TBWS - Video Marketing and Mortgage News Designed for Mortgage and Real Estate Sales

keeping it real: (November 09, 2009 7:28am)

To: Evil Genius: I like your thoughts! You must be in the East coast.

keeping it real: (November 09, 2009 7:26am)

What a joke with the new GFE. Might as well leave the lending to BofA?

Evil Genius: (November 04, 2009 7:28pm)

Bono Vox, there are several $Billion sitting on the sidelines right now waiting to re-enter the market. I would do this $1B at a time. Each fund is valued at $1B and you fund loans at the prenegotiated rate until you exhaust the fund and then the fund turns profit fom interest payments. No CMO's or pyramid derivatives. Pension funds love long term stability and they have the money to invest. Look Fannie owns $4.93 Trillion in loans and yet they lost $23.2B in Q1. Freddie is into us for at least $50B. Something has got to change. Someone needs to introduce a fresh idea. I'm taking this outside of the normal realm and certainly away from industry insiders. The people I know that want to simply introduce new again programs like stated income continue to go back to the same sources that have been doing it wrong for a long time. I've got the biz plan. I've got hard projections and I've got some initial interest. The guidelines are written. mortgagebidz@msn.com

Enquiring Mind: (November 04, 2009 6:24pm)

So why are you guys letting App ruin a good thing? He's App today and someone else tomorrow, but it's always the same guy. He started life as the guy espousing AI as the best thing since AMCs. He's doing a good job or ruining your blog and dividing the solidarity by being so obnoxious that people don't want to come here anymore.

GODLIKE: (November 04, 2009 6:17pm)

Mortgage Angel sorry but I've just now seen your post, I actually went out and worked today. Yeah I know, it's nowhere nearly as much fun as chatting, but I felt I had to do it. I really, really wanted to eat today.

Horny broker: (November 04, 2009 4:46pm)

So is anyone horny. Love porn love the internet

brian tbws: (November 04, 2009 4:29pm)

App ~ Wholesalers did not have risk retention as this act is stating prior to 2006. Keep in mind I'm speaking in terms of lenders and am not sure what your angle is with AMC's.

brian tbws: (November 04, 2009 4:21pm)

Bono Vox ~ I agree with you but remember these banks couldnt pass their gov sponsored stress test. Little guys like us will never know how much or little money they actually needed. With that said, I'll take you up on lunch in the south as long as fried, spicy, and killed by your chevy on an old country road.

App: (November 04, 2009 3:05pm)

I should clarify, the guy built the home and the home and 1 acre was worth more than what he owed, so he was able to split off 2 1 acre parcels.

App: (November 04, 2009 3:03pm)

The home and parcel it sits on is worth what the total including the 2 parcels are worth. The bank still has their same loan amount and can free up those other 2 lots as they don't need to be encumbered for the loan amount borrowed. Homeowners can request this - banks don't have to say ok. I did one where a guy bought 3 acres, built a house and the house and 1 acre was worth the same as the home and 3 acres. The guy subdivided and sold off 2 1 acre parcels. Except in this case the guys house was not one you'd walk away from. Custom all around. So, similar to what you're talking about.

App: (November 04, 2009 2:55pm)

Worn out. That does happen and it could be legal. You buy a home and 2 parcels. Appraiser comes and says the home and parcel it sits on are worth what the total package (other parcels included) are worth. The bank then unencumbers the 2 lots so they can be sold. While the balance owed is the same as when purchased, the guy made money by improving the now unencumbered lots. Probably got the extra lots much cheaper than straight out buying them. Could be a builder, but who has that kind of cash laying around to improve 2 lots? I'd guess the lots were first unencumbered by the bank and then developed. There's no other way around it - clear title has to be had to sell or finance for building. See if it's recorded in the buyers name and not the sellers. Then you'd know what happened.

Valuequestor: (November 04, 2009 2:40pm)

JoeColorado: I agree, Never heard of a bank that would allow the sale or subdivision of an encumbered parcel without closing out the original loan. Even when it "made sense" in an appreciating market. I know....I tried it. Sounds like a group of people were being very bad.

Bono Vox: (November 04, 2009 2:30pm)

Banks won't give up AMCs due to profit and quality control. You can't generate a report without an AMC and you can't manage a large bank without reports! If AMCs are all that exist, then even the best appraisers will have to succumb. They can't get rid of you, they'll just cut your fees until they can't cut anymore. Like they do with originators (see Chase, Wells, comp plan). My appraisals are still coming in with good quality, but I'm in a good market. The Feds will only get rid of AMCs if they are replaced by a regulated system. Guys, it's easier for the Feds to control 8 large banks than 1000 small ones. They like easy more than they like logic. And this crowd - Barney, Nancy, O - they are about control, not freedom and certainly not market forces represented by 200,000 individual appraisers and loan companies. Give generously to the politician of your choice. How cynical was that whole paragraph? Yuck. Need a Crown on ice while listening to One.

Bono Vox: (November 04, 2009 2:21pm)

For the record, there is a difference between working for a Big Bank and drinking the Kool Aid. If you'll recall, those Big Banks were forced to take TARP money because Treasury and The Fed were concerned about there being a stigma attached to who did and did not take money. That said, next time you're in the South, I'll buy you lunch on my corp card so you can have some TARP money back :-)

joecolorado: (November 04, 2009 2:08pm)

worn out-seems like a title screw up to me, the disposed of parcels shouldn't have had clearance from the original debt which should have been recorded against ALL of the property appraised. The fact that the builder can dispose of an encumbered parcel without going through the procedures to pay off the indebtedness on that parcel, smacks of collusion between the builder and the Title Company as THEY should have recorded the data initially and checked the Title for encumbrances when disposed to "new" buyers..

App: (November 04, 2009 1:31pm)

You know, if you want to lure investors back, make the banks retain liability. It's an assurance of due diligence. As it stands, when the GSE's stop buying loans at the end of $1.25 trillion at the end of March (extended from 1/1/10) who's going to be buying??!! Investors are aware of amc tactics and outsourcing of QC to India. Do your really they'll be interested in the no risk held loans the banks will be making? What we've got going now is an illusion the banks are playing off of with the GSE's and making tons of money. Reality will kick in and investors won't jump back into the exact same waters as 2006-2007. The banks can fight it but investors are going to demand assurances that the banks have skin in the game. Sanity is knowing there's repercussions if you do wrong. That fact has somehow been conveniently lost on the banks. SORRY F & B if it seems I hijacked the thread. I just felt that what was really going on needed to be addressed. Retention of liability is a must. IMHO

Starving Appraiser: (November 04, 2009 1:31pm)

App: (November 04, 2009 1:14pm) <<>> "DITTO"

Starving Appraiser: (November 04, 2009 1:30pm)

Bono-if you work for one of the "BIG BANKS", maybe you should be thoughtful of the taxpayers generosity, via the government, when you open that paycheck. And if the Big Banks are stable, why did/do they need a bailout and why haven't they pd it back? I believe most of us here think of "Big Banks" as the ones (5-6) we hear about laying off folks while their paying outrageous salaries & bonuses to their CEOs & higher ups.... maybe you're not with one of those. I do agree that the VA model would work for all, if they utilize similar standards as the VA & not allow every Joe-Blow 1/2 arse apprsr on their panel. Bank owned/favored AMCs are giving the apprsl industry a bad rep by utilizing substandard reports & driving the experienced, knowledgable apprsrs out of business. I agree w/App in this regard. Hope you tell us you don't work for one of the "Big Banks" as we know them.

App: (November 04, 2009 1:14pm)

Amc's will go away, they just have to be exposed for their uselessness in the process. They are totally unneccessary. Having the banks retain liability will show that the amc just increases their liability beyond any reasonable limits. No one can stand working with them. They needlessly complicate the process. The only reason they're there is as a bank profit center. When the banks have to realize their risk, then they'll see the risk equation works much better and for their benefit without the amc. They'll go - because they're freakn useless.

App: (November 04, 2009 1:05pm)

You have to understand the banks amc's are trying to get rid of appraisers and replace them with avm's and bpo's. we're in the way of profits. Replacing appraisers is pretty easy when you only hire the most incompetent and put the most experienced and qualified out of business. Sure makes us look like a bad bunch. It's happening. If they could elimate all competition they would. That's why we have to hold the banks liable for their actions.

Bono Vox: (November 04, 2009 1:03pm)

App - I work for a big bank. I'm reminded of their generosity every time I open a paycheck. The best that can be said it that they are stable. My take away is this: don't look for AMCs to go away; and if they do, look for a VA style process to replace them. Ain't nothin' easy brother. The Great Rate Increase of 2010 won't help.

t-bone: (November 04, 2009 12:55pm)

Where's our friend in the suspenders playing music? Everyone here misses him. Get him on the show!

Rob in AZ: (November 04, 2009 12:48pm)

rouwster: i never saw that rate window before. I'm intrigued. Are you a Mortgage Broker? do you use it? I took a look around, it kinda reminds me of lendingtree. Similar model? Thanks

App: (November 04, 2009 12:39pm)

They not appraisers and they're not fit to manage appraisers. Their predominance in the market is due to an illegal policy - the HVCC.

App: (November 04, 2009 12:35pm)

Sure Bono, this isn't about appraisers wages but the economy in general & the banksters cartel that eliminated competition. So you're suggesting appraisers work 7 days a week & have 1 day for each appraisal? How generous of you to offer to work 2-3 times as hard for the same money. Far too short of a time considering almost none of the cookie cutters are sent out-they're all complicated & take more than a day to do right. I'm not sure where you've getting $250. LSI is offering $180 for a full 1004. The amc's are run by idiots. I hate having to deal with them so I don't. Even at $250 when all the costs of doing business are taken out, you're lucky to be making Walmart wages & with no benefits. BTW, Wells has raised appraisal fees to the consumer and lowered them for appraisers. I didn't worry about checks bouncing & never advertised. Anything the retarded amc's offer as their advantage is totally useless to someone with experience. It costs everybody that has to deal with these retards.

Bono Vox: (November 04, 2009 12:05pm)

App - Two of the biggest AMCs are owned by Wells and BofA. They charge the client $400 and pay the appraiser $250. Sounds like a profitable model to me. Wells and BofA (currently) don't bounce checks, so the appraiser does 30 appraisals a month collects $7500 and doesn't have to make collection calls to deadbeats. Not ideal, but it sounds sustainable to me. Appraisers, correct my naivety. And maybe my spelling.

rouwster: (November 04, 2009 12:02pm)

As upsetting as the new GFE is to the traditional way mortgage brokers earn YSP, is the hope and solution provided by RateWindow. Created by RealESpace and introduced to the web via the website www.ratewindow.com, this mortgage pricing tool and system has already been treating YSP as a consumer credit while at the same time allowing the broker to earn a fee for each transaction. What's even better about using RateWindow is that it facilitates relationships with realtors and other mortgage related professionals to increase leads sources. RateWindow is all about the transparency of a mortgage transaction and borrowers are reacting very favorably to it's presentation. If you are a broker and are using RateWindow, you are already beyond the compliance required by the new GFE rules slated for January 1st, 2010.

Bono Vox: (November 04, 2009 12:00pm)

App - few if any brokers can handle any buybacks. Correspondent lenders can't handle many buybacks. The margins in this business are way too thin for non depository institutions to sock away big reserves. Just a few buybacks (especially with the current state of the "scratch and dent" market) can wipe a lender out.

Bono Vox: (November 04, 2009 11:55am)

Evil Genius - Not enough liquidity out there to do that. You'd bring the market to a grinding halt and pricing would go up. Good thought, though. I like thought.

WornOutAppraiser: (November 04, 2009 11:07am)

ROB -- Thanks man, yeah it does help - but this is what i have run into 3 times now in the last 6 months - i get an appraisal request on a property and in researching prior sales, etc. i discover the property was purchased with other parcels - the other parcels are already subdivided at time of purchase - there is a main parcel with an improvement on it (home) and 2 vacant parcels adjoining the main one but with separate apn's. the buyer then built homes on the vacant lots and sold them and then walk away from there original loan (which included all 3 parcels) and an enormous loan amount that included all 3 parcels. the original buyer makes big time $$$, the lender gets stuck with a HUGE mortgage on only one parcel - how the other 2 parcel resales vlear title is a mystery but they obviously do - this appears to be a growing problem at least in my area.

Evil Genius: (November 04, 2009 11:06am)

Thinking outside of the box for a moment. Sorry to drag you all with me but......the biggest problem in this industry is the selling and reselling and reselling of these loans. Banks sell to Fannie and it is split into derivatives, which in essence is a fraction of how it started. There is inherent value in real estate in this country. The answer is to simplify everything once and for all. Make loans from a portfolio of private funds. Negotiate the return paid to that fund and retain the whole enchilada. No secondary market necessary. The rates are fixed long term and pre-negotiated with the fund manager. The fund receives the interest as return and is happy with the newfound stability of their investment. Get rid of banks as mortgagor pass-throughs. Brokers stay alive because they are the sales force to the consumer. No HVCC necessary. Appraisers self police and the lender can dispute a value which the appraiser has to address with data. Simple science. Too much stability for you?

Rob in AZ: (November 04, 2009 10:59am)

Wornoutappraiser: Yes, it is possible to lend on properties with more than one parcel. This is called cross-collateralization, and is more common in commercial or private $$. Builders also do this. Unless the entire loan is paid off, OR the lender executes a Partial Release for the other parcels, the debt must be paid in entirety or the lender gets all the security. Hope this helps!

App: (November 04, 2009 10:52am)

I know the banks are fighting the 10% liability - this is probably just one of the ways that they're doing it. Who wrote that letter? Someone with an interest in protecting the way the banks do business? Sure. Of course. Only 5 banks left, geez. Fear tactics probably spun by the banks themselves. They don't want this - more than anyone.

Calorignator: (November 04, 2009 10:42am)

I just read through section 213 (Credit Risk Retention)of HR1728. The retention provision ONLY applies to "non qualified mortgages" and not to ALL mortgages. Essentially sub-prime loans and option arms loans would require the creditor to maintain an economic interest of at least 5% in that loan even it sold. I don't see a problem in that. If the loan is qualified then no economic interest is required to be retained. The only problem that I have with the wording of Section 213 is that a qualified loan cannot have an amortization more or less than 30 years. This wording would kill 15,20 and 40 year fixed product options for the consumer because even the big banks would have to retain at least 5% risk on these products. The rest of the wording for qualified requires "licenced originators" (good), net tangible benefit to the consumer (good), a rate no more than 1.5% higher than the market average for that loan product (good), confirming the borrower's ability to repay (good).

App: (November 04, 2009 10:40am)

PLEASE, NO ONE SIGN THIS LETTER. IT'S NOT IN YOUR BEST LONG TERM INTERESTS AS BROKERS, CORRESPONDENT LENDERS OR APPRAISERS. BANKS MUST RETAIN LIBILITY FOR THE LOANS THEY WRITE. IT'S THE ONLY SOLUTION TO DELIVER US FROM THEIR GRIP. THERE WILL NOT BE JUST 5 BANKS LEFT. IT'S A FEAR TACTIC

App: (November 04, 2009 10:24am)

Right now the big banks have no liability limits and they can absorb all the banks out there if they wanted to. This limits them and when they're limited and hit their limits, what will they do? Look to the smaller banks? Look to correspondent lenders? This thing is good for everyone. Don't be short-sighted and in seeking immediate gratification. The big banks have to be defeated in their policies and the best way is retention of liability. There will be pain at first, but in the long run it will be great. AMC and the too big to fail ever banks "brave new world" that's out to kill any competiton or a world where actions have repercussions and deals are made honestly, respectably and sensibly. I know my choice

App: (November 04, 2009 10:16am)

You really think the banks won't want to open their lists? Use your head. They want to make money, tons of it. They're going to turn down avenues of new funds? Think before you speak

WornOutAppraiser: (November 04, 2009 10:14am)

FOR ANY BROKERS/LENDERS OUT THERE - do lenders fund loans on multiple attached properties as one package? for instance, someone buys a home on a lot and the 2 adjacent lots all at the same time from the same seller - can the lender package the loan in one package/loan with all the parcels together? and if so what happens if the buyer sells off the other 2 lots and then losses the main property to foreclosure?

App: (November 04, 2009 10:13am)

Big dawg : Is there insurance for liability retention? Probably. 5% won't affect anybody, it might as well not even be in there. High risk loans - wtf are those? Sub-prime? Yeah, there's a big market for that. Ask FHA and the GSE's. It's 10% liability. Are you a bank shill? Don't want any liability mr banker? Screw B of A. the only they're at 3 months is the amc. The appraiser turns it around in 1-2 days. Why the delay? amc's? What does that have to do with liability anyway? It's too early to be hitting the sauce mr banker

App: (November 04, 2009 10:07am)

This thing is good for everybody. You mortgage bankers/brokers are already retaining risk while the banks aren't. I'm sure this is making sense to you. Support this amendment to HR 1728. Don't be short-sighted, in the long run it'll pay off in a more stable economy and expansion of banking services. You guys won't be cut out of the loop. EVERYONE agree the banks need competition and you guys are it !

SF Big Dawg: (November 04, 2009 10:03am)

OMG APP SHUT UP! You clearly know NOTHING about what you are talking about let me put it in clear terms. If the bill passes and you are not on one of the big banks lists you can change your name to ex app. WAKE UP moron. Retention as in if you write a $100,000 LOAN AND YOU NEED TO RETAIN IN YOUR WORDS 25% THAT'S $25,000. Even at 5% it is a lot for any local or community bank. If you think this problem is bad now if this thing passes it will take 6 months to close a deal. B of A is from what I am told at 3 months on a purchase as it is. Competition is good and necessary as far as your personal problem with not making enough on an appraisal let this pass and you can forget about getting what they are offering you now. They will then find a way to make the appraisers employees and they will fill the seats for $10/ hour. Learn the facts and then you will see that Frank and Brian are trying to help us all out. This thing needs to be stopped and I am a banker!

App: (November 04, 2009 9:57am)

With only 5% risk retention for only higher risk loans?? What's that, maybe 1% of all loans made? And it will be corrupt business as usual for the too big to fail banksters. It's going to take extreme measures to break their grip on the mortgage process - this is a big one. There must be liability for the loans they write - they have to take responsibility for their actions. They're screwing everybody

irsfriendly: (November 04, 2009 9:53am)

Mortgage angel If you charge more then give the rebate. The IRS says, that as long as it is a costsit does not matter who pays it. It would be like a seller credit.

BROKERBUTTIREDOFIT: (November 04, 2009 9:49am)

iamabroker What are you talking about? You must not be from CA. We have been disclosing evrything for years. Even if you do not disclose what the bank is paying how is that riping off the client. Higher Rate more fees. Clients should be able to shop and find something better. I am sick and tried of hitting the brokers and not making the AUTO industry or any retail store show their profit. If it is good for us then lets go all they way and make this a completely screwed up world.

MortgageAngel: (November 04, 2009 9:45am)

I'm reluctant to call reluctance - gotta go now

App: (November 04, 2009 9:45am)

I can't edit my posts or I would have. I'm still against this initiative to get rid of 10% risk liability for all residential loans. This will affect the largest banks the most. I'm for this section of the bill. Break up the stranglehold the big banks have first. This is just phase 1 imo to get rid of hvcc, amc's and unwind these too big to fails. 5% retention for only higher risk loans is not enough. Who decides higher risk? The banks? Is it a number - say, over $500k? No- liability must be retained in the process or we'll have a repeat of the meltdown.

MortgageAngel: (November 04, 2009 9:43am)

irsfriendly: I don't think that's accurate on the write offs. 3.00 on line 801 - rebate of 1.00 credited to brwr at close nets out to 2pts. Cost for the loan is the same.

MortgageAngel: (November 04, 2009 9:41am)

App - Very admirable. THUMBS UP! THANKS

MortgageAngel: (November 04, 2009 9:39am)

Maybe a better angle for industry professionals, NAMB, CAMB, CAR, would be to get off the defense and work offense by raising SERIOUS concerns in regards to laws and regulations already in place that have not been enforced!

irsfriendly: (November 04, 2009 9:38am)

If we have to charge the clients upfront and then credit the rebate to them. They would able to write off more on their tax returns. I am sure the irs will not like this. But until they stop it it will be better for the client.

App: (November 04, 2009 9:34am)

My bad - I never saw this article. It is unfair and probably drafted by the larger banks to bury the competition. I saw "risk retention" and my hair went up - chill too lol. I'll sign it. 100 apologies guys. A link to this letter might have explained it better. I didn't know 1728 had any attachments except for the Kanjorski amendment. Carry on (he says red-faced) lol http://creditriskchronicles.blogspot.com/2009/11/mba-urges-congress-to-rethink-10-risk.html

MortgageAngel: (November 04, 2009 9:32am)

Repeating my invite to chat room. I've poured some coffee. Get it while its hot!

App: (November 04, 2009 9:29am)

Monday, November 2, 2009 MBA Urges Congress to Rethink 10% Risk Retention : The Mortgage Bankers Association joined the call against risk retention requirements in a recent financial regulatory reform legislation draft. In a letter Monday signed by MBA president and CEO John Courson, the group urged House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank and ranking member Spencer Bachus to ensure reforms aimed at the securitized credit markets are customized to avoid unintended consequences. In particular, the 10% credit risk retention requirement may be inappropriately applied to all loan sale transactions regardless of whether the loan purchaser intends to permanently hold the loan, according to Courson. Independent mortgage bankers may also be forced out of business by the retention requirements.The Financial Stability Improvement Act would broadly require additional risk retention http://creditriskchronicles.blogspot.com/2009/11/mba-urges-congress-to-rethink-10-risk.html

Starving Appraiser: (November 04, 2009 9:27am)

CAHIGH-you should report the AMC to HUD/FHA. 2055s are NOT FHA acceptable, as we agree. But some pencil pusher sitting at a desk won't necessarily realize what they're looking at.

MortgageAngel: (November 04, 2009 9:26am)

GODLIKE, APP, Do you have a few minutes to spend in the chat room with me, please? I'm entering now and would appreciated more detailed perspective on credit risk retention act.

MortgageAngel: (November 04, 2009 9:24am)

I "get" the new gfe guidelines. I've been disclosing srp and rebate since 1999 - It's no big deal as long as you're providing value to your customers.

GODLIKE: (November 04, 2009 9:19am)

Rabble rousing again APP? There's nothing wrong with the letter. It is very short and specific.

App: (November 04, 2009 9:16am)

I mean as correspondent lenders (mortgage bankers), nothing changes. You have to have the resources of a bank now to operate. Nothing changes. Yes? Please explain. Maybe there's something I'm not getting as an appraiser. All I know is that risk retention will decimate the amc model and I'm 100% for it.

App: (November 04, 2009 9:11am)

How is this bill changing anything in your present operations to the point that you need to fight it? HVCC says you have to retain liability. What's different?

I am a broker: (November 04, 2009 9:11am)

I am looking forward to the new GFE rules. It will make it that much easier for the honest LO's to compete against the evil sharks who rip people off. Do your homework. It is flawed, but an overall good change.

Rob in AZ: (November 04, 2009 9:10am)

I'm curious what caused your deals to fall out that were disclosed on the new GFE? I haven't used it yet but have printed one on the last couple of apps I've done, just to review & get used to it... Frankly I assumed this would be in ADDITION to the current GFE just because (as others have mentioned) it doesn't contain all the applicable info. Thanks

App: (November 04, 2009 9:07am)

5% to me is not enough. It should be 25%. Aren't you brokers having to go through mortgage bankers to get loans done now? What's that about. Retaining risk - you have to have enough funds to buy back the loan. That doesn't change. If you don't understand the bill totally then maybe you shouldn't be fighting it. To me this is phase 1 of getting rid of the amc's and the HVCC.

Deedie: (November 04, 2009 9:01am)

Frank, What letter?

Frank Garay: (November 04, 2009 8:53am)

Also guys.. if you feel the letter isn't right, then by all means edit it to your liking. But please DO SOMETHING.

App: (November 04, 2009 8:52am)

I should have said the costs and RISKS of using an amc will not make sense. Using an amc will only will only increase their risk - and you know how banks are about preferring no risk.

Frank Garay: (November 04, 2009 8:52am)

Sometimes it amazes me how narrow the hearing is of people. The letter is intended to deal with a section of the new bill that targets the "NON-Bank Community Lenders". NOT THE BIG BANKS. The section in 1728 they're trying to get adopted, has risk prevention at 5% and only for high risk loans, not your vanilla loans. The organizations that put the initial letter together are FOR wholesale lending, that's who they represent. If the bill goes through the way it is, wholesale lenders won't be able to afford to operate, hence the whole country will be doing business with BofA, Wells Fargo, Chase and Citi. Are we wrong here? If so, copy and paste from the bill in question into the blog so we can see what you mean and respond accordingly. We certainly don't want to screw the pooch here.

App: (November 04, 2009 8:50am)

The amc model of cheapest and fastest will not survive. Banks will absolutely need quality appraisals or risk buying back their loans. If the banks see that the amc's are not on their side in producing quality appraisals by foregoing profits, they'll bring it in house again. The costs of using an amc and the amc model will not make sense.

Bono Vox: (November 04, 2009 8:46am)

App, AMCs won't go away. By creating a disconnect between appraisers and originators, the Feds cut back on fraud and inflated values. When was the last time you saw a mortgage fraud case that didn't have an appraiser/originator team involved?

Bono Vox: (November 04, 2009 8:43am)

You don't want risk retention. What do you want in the form of regulation or enforcement? Congress wants blood, so they'll get it. Give them an alternative.

App: (November 04, 2009 8:39am)

Brian: I don't agree. They were able to make loans pre-2006 and will be able to post HR 1728. The only thing that will change is if they want to sell the loan they'll have to retain risk. There's insurance for that, I do believe. More lenders will be able to compete on an level playing field. With amc's gone things will change in a hurry. And yes, I do believe risk retention will get rid of amc's. I agree 100% - the too big to fail banks need more competition. Do they have any now? No. They will if this bill passes imo.

CAHighDesertAppraiser: (November 04, 2009 8:35am)

Thanks Starving...thats right..some schmo is correct!..im smart enough to know when they're trying to get more for less $$

App: (November 04, 2009 8:33am)

Someones getting paid off to support this initiative to write Congress to get rid of the retention clause. It's the big banks that have some of you in their pockets imo. Frank and Brian, don't get suckered in - take down that letter and please, no one write them to strike this most important of clauses from this bill.

brian tbws: (November 04, 2009 8:30am)

Hi App. Small banks and wholesalers are not equipped to deal with this. They dont have coffers deep enough to continue funding loans. If this passes all you'll have left is big banks and brokers that deal with them on a wholesale lever. Your correspondent lender will be gone. Our thinking is, the more people in the game the better it is for the originator and consumer. Your right though, theres big bank spin in the letter.

Starving Appraiser: (November 04, 2009 8:30am)

I agree w/APP re:FHA inspection. >>>CAHIGH-good for you, but your post should have sd they re-assigned it to "Some Schmo", not "some other schmo", you don't sound like a schmo.

Clulessdad: (November 04, 2009 8:27am)

App-We are all in agrement about the bad HVCC. Yes i would like to talk to the appraisers about the job and pick a qualified appraiser. I don't understand your correlation to risk retention and HVCC though. Risk retention will create defationary conditions as the M1 money supply will go down. Maybe that is just the answer to the huge amount of liquidity the Fed just added to the system thru their printing presses. Interesting......

App: (November 04, 2009 8:26am)

The not so funny thing about correspondent lenders is they usually let the amc pick their appraiser and what do they get? A $180 appraisal with an inexperienced out of area appraiser. So is this MB risk retention worth it the way it's currently set up? The amc's could blow through your risk retention with one inept appraiser. Take back the process and save your own ass. Support risk retention in HR 1728!! and get rid of amc's

CAHighDesertAppraiser: (November 04, 2009 8:23am)

I declined the order when the AMC wouldnt upgrade it to a full 1004, Just not worth it. They said they would "re-assign" it to some other schmo.....be my guest !

MortgageAngel: (November 04, 2009 8:20am)

I'm siding with App on this - I just read 'subtitle F' and you know, I've only been doing this for 25 years..... I can't make heads or tails of it - what it means. I need to wrap my head around something before I say yeah or nay Does TBWS have an attorney on retainer that deciphers this stuff? I think we need to be sure we are able to comprehend something before standing behind or in front of it.

App: (November 04, 2009 8:20am)

Keep it simple. If the banks have to retain liability for the loans they write, they're going to demand quality appraisals as they don't want to have to buy back any loans. Mortgage bankers are already retaining risk. FHA appraisal always has to include an interior inspection. These amc's have no problems putting you at risk to save a few bucks. Demon spawn is what they are. CYA

Clulessdad: (November 04, 2009 8:19am)

Cuomo is at it again-now he is suing Intel for breaking anti-trust laws. Is this guy for real?

Starving Appraiser: (November 04, 2009 8:18am)

CAHIGH-we are guessing (don't like the word assuming) that you are one of the apprsrs that honors the FHA guidelines and repair requirements. There are too many that don't.

Daily Viewable on iPhone: (November 04, 2009 8:16am)

The Daily can now be viewed on the iPhone. If you're on the 3G network it's fine and it should be fine on any wifi as well, however, if it's a wifi in your office, it may have to be configured to allow streaming video. Hope it helps!

Starving Appraiser: (November 04, 2009 8:15am)

Clue-Agree & disagree. DISAGREE-You can't/shouldn't do a drive-by on a 1004 form. AGREE-the appraiser is responsible for verifying the property is Safe, Sound, and Secure (within his/her expertise). Anything outside the apprsr's expertise should require inspection/verification by a qualified professional. Again, this can't be deteremined on a drive-by. BUT IF YOU DO it as a drive-by, you might want to UP your E&O first!!!

App: (November 04, 2009 8:12am)

Cluelessdad : There are no more mortgage brokers unless they're hooked up with mortgage bankers - risk retention is part of it NOW for mortage bankers. There is no change there at all. Don't you mortgage brokers want to pick your own appraisers rather than have amc's pick them for you? This keeps the banks honest.... if that's possible. At least as honest as possible

Clulessdad: (November 04, 2009 8:09am)

CAHIGH-You can do anything you want, but report it on a 1004. How you get interior pictures and examine the health and safety issues is up to you. But if you sign it without doing the work that FHA requires, you are on the hook for essentially warranting the health and safety of the property. Sounds like the AMC wants to pay less ad deflect all the accountability to you. Remember, FHA wants the appraiser to make sure the borrower is not getting a wreck.

App: (November 04, 2009 8:08am)

OMG guys, I just read the letter. Don't send this in. This is the big banks spin, propaganda. They're the ones that don't want risk retention - they're the only ones!! Get rid of AMC's and the banks stranglehold on the market. Don't be duped by this propaganda !! The big banks are fighting this tooth and nail. They don't want ANY retention. They want to be able to keep the corruption that brought down the system!! They want to perpetuate their money flows (dirty deeds done dirt cheap) with NO repercussions. Think think think. This is the best thing that could possibly happen to restore some order to the market place. Please don't send this thing in. It's big bank propaganda that it's bad for the market.

Clulessdad: (November 04, 2009 8:06am)

App-True about the banks, however the wholesale lenders would all go out of business. No more brokers. Again an unintended consequence.

Auntychar: (November 04, 2009 8:00am)

Just tried to send the suggested letter to the 6 members of the house financial committee. succeeded with maxine waters. but their websites won't take any info outside of their districts. does anyone have their emails. they don't make they readily available. I saved the letter and will be ready to blast out.

Starving Appraiser: (November 04, 2009 7:58am)

CAHigh- don't see how it would be possible to do an FHA drive-by. You MUST perform the repair inspection, including plumbing, h&a, peeling paint, rotted wood, etc. That can't be done on a drive by.

MortgageAngel: (November 04, 2009 7:56am)

Its no coincidence that this is under subtitle "F"

App: (November 04, 2009 7:55am)

cluelessdad : IF they sell the loan. Who sells most of their loans. The too big to fail 4 is who. Local banks for the most part keep their loans in house. Credit unions, small banks and the big 4 banks will be able to compete on a level playing field. This is propaganda by the big banks not wanting to retain risk. If the too big to fail banks get taken off the Fed's dole, rates are going to go up anyway (read what WElls chief said). Not enough profit for them. WITH OUR MONEY!!! That's where competition comes in. This thing is great for the economy and the consumer. Screw the big banks. The monies they received should have been accounted for and they should have been greatful enough to the consumer to offer low interest rates WITH OUR MONEY !! Fk em

mortgage-dude: (November 04, 2009 7:49am)

"GFE" Someone told me it has a new meaning for each letter - it used to be (G)ood (F)aith (E)stimate- but now.....well you know. (G)overnment (F)(blank) (E)veryone

Starving Appraiser: (November 04, 2009 7:47am)

GREAT NEWS and possibly relevant to a couple of todays post. >>>I CAN VIEW THE VIDEOS AGAIN!!!<<< After weeks of not being able to. Problem was my 7 yr old, outdated Toshiba Comcast modem. Have exchanged it for a newer RCA modem and BAM, I can view the video. Hope this helps some of the other fans who are experiencing viewing problems. >>>AND A BIG KUDOS TO TBWS SUPPORT TEAM<<<< They have stuck with me throughout this issue even when there was no indication the problem was on their end. Not many support teams will do that anymore, but this one went above & beyond their call of duty. F & B, you guys look great to me... no hair cuts needed, no ones fat at all and I LIKE THE SHIRTS!!!

App: (November 04, 2009 7:46am)

If there's risk retention it will force the big banks to play fair. Right now there is no risk retention and the big banks are loving this housing market "welfare state" in collusion with the GSE's. They buy anything and everything they write - that's why the Big 4 banks don't care about quality, just their bottom line. The Chief of Wells said that "at these rates (5%) we wouldn't even bother doing 30 year loans as there's not enough profit in it for us. The only reason we are is because the GSE's are buying everything we can write. That's gratitude for ya, ehhh? They don't care about the consumer, only profits. Make them retain risk, restore some sanity to the process.

socal appraiser: (November 04, 2009 7:44am)

to CAHighDesert - Call the local FHA office or 714-796-1200 ext 3453 or e/mail bobbie.l.borland@hud.gov she is the go to person - she will answer your question & refer you to the web site with all the answers

Clulessdad: (November 04, 2009 7:36am)

App-the risk retention the Feds want to do is have the lender keep at least 5% of the original loan amount on their books, if they sell the loan. At some point, if the lender lends a lot of money, they will use up all their funds and go out of business. Like everything else, this requirement is not required, but an enforcement of the current system of complete loan buybacks would yield a better result. This would make banks only lend to their depository assets and only be able to sell a few loans to the secondary market. Fnma and Freddie would essentially go way and rates would skyrocket at the banks would want much more return for their own portfolios. Just look at US Bank-they hold their own loans and their rates are in the 6's.

App: (November 04, 2009 7:36am)

More options will be around for lending. The only thing that won't be around is cheapest and quickest appraisals. Come on guys, this thing is the answer we all need!! Use your heads. The big banks and the AMC's are the ones fighting this tooh and nail - they don't want any risk for the loans they sell! It will open up choices for the consumer as even the big banks will want to limit their own risk. AMC's gone!! More room for everybody !!

App: (November 04, 2009 7:28am)

Guys, I don't understand the risk retention problem. Lenders have always had risk retention - that is until recently, pre bust. Risk retention makes the banks need to get the best quality appraisers and appraisals because they don't want to buy back the loans. This thing could well get rid of AMC's!! The AMC model will not survive if there's risk retention. It's the big banks that don't want this ! Think about it.

jaxman: (November 04, 2009 7:28am)

Frank mentioned new 2010 GFE going to eliminate YSP- then said brokers can earn it, just have to disclose it differently AND credit it to borrower. how is the new GFE going to mandate this? is'nt HR1728 and HR1326 discussing all of this- and still yet to vote on? Has anyone listened to NAMB webinars in last weeks wiht rep. Gary Miller R- CA- sounds like he has made some real headway with Barny Frank and committee both on HVCC and YSP. Any input? explain further want Frank- TBWS Frank- touched on this morning?

Belinda: (November 04, 2009 7:24am)

I was viewing your program every morning, but I've had issues trying to keep it running. Many times it wouldn't even come up, it would just sit there for ever it seemed like. Anyway, I was able to veiw you today and I did enjoy your program. I have to say that Brian is a good speaker and is interesting to listen to. He makes it seem interesting even if it's not (LOL).

CAHighDesertAppraiser: (November 04, 2009 7:22am)

Appraisers..i know I asked this late last night on the forum...but...is it possible to do an FHA 2055 "drive by" on a new construction tract home,with a 1004mc of course?? anyone know if FHA even accepts a drive by on a purchase?

clulessdad: (November 04, 2009 7:15am)

As I was walking around the block, I was reflecting on the new GFE. I say "bring it on!" It is so confusing that I will still have to explain the current GFE to my Clients. I will estimate a 1+ point YSP in the new GFE, why not? With all of FNMA fees, how can you lock a loan if you don't have the appraisal? And then Lenders who allow you to lock rates are also the lenders that are evaluating your metrics, or % of loans closed/loans locked. To the borrowers I will explain to them that this is the Govts confusing way of trying to get rid of me from the business by making me show this form. I can even create a disclosure that will be signed. I will continue to use the old GFE and have the itemized costs given to the Borrower. When they ask about the banks GFE, I will tell them to compare the itemized charges , the rate and the points. YSP is immaterial to them. The banks make 2-3 points in what they call SRP, which they do not have to disclose to the borrower.

GODLIKE: (November 04, 2009 7:06am)

I've never had a problem viewing videos on my Mac and Firefox. Maybe now's the time to switch since you've got to move everything when you switch to 7 anyway. Gotta love those Mac vs. PC commercials

Darren 53: (November 04, 2009 6:54am)

Me too - I have not been able to see the video for several weeks.

edror: (November 04, 2009 6:50am)

I have nor been able to watch the video for a month now. A lot of originators I know cannot see it too since some sort of change wwas installed.

Frank: (November 04, 2009 6:43am)

Ha Ha Distracted... Well it's true, you did mention somethings that will take you about an hour or so. You're right, there's only seven hours left for you, so why bother? I mean you've got to sit around and eat some Eskimo pies and stuff right?

Emerald: (November 04, 2009 6:16am)

St Pauly Girl- Thank you for putting the connection website in for us that are not able to view the video's anylonger. I will go in and notify/sign up immediatly. Who voted these clowns in?

St Pauly Girl: (November 04, 2009 5:59am)

Thank you Frank & Brian for continuing to provide ACTIONS for us to take. I appreciate the discussions..let's me know I'm not alone in my frustrations with our industry. We all still need to continue to take ACTION and keep voicing our concerns and providing solutions to our law makers. Just sent emails to my Congresswoman; and will be following up with another letter re: removal of YSP for brokers on the Feds proposal. LET'S KEEP THE MOMENTUM GOING! Go to NAMBs site to comment: www.capwiz.com/namb

tony4mortgage: (November 04, 2009 5:53am)

We should all march on Washington in Protest and show our solidarity......tHIS

Lets Do It: (November 04, 2009 5:48am)

Concerning the HFSC Roster confusion, the name to the RIGHT of the REpresentative's is their Financial Service's AIDE, so it might not be a bad idea to send them a note as well, being that often times our Rep's have no idea what they are voting on and ask their AIDE what's up....PLEASE, send this info to EVERYONE you know!!!

Old Timer: (November 04, 2009 5:40am)

gamtgguy - Of course they COULD have found a closer appraiser... just not one that would do it for the rediculous fee they wanted to pay I'm sure... You get what you pay for.

gamtgguy: (November 04, 2009 5:26am)

I know the main chatter this morning is the new GFE - the only thing that might be worse than HVCC - but I had to share an HVCC story from yesterday....lender completely denied their own HVCC appraisal. No going back to the AMC for a re-work, straight denial of the appraisal. The 2 major issues with the appraisal..comp 1 was from 7/2008 (verified...not a typo)..comp 2 had 11 acres and is 20.2 miles away (the subject sits on 1/3 acre. This all goes without saying that the appraiser was pulled from almost 2 hours north of where the subject property is located. Could they not have found an appraiser closer? Death to HVCC and the new GFE!

GaryP: (November 04, 2009 5:08am)

Here's one more issue with the new form. We're required to provide it to the borrower within 3 days of a full application (including an address). Here's the problem. There's not even a signature line on it, so that's going to create another form to acknowledge that they have received it. What a nightmare!

GaryP: (November 04, 2009 5:05am)

Sam, we have already decided to continue using the current GFE in addition to the new one. As you pointed out, the new GFE doesn't really give the borrower the info that they want, although they can still get the same info from page 2 and 4 of the 1003. Personally I like having everything on one page when I go over the numbers with the borrower. I too agree that the new GFE is pretty much a joke. How does taking a one page form and making it three pages long simplify anything. The other information that it contains is on the TIL. And we now have to disclose that they are not getting a loan product that no longer exists? Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is out!!!

KaBoom R.I.P. BROKE R'z: (November 04, 2009 4:58am)

KaBoom. Tick Tock brokers. Tick Tock. Bye Bye YSP. Kind of anyway. Just wait. The big bomb hasn't been dropped and no one see's it coming. The big boys have been keeping the industry distracted with little fires here and there. All the while they have been assembling the nuclear bomb. Tick Tock boys. Tick Tock.

Distracted: (November 04, 2009 4:48am)

Wait... Wait. I can't go out yet to see those Realtors. I have to watch all of last week's TBWS Daily shows. I swear though, I will get to it, right after that and I get into the book Frank talked about today. (huh) What's that? There's a debt collector on the phone? Tell em I'll call em back. I have to call that Realtor first.

Are You Kidding: (November 04, 2009 4:46am)

We bail out the banks...they in turn give big chunks of cash to their LACKEY Barney Franks... who in turn makes it hard for any competition to these banks... so that the banks can ask for more bailout money again.... ALL AT OUR (the taxpayers) EXPENSE... go figure.

Are You Kidding: (November 04, 2009 4:41am)

PA-LEEZ - stop kidding yourselves... the small-fry non lenders are not SHOVING enough money into Barney Franks pockets for him to even give a s&$#% about you. His PRIMARY concern is his friends in the "too big to fail" banks (that are throwing HUGE money his way) and everyone else is just bothersome and need to go away (in his words)... Get the word out that he will lose his gravy-train next election and VOTE HIM OUT... then we can all go back to work.

chickwithinsomnia: (November 04, 2009 4:26am)

First post ever and love your show! We just had a discussion about this proposal at my office yesterday. I work retail for a mortgage banker who also does wholesale. If this thing passes my manager said WE will literally go back to being solely a broker and close our warehouse lines. He said there will be 12 lenders left dealing with a few hundred well capitalized brokers nation wide and consumers will pay up to .75 in RATE due to less/no competition. Mentioned its a monopolistic fair trade violation too. Unbeleivable! I'm forwarding this show to him and confessed to my new love affair with David S. and rate alert. Joined Executive 2 weeks ago on a whim and have 2 borrowers better off due to PM Advice and Alerts. As for the poll I watch when I like the topic and I always seem to like Fridays as they are more fun. FWIW, I close all tabs on my browser when I see Nate and you both look better with hair.

Sam in Atlanta: (November 04, 2009 4:18am)

The new GFE does not show a monthly payment, cash required to close nor does it show what the seller contributes towards closing costs....Geez, what a waste of paper!

jillsells: (November 04, 2009 3:39am)

hey guys, I don't quite get your excel list of representatives. There is a column that identifies an individual as representative and from where, and then a second column that just has a name in it like this: Chairman Barney Frank, MA Michael Beresik Rep. Alan Grayson, FL Matt Stoller Rep. Al Green, TX Gregg Orton Rep. Andre Carson, IN Tammy McAthey who are the people on the right?