NPL buyers should buy with greater focus on re-sale price in mind
In the residential whole loan market, many non-performing loan (NPL) buyers see an opportunity to rehabilitate borrowers, turn the assets into re-performing loans (RPLs) and eventually sell the assets to an investor that specializes in owning RPLs. The strongest buyers of RPLs are generally institutional buyers that oftentimes securitize the assets.
With this sale opportunity in mind, NPL buyers – when they’re purchasing the assets – are finding they need to be more aware of potential flaws that could impact the sale price later, according to Mike Kelleher, a vice president on the Transaction Advisory team at MountainView Financial Solutions, a Situs company.
“One of the biggest impacts on sale price we see is noncompliance with state and federal high-cost regulations,” said Kelleher. “In such instances of material noncompliance, we’ve seen very significant pricing decreases between initial bid and final price.”
High-cost regulations limit the points and fees that are charged at loan origination. If the charge to a borrower exceeds the maximum legal thresholds from the state or federal government, the loan is called a high-cost fail and is not compliant. In addition to taking on that potential legal liability, RPL buyers who want to securitize their assets generally cannot put leverage on loans that are state or federal high-cost fails.
Even though this error occurred at origination, the assignee can be liable. As with certain disclosure and underwriting issues that many loans have, the liability for certain origination issues is assigned to whomever currently owns the loan. Regardless of which company originated the loan, even loans with issues of noncompliance, it’s the current owner’s responsibility to understand and know the issues, because the liability follows the loan.
As you evaluate the opportunity to acquire NPLs with the intent of later selling the assets as RPLs, you may think different loan flaws or issues aren’t necessarily your problem, but they certainly will be if that liability is assigned forward to another investor, explained Kelleher.
“Most investors think about getting their house in order when it comes time to sell, but a lot of that work needs to be done at the time of acquisition,” according to Kelleher. “From a compliance standpoint, if you don’t run your own compliance review at acquisition, because you don’t plan to securitize the loans, you may not appropriately price for that risk.
“It’s important to understand how the institutions that you may sell to are going to account for those risks,” Kelleher added. “With that understanding, you’re making sure you buy those loans at the right price, so that when it comes time to sell, you’re not absorbing the discount in pricing attributed to outstanding issues of noncompliance. You want to account for the potential pricing discount upfront with whomever is initially selling to you – you don’t want to overpay for something that’s going to have these eventual haircuts to pricing when it comes time to sell to a larger institution.”
Another consideration when you’re actually selling a portfolio of RPLs is that you need to know which buyers have pricing reflecting these issues, which ones don’t, and which buyers absolutely can’t buy loans with these issues. You need an understanding of who is going to re-price and by how much.
“In our early discussions with sell-side clients, we ask what the known issues are for the RPL portfolio, and we specifically ask if a compliance review has been run,” said Kelleher. “We try to expose our buyers to as little risk as possible, and that in turn results in minimal re-pricing or ‘fades’ after the initial bid and after the buyer’s due diligence.”
An additional piece of RPL sales advice from Kelleher is to make sure that your collateral is perfected – review the assets and make sure that you have the full chain of title, and make sure your assignments and allonges are properly recorded and in order. While this may not have been critical to you as a NPL buyer, it will be a material issue to the RPL buyer. It’s another example of doing more upfront work when you buy to make sure that you’re better prepared for an eventual sale.
“With collateral defects, there’s a lot more variation in the impact to pricing at re-sale, and it depends on the individual loan’s defect,” said Kelleher. “If you’re missing a note and you don’t even have an imaged copy of the original note, that’s something that can make the loan entirely unsaleable. If the defect is a missing assignment or allonge, there generally are cures, but those cures take time and can therefore impact pricing and ultimately delay the sale.”
The bottom-line recommendation from Kelleher: Make sure you have more scrutiny in your diligence as a NPL buyer if you plan to eventually be a RPL seller.
House passes clean authorization to extend flood insurance funding
The House last Wednesday passed legislation to extend flood insurance funding through the end of November.
Lawmakers voted 366-52 to pass the measure a day before House members are set to fly home for the August recess. The measure extends funding that was set to expire on July 31.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where leadership has expressed confidence that it will be passed.
“Now that the House has passed the extension, the Senate will pass it before our next State Work Period to ensure that the program does not expire. Senators will continue their work over the next four months on a long-term reauthorization that reforms the program,” said David Popp, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY.).
Read more: The Hill
10 years after crisis, Fannie, Freddie trigger new alarms about growing role
Republican lawmakers are raising alarms that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-run companies at the center of the U.S. mortgage market, are quietly expanding their activities to fortify themselves against any efforts to rein them in.
A decade after the government rescued the mortgage financiers from a spectacular collapse, critics are stunned to see Fannie and Freddie back in a position to pick winners and losers in the private market, introduce new products, and rapidly grow their multifamily lending business.
Some Republicans suspect that the government-sponsored enterprises are rushing to enlarge their footprint in their final months under the oversight of Mel Watt, the Obama-appointed Federal Housing Finance Agency director whose term ends in January. Anyone President Donald Trump chooses is expected to be a lot more restrictive.
Read more: Politico
FHFA to write credit score rule rather than pick alternative score for GSEs
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is suspending its ongoing review of new credit scoring models and will instead move forward with creating a regulatory framework for providers of alternative credit scores to apply and be evaluated for use by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
A section of the regulatory reform bill signed by President Trump in May requires the FHFA to define, through rulemaking, the standards and criteria Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will use to validate credit scoring models.
Before that legislation became law, the FHFA had begun evaluating whether it should require the agencies to switch to the latest scoring model from Fair Isaac Corp., FICO 9, and/or allow the use of competitor VantageScore’s latest model, 3.0. The FHFA had given itself a deadline of the end of this year to decide on new scores.
Read more: National Mortgage News
‘Fair’ vs. ‘very good’ credit: The impact on mortgages
Consumers who make efforts to raise their credit scores from “fair” to “very good” may see big payoffs. LendingTree researchers analyzed loan request and average loan balance data to see how a lower credit score can increase borrowing costs for the average consumer. They compared the impact across several types of debt: mortgages, student loans, auto loans, personal loans, and credit cards.
Overall, raising a credit score from “fair” (580-669) to “very good” (740-799) can save consumers $45,283 on their debt. That’s the average in extra interest on all debt that consumers will pay when they have a credit score ranked as fair. Mortgage costs can account for 63 percent of those potential savings. By raising a credit score from fair to very good, consumers could save $29,106 in mortgage costs, the study shows.
Read more: Realtor Magazine
International buyers are dropping out of US housing market
After strong interest for several years, international buyers appear to be souring on the U.S. housing market.
The dollar volume of U.S. home sales to international buyers between April 2017 and March 2018 dropped 21 percent compared with the year-ago period, according to the National Association of Realtors.
Of the $121 billion in sales to international buyers, those currently living in the U.S purchased $67.9 billion in properties, while nonresident foreigners purchased $53 billion, both marking a drop from the previous year. Foreign buyers accounted for 8 percent of the $1.6 trillion in existing home sales, a drop from 10 percent the previous year.
While high home prices and inventory shortages are clearly playing some role in the drop, competition from domestic buyers, whose demand is increasing sharply, may also be a deterrent. And the current political climate in the U.S. also should not be overlooked.
Read more: CNBC
Thank you for choosing the Situs Newswatch. If you want to see your company here or have an idea for coverage, please respond to this email or email email@example.com for more information.