New Conforming Loan Limits Announced For 2009
Posted by Kevin Kueneke | Currently 1 Comment »
After months of speculation, we finally know what the new 2009 high balance conforming loan limits are for San Diego and other “high cost” areas. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) said that the $697,500 number we enjoyed for part of 2008 is dropping to $546,250 in San Diego.
Some areas such as Los Angeles-Orange Counties, San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Cruz are having their 2009 numbers set at the new maximum of $625,500.
According to FHFA’s press release, the 2009 loan limits were calculated using 115% of median house prices as determined by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) whereas the 2008 loan limits were calculated using 125% of median house prices.
So what does this mean? It means that anyone currently in escrow in San Diego with plans to borrow more than $546,250 needs to do everything they can to get their loan closed before 12/31/2008 or face significantly higher interest rates. There is almost a 2% interest rate difference between loans less than $697,500 and loans greater than $697,500 (also known as true jumbo loans) because conforming loans are guaranteed by the government (FNMA and FHLMC). Guidelines are also more strict for true jumbo loans than for conforming and high balance conforming loans.
As expected, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced that FHA Jumbo limits will match the high balance conforming limits. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) said that VA Jumbo loans with zero-down payments will be allowed up to the high balance conforming loan limits through the end of 2011. This is good news for FHA and VA buyers as they will still be allowed to take advantage of these programs for higher priced properties.
Any questions or comments? Please email me at Kevin@MyCWMtg.com
Popularity: 47% [?]
Related Posts: Buyers, CW Mortgage, Education, Financial news, Home Loans, Homeowners, Interest Rates, Mortgage News
FHA Kiddie Condo…What Is That?
Posted by Kevin Kueneke | Leave A Comment »
Many of my referral partners have asked about the FHA “Kiddie Condo” program. I spoke about this several months ago, but now that FHA loans are more prevalent, I felt that it is a good time to revisit the details. Here are a couple questions I have been asked recently:
Question: My child is now attending college and I do not want to throw money away on their rent. Is there a way to buy a property for them to live in without having to pay an enormously high interest rate? Can I avoid a large down payment typically associated with investment properties? 
Answer: Absolutely. FHA allows a non-occupant family member (for example, mom and dad) to go on the loan and basically carry the load. Income and debt from all parties are used to qualify, but the occupying borrower is not required to have any income or assets of their own. As long as your college student does not have credit that would otherwise disqualify them for a loan, their income and assets (if any) are irrelevant. Hence the term “Kiddie Condo”. Better yet, rent the other rooms to your child’s friends to help with cash flow.
Question: My parents are looking to retire and relocate to a new home closer to my family. Unfortunately, their verifiable income is not enough to qualify for a loan, but they do have a small down payment. Since I had planned to help them with their new mortgage payment, can I help them purchase a new home?
Answer: Absolutely. The term “Kiddie Condo” does not just apply to parents helping their children. Adult children can help their parents!
By the way…in addition to condos, all 1-unit properties are eligible: attached and detached single family residences (SFR’s), and homes in a planned unit development (PUD’s).
Far better option than standard Conventional financing due to significantly lower down payment required (3% versus 25-30%) and still get owner-occupied interest rates! **The minimum down payment for FHA loans is going to 3.5% as of January 1, 2009. Still a dramatic difference.
Remember though: these are full documentation loans for all qualifying parties and property condition is important to FHA. At this time, FHA Jumbo loans do not allow a non-occupant co-borrower…so keep your loan amounts under $417,000.
Questions? Call me at (760)500-1919 or email me at Kevin@MyCWMtg.com
Popularity: 62% [?]
Related Posts: Buyers, CW Mortgage, Home Loans, Homeowners, Mortgage News
FHA Update: Down Payment And Mortgage Insurance
Posted by Kevin Kueneke | Currently 1 Comment »
We finally have some clarification regarding the effective dates of the new Federal Housing Administration (FHA) down payment requirement as well as the new FHA Upfront and Monthly Mortgage Insurance Premiums.
As many of you will remember, FHA is increasing their minimum investment from the buyer from 3.0% to 3.5%. There were rumors that this was going to be effective October 1st, 2008. We now know that January 1, 2009, is the effective date for the down payment increase. 
FHA mortgage insurance, on the other hand, is changing effective October 1, 2008.
For purchase transactions, FHA has both a onetime upfront mortgage insurance premium (UFMIP) as well as monthly mortgage insurance (MIP), except for loan terms less than 15 years combined with a down payment of 10% or more.
The following is a breakdown of the new mortgage insurance for purchase money transactions with FHA case numbers assigned on or after October 1, 2008:
Loan Term > 15 Years
Loan to Value Upfront Premium Monthly Rate
<=95.00% 1.75 0.500
> 95.00% 1.75 0.550
Loan Term < 15 Years
Loan to Value Upfront Premium Monthly Rate
<=90.00% 1.75 None
> 90.00% 1.75 0.250
So how do these changes affect the typical home buyer? Most FHA loans fall into the category of less than 5% down payment and a loan term greater than 15 years. This makes sense since most first-time home buyers are looking for the least amount of down payment and the lowest monthly payment.
The old upfront premium was 1.5% of the base loan amount (base loan calculated using sales price minus down payment for this example, the actual calculation is slightly more complicated), and the old monthly insurance amount was 0.50% of the base loan amount divided by twelve months. Let’s look at a property with a sales price of $350,000:
Base Loan Amount: $339,500
Old Monthly Mortgage Insurance: $141.46
New Monthly Mortgage Insurance: $155.62
Difference of roughly $14.16 per month.
Old Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium: $5,092.50 (of which $5,050 can be financed)
New Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium: $5,941.25 (of which $5,900 can be financed)
If these amounts are financed, the difference in the payment at today’s 30 year fixed rate of 5.875% would be $5.03 per month. Add that to the slightly higher monthly mortgage insurance, and you are looking at just over $19 more per month with the new numbers.
An additional $19 per month is still relatively small considering FHA’s more lenient credit guidelines and down payment requirements. FHA is more strict though regarding the condition of the property versus typical conventional financing, helping to assure that the property is in a reasonable and safe condition.
With the new, higher FHA loan limits, FHA is taking more risk. As with any insurance whether it be auto, home, or mortgage, higher risk goes hand in hand with higher premiums. I think an extra $19 per month is worth paying to keep this program around.
Do you have a specific example you would like to discuss? Please feel free to call me at (760)500-1919 or email me: Kevin@MyCWMtg.com
Popularity: 66% [?]
Related Posts: CW Mortgage, Financial news, Home Loans, Homeowners, Mortgage News
WaMu Goes Down: Should You Be Surprised?
Posted by Kevin Kueneke | Leave A Comment »
It was announced Thursday evening that Washington Mutual was closed by the U.S government in what is the largest U.S. bank failure in history. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp was named receiver and stated that “customers should expect business as usual on Friday, and all depositors are fully protected.”
I am not writing this post to discuss the details of the post-failure workings (please see this Yahoo! News article), and I do understand that WaMu’s failure is complicated. I just want to express my lack of surprise that WaMu failed from a loan officer’s standpoint.
WaMu was a leader in subprime originations and they were fortunate enough to weather the subprime storm of February, 2007, as long as they did. They had a separate subprime division with a separate name (Long Beach Mortgage) which probably helped protect them a little.
But WaMu’s real niche over the last several years was the negative amortization loan, aka, the Option Arm, which allows a borrower to make a minimum payment that might not cover the mortgage interest that is actually accruing thereby causing the mortgage balance to increase.
WaMu was obviously not the only lender offering these loans, but they were known for underwriting guidelines that were further outside of the box than most other lenders. They also loved very large option arm loans and were one of the last option arm lenders to offer stated income. Even though they seemed to have a fairly stringent appraisal review process, many bad underwriting decisions were made.
WaMu was not alone in the big option arm mess. Here are some other lenders that offered, and even pushed, the option arm loan:
· Bear Stearns had an appetite for very large, stated income option arms loans as well. They also offered No-Documentation option arms up to 90% loan to value. Bear merged with EMC, a subprime lender, in 2007. We all know what happened to Bear Stearns.
· World Savings built their business on the “Pick-a-Pay” loan, which was their name for the option arm. If the loan to value was 70% or less, then no income or assets were verified, not even the source. They referred to this as their Quick Qualifier. World Savings also allowed significantly lower credit scores than other lenders and more marginal credit. World Savings was purchased by Wachovia in 2007 and the poor performance of the Pick-A-Pay has since caused the closure of that division.
· IndyMac was recently taken over by the FDIC. They too had a large subprime division, but they also originated many stated income option arms.
· Countrywide was perhaps the largest originator of the option arm, especially stated income. At the time they were “saved” by BofA, 89% of the loans Countrywide originated in the previous year were no longer within their guidelines. Although many of these loans were considered subprime, many were stated income option arms. Little tidbit that is frequently overlooked…BofA actually offered an option arm for a brief time, but wisely chose to discontinue the program.
· Downey Savings has been rumored to be in trouble. They recently discontinued their Lite-Doc program and yesterday discontinued the last of their option arm products. They were always loose on income, but tough on property values.
What do these lenders have in common? Stated income option arms. Is anyone else left that offered these? Homecomings is gone. Greenpoint is gone. Bank United stopped lending in California. SouthStar allowed 100% financing, stated income, with an option arm 1st mortgage, no surprise they are gone. American Home Mortgage, the tenth largest lender in the nation at the time it folded in August of 2008, specialized in easy to qualify option arms, with minimum pay rates of 1% and note rates of 10%…how does that work?
Looks like the option arm really was too good to be true. And WaMu found out the hard way.
Popularity: 42% [?]
Related Posts: CW Mortgage, Financial news, Home Loans, Mortgage News
