexity of the programs challenged the capacity of servicers, it’s also true that many institutions were slow to make the investments in systems and staff needed to process applications.”
–Editors: William Ahearn, Steve Dickson
To contact the reporter on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Alec McCabe at amccabe@bloomberg.net.
10 things your insurance may not cover
Monday, April 12th, 2010Some things, like nuclear war, no company will cover. Others, like the family dog, may vary by insurer and by breed. Here are some common coverage gaps.By Liz Pulliam WestonMost people think about their homeowners insurance only a few times in their lives: when they select their insurer, when they’re writing premium checks and when they have a claim.By the time something goes wrong, however, it’s usually way too late to begin learning about your policy.There are some gaps in your coverage you can’t do anything about, of course. Insurers aren’t going to cover you for a nuclear accident, for example, no matter how many companies you ask.Many so-called exclusions, though, vary by the insurer. If you know about them in advance, you may be able to switch carriers or buy extra insurance to stay protected. So pull out your policy and check for the following:Mold and water damageA spike in mold-related claims at the turn of the century led most insurers to strike the coverage entirely from their homeowners policies.The frenzy over toxic mold reached a peak around 2002, the year television personality Ed McMahon filed a $20 million lawsuit against his insurer over mold that he said sickened his family and killed his dog. (McMahon later settled for $7.2 million.) A huge increase in mold-related claims in Texas, California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona led insurers to eliminate or at least reduce their exposure.Most homeowners insurers now exclude mold from their coverage, said Frank J. Coyne, chairman and CEO for the Insurance Services Office, which supplies statistical data to property and casualty insurers. Many insurers also limit how much they’ll cover for water damage.In fact, in some cases you may have trouble getting coverage for a home that’s had water claims in the past. Read “Insurers keep a secret history of your home” for more details.Sewer backupThe only thing more disgusting than a bathroom floor overflowing with waste is the fact that you may have to pick up the cleaning bill yourself.Sewage backups are frequently not covered by homeowners policies unless you purchase a special rider. Many homeowners who experience this particular disaster try to get their cities to pay for the damage, but governments typically aren’t liable unless the homeowner can prove negligence — and is willing to go to court over the matter.A cheaper solution? Check your policy, and if you’re not covered, buy the rider for $50 to $100.War, nuclear accidents and terrorismIf your home is burned in a riot or other civil commotion, your insurer probably will pay to rebuild it. If your home is damaged by an invading army or is irradiated by a nearby power plant, however, you’re not covered. If your house is destroyed during a terrorist attack, you also may be on your own.Insurers have long excluded war and nuclear accidents from the list of perils they cover. Until the Sept. 11 attacks, though, most homeowners policies either covered terrorism or were silent on the issue, which usually implies coverage.Since the World Trade Center attacks, an increasing number of insurers are specifically excluding terrorism coverage from their personal insurance lines, such as homeowners, in addition to banning it from their commercial coverage.
Natural disastersIf your home burns in a wildfire, you’re probably covered if you live in a developed area. If you live in a remote cabin or your home is rattled apart by an earthquake, inundated by a flood or blown away in a hurricane, you may not be.The more likely you are to be a victim of a natural disaster, the more reluctant insurers may be to cover you. That’s why residents who live near the Gulf Coast or the Atlantic Ocean typically need to supplement their homeowners insurance with hurricane coverage offered by a high-risk pool (and the number of properties considered high-risk has exploded since Hurricane Katrina). California residents, meanwhile, get earthquake coverage from the state-run California Earthquake Authority or from a handful of insurers willing to write earthquake policies.Many insurers also won’t cover fire risks for people who live in forests or far from fire stations. That’s true even though some of the biggest wildfire losses have come in developed areas: the Oakland Hills fires of 1991, for example, the Laguna Beach and Malibu fires of 1993, and the San Diego wildfires in 2003. Most of those homeowners had no trouble getting insurance before the fires, while their more remote neighbors often had to buy insurance from high-risk pools.Continued: Neglect, trampolines and dogsFloods, meanwhile, aren’t covered under homeowners insurance policies — something many Katrina victims learned to their chagrin. The National Flood Insurance Program, run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, offers coverage. If you live in an area that’s prone to either floods or hurricanes, you need both wind and flood coverage.If you’re the victim of a landslide, however, you’re pretty much on your own. That kind of earth movement usually isn’t covered, so it pays to get a geologist’s report before buying any home near a cliff or on a hill.NeglectIf a tree topples over in a windstorm and crushes your house, you’re covered. If your home collapses because of a termite infestation, you’re probably not.Insurers expect you to take care of your home and deal with any maintenance issues on your own dime. Insurance generally covers sudden and unexpected losses, not losses from termites, rodent infestations or a water leak you never quite got around to fixing. You’re expected to detect the problem and prevent the situation from getting out of control. If you don’t, any damage done typically won’t be covered by your insurer.Bruce Johnson, author of “50 Simple Ways to Save Your House,” recommends you conduct regular inspections to detect such problems. At least twice a year, tour the exterior of your home looking for cracks, decay or water damage. Check the condition of the roof and inspect the basement or crawl space for other hidden problems, including rodent droppings, termites or leaks.If you find a problem, fix it. Remember that home maintenance problems usually just get more expensive.TrampolinesInsurers charge more for certain hazards, like pools and spas. Trampolines, though, are often excluded outright.They’re a whole lot of fun, but they also offer a whole lot of ways to seriously hurt yourself. That’s why your homeowners policy probably excludes trampolines from coverage and why your current insurer may threaten to drop you if you buy one. They simply don’t want to pay for the lawsuit and medical bills if the neighbor kid breaks his neck.If you insist on having one, you may need to shop around for an insurer that will tolerate, if not cover, trampolines. But you might want to think seriously about a less hazardous form of at-home fun.
DogsIf you own a toothless Chihuahua, your insurer probably doesn’t care. Buy a pit bull, Rottweiler or wolf hybrid, however, and you may find your insurance gets more expensive — if you can persuade your insurer to cover you at all.Dog bites cost insurers about $310 million a year, and an increasing number of companies have a blacklist of breeds they won’t accept or charge more to cover. Pit bulls, which lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s list (.pdf download) of deadly breeds, are particularly unwelcome. Other troublesome breeds include German shepherds, Rottweilers, wolf hybrids, huskies, malamutes and Dobermans.If your dog has ever bitten anyone, regardless of its breed, you’re probably going to have trouble getting coverage as well — particularly if it was an unprovoked attack. (See “Your dog’s bite could bankrupt you.”)Each insurer has different policies, though, so you may be able to find affordable coverage if you shop around. You also can ask the insurer to exclude your dog, meaning that you’ll pay for any damage it does. You also should invest in some training, since a biting dog is a hazard to everyone around you.
Intentional damageIf your ex sets fire to your home, you’re probably covered. If the fire is started by your rebellious teenager or an estranged spouse, however, you may not be.Intentional damage by an insured person — or by the person’s spouse, children or relatives living in the house — typically isn’t covered. Estranged spouses often come into a gray area. Although they may not live in the home, they may be listed on the policy or the property deed and be considered to have an insurable interest in the home. Companies have, in fact, made this argument to deny or limit coverage to homeowners whose property was damaged by an estranged spouse. (See “Your teen’s troubles can cost you a bundle.”)Victims’ advocates complain these policies are unfair, since there’s often no way to prevent such damage. If you’re worried about the risk, however, it may motivate you to get help for a destructive teen, beef up your home’s security system or reach a quicker divorce settlement.Computer equipmentIf you have a personal computer or two, your homeowners insurance may pay you enough to buy a new one — or it may not. If you’re running a home business, however, your homeowners insurance almost certainly will fall short.Here’s another area where it pays to read your policy. Some insurers will give you a check only for what your computer equipment is worth now, which is probably a fraction of what you paid for it. Even those that do pay for replacements typically have a cap, often about $2,500. Many require you to have supplemental coverage if you want a bigger check than that, or if you run a business from your home.Read your policy, note the limits and talk to your insurer about supplemental coverage if you need more.Also, know that most policies won’t cover the value of digital information stored on your computer, including your music and photo collections. That’s all the more reason to invest in a good, off-site backup system and to use it frequently.Luxury items and collectiblesIf you don’t own anything special, the entire contents of your home are probably covered under your homeowners policy. If you have antiques, guns, jewelry, collectibles or fine furs, you may need extra coverage.The typical policy limits coverage for luxury items and collectibles. You might get as little as $200 for the coin collection you were hoping would fund Junior’s college, or $1,000 to cover all your jewelry, watches and furs.Once again: Check your policy, and buy supplemental insurance if you want more coverage. To make sure you have enough coverage for all your stuff, use the home inventory software available at the Insurance Information Institute.
Liz Pulliam Weston is the Web’s most-read personal-finance writer. She is the author of several books, most recently “Your Credit Score: Your Money & What’s at Stake.” Weston’s award-winning columns appear every Monday and Thursday, exclusively on MSN Money. She also answers reader questions on the Your Money message board.
Updated July 14, 2009http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourHome/10ThingsYourInsuranceMayNotCover.aspx?page=all
9 secrets of home insurance claims
What you don’t know about filing a homeowners insurance claim after serious damage can definitely hurt you. Don’t get caught by these common surprises.[Related content: insurance, homeowners insurance, insurance claims, policies, insurance rates]
By Insure.com
You’re at a disadvantage when you have major house damage or a total loss of your home. You face a home insurance claimprocess that could easily stretch out for more than a year, require reams of paperwork and leave you exhausted.
Unless you’ve already run the gantlet of a major home insurance claim, you don’t know what to expect. We asked Ron Reitz, the president of Quality Claims Management in San Diego, to give us an inside look at what, many times, is an eye-opening process for policyholders.
Reitz helps policyholders work through the insurance claim process and shows them how to recoup their losses. “Most people don’t learn anything about insurance until they have a loss,” Reitz says.Public adjusters work on behalf of policyholders to help people get all they’re entitled to from insurance claims. Adjusters help evaluate damage and rebuilding costs, track the flow of insurance payments and amounts due, and work with home insurance companies to expedite their clients’ insurance claims.
Here is a look at many of the things that can take people by surprise when they have a large home insurance claim:1. A claim for a total loss of a house can cost less than rebuilding a damaged house.
Construction from scratch costs less per foot than construction for rebuilding. Often it’s “easier” to fix your problem if your house is simply gone, rather than to try to repair the damaged sections of what’s left.”When you start from scratch, you don’t have to incorporate changes that exist with the building, so you have a clean slate,” Reitz says. Also, it’s often more costly to retrofit your old house to prevailing code than to start fresh.2. If you have a mortgage, your insurance checks will be made out to both you and your mortgage bank.Your mortgage holder is likely listed as a “loss payee” on your home insurance policy, so payments for rebuilding are issued to both you and your lien holder. And don’t expect your mortgage holder to sign over the check to you.Policyholders “have to endorse and send the check to the mortgage company, and it will sit in escrow until repairs are made,” Reitz says. Mortgage banks typically release the funds back to you in three installments over the course of your reconstruction. Mortgage companies want to be sure your property is repaired before releasing payment to you. As a result, you may have to advance your own money for construction costs until the mortgage company verifies the repairs.3. Don’t cash any insurance checks marked “full and final settlement.”In some states, such as California, it’s illegal for an insurer to issue a check like this. You don’t want to cut yourself off from any funds you’d be entitled to if you later discover that not everything has been paid for.4. Don’t sign a release on your home insurance claim.This takes the home insurer off the hook for any future payments on your claim.”Insurance companies ask the insured to do it when they think there’s a problem or big dispute coming,” Reitz says. The home insurance policy does not require the insured to execute a release, so why should you sign?5. Don’t let your insurance company replace your Pottery Barn stuff with Wal-Mart stuff.The values of particular items are often disputed in home insurance claims. If you’ve bought expensive items, your insurance company may say it can replace them with very similar items from Wal-Mart or Target.”We battle back and forth,” Reitz says. The insured is entitled to be paid for what he had — not a knockoff version of it.6. Many condo owners have no idea that they need their own home insurance policies.They think that the condo association’s policy covers their property. However, the association’s policy covers only common areas, typically up to the walls of the condo. If you want your own space and belongings protected, you need an HO-6 home insurance policy. Otherwise, all your belongings, furniture, appliances and cabinets are uninsured.Without an HO-6, you also may have no liability protection if you’re sued for something that happens within your condo, like a slip-and-fall injury.
7. If you’re forced to evacuate, don’t sleep at a shelter.Your home insurance covers your “additional living expenses” if there’s a mandatory evacuation, including hotels and food — even additional transportation costs.”Why sleep on a cot when you could go to a hotel?” Reitz asks. “You don’t realize you have that coverage until you have a loss.”8. After a widespread disaster, insurance companies will bring in company adjusters from out of state who aren’t familiar with local costs.Adjusters from outside your area may not have a handle on how much electricians, plumbers or other workers charge, or how much it costs to rebuild a house. Often they will rely on a software program called Xactimate, which isn’t very exact if you don’t account for local costs.
“The insurance company will bring in out-of-state adjusters who are probably not licensed in the state,” observes Reitz. “They’re not as familiar with local building codes. What we saw from the 2007 fires in Southern California was that out-of-state adjusters can’t comprehend that it will cost $800,000 or $1 million to rebuild someone’s house. They can’t comprehend local building values.”9. People regularly settle for less than the total cost of their damages because they are exhausted.Especially near the end of a complicated claim, such as a total home loss, homeowners just want the process to be over.Even if your policy entitles you to “replacement cost” of your belongings, home insurance companies will initially issue checks for your belongings’ actual cash value. Then, once you’ve replace the items, you must submit your receipts to get the difference between the initial checks and what you actually paid for replacements.”In reality, most people don’t go back and submit receipts because they’re so frustrated with the claim, they’re done with it. They’ll settle for less and close the claim and rebuild for less, and the insurance company knows this,” Reitz says.Hiring a public claims adjuster can put you on an even playing field with your insurance company. Your insurer may assign three adjusters to work on your claim: one for “additional living expenses,” one for your personal property and one for the building portion of your claim. A public adjuster will be able to explain the process and work on your behalf handling the countless meetings, e-mails, phone calls and paper documents that flow for a large claim.The insured can get on with daily life and leave the insurance adjusting to a professional, Reitz says.
Published April 5, 2010


