- Sen. Rand Paul: ‘I am seriously thinking about’ running for president in 2016
- Sleet, ice, deepfreeze hit large swath of U.S.
- ‘Welcome to the edge of freedom’: Biden’s boots touch down in DMZ
- Obama: Hole U.S. ‘digging out of’ requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
Mortgage Q&A: Inflexibility boxes in borrowers
In last week's column, I described my assistant's quest to purchase her first home. I concluded that despite the fact that home prices are close to double what they were 25 years ago, it is easier to afford a home today, thanks to low interest rates and the availability of a variety of mortgage products.
I got into the mortgage business in 1986, and I can tell you that borrowers had to jump through a lot of hoops to get a loan approved. "No doc" loans didn't exist, credit scores didn't exist, and I recall that my underwriters seemed to request a "letter of explanation" for everything.
Fast-forward 15 years to 2002, and the entire mortgage landscape had changed. We all know what happened. Mortgage money was available to anyone who had a pulse. Unscrupulous loan officers pushed large loans on buyers who were being pushed to buy homes they couldn't afford by unscrupulous real estate agents.
Wall Street, along with now-bankrupt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, gobbled up those easy mortgages with the expectation of low risk because "property values never fall." Sealing the fate of this obvious train wreck were our politicians in Washington, on both sides, who encouraged the loose lending to boost homeownership numbers in America.
Today's mortgage landscape is more similar to 1987 than 2002. Those of you who read this column regularly might ask yourselves why I spend so much time bellyaching about the tight lending standards we all face today. After all, nobody wants to create another scenario that would cause a housing bubble and mortgage meltdown.
I can explain. There's one very big difference between the lending standards of 1987 and 2012. Common sense.
Back in the day, borrowers had to provide asset and income documentation, just as they do today. The loan file had to have sufficient papers proving the borrower passed the very important litmus test of "ability to repay," just like today. But let me give you a couple of examples that manifest the difference between the underwriting guidelines of 1987 and those of 2012.
In 1987, there were no credit scores. A borrower's credit report may have shown one or two isolated late payments. The underwriter would ask for an explanation and possibly some documentation to understand the reason for the late payments.
It was her job to determine whether the late payments were a product of irresponsibility or an isolated mistake or misunderstanding. Much of her decision would be based upon common sense.
Today, the two late payments might drastically lower the borrower's credit score, regardless of whether the credit dings were justified or not. It doesn't matter. If the credit score falls below a certain number, the loan won't be available. Period. Common sense doesn't exist.
Back in 1987, underwriters used "qualifying ratios" to determine affordability. The guideline was that your total monthly debt shouldn't exceed 38 percent to 40 percent of your gross monthly income. We still have that guideline, and it's important. But in 1987, an applicant with $1 million in the bank but no income could get a loan.
His debt-to-income ratio literally was an infinite number, but the underwriter, using common sense, could see that though the applicant had no current income stream, he had 30 years of income already earned in the bank. A qualifying ratio clearly wasn't needed.
Today, assets and savings don't matter. If today's underwriter, who's been reduced to being a clerk in charge of checking off an inflexible list of requirements, is unable to check off the box that says "Debt-to-Income Ratio Less than 38 Percent," our millionaire will not get a loan.
I long for the day when I can harass my qualified borrower for paperwork and be able to make loans for those who clearly have the "Ability to Repay," but for whatever the reason, don't fit into Fannie and Freddie's myopic little box.
Henry Savage is president of PMC Mortgage in Alexandria. Send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Obama: Hole U.S. 'digging out of' requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- Snow storm sucker punch: U.S. hit by winter wave
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Dick Cheney: Family feud over gay marriage has been 'dealt with'
- Craigslist killers: Police say newlyweds stabbed man for thrills
- Obama tries to calm Israeli fears over Iranian nuke deal 'not based on trust'
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Get in the middle of all the action inside and outside the boxing ring.
Opinion, analysis, and musings on politics, pop culture, reinvention, and the resultant flotsam and jetsam floating around the right-of-center quadrant of the Left Coast.
The cold hard truth about politics in America today and the state of this once great nation.
Find the latest news and happening that effect those in the Washington D.C., Northern Virginia and Maryland Metro region.
White House pets gone wild!