Most
economists view mandatory disclosure as a reasonable way of making a
market work better if the market is one in which one party to the
transaction knows much less than the other. This is the rationale for the
extensive disclosure requirements imposed on mortgage lenders. Lenders are
obliged to incur heavy costs to provide borrowers with
information the Federal Government believes borrowers need to protect
themselves.
Unfortunately, the implementation
of Federal mandatory disclosure rules has been so poor that it is not even
clear that the disclosures do borrowers more good than harm. Borrowers are
overwhelmed with information they often don't understand, and critically
important information that they would understand is nowhere to be found.
As a particularly glaring example,
there is no requirement to disclose the total upfront credit charge -- the
total amount the borrower must pay the lender and mortgage broker for the
loan. Aside from the interest rate, this is the single most important
piece of information a borrower can have, yet it is not shown in either
the Truth in Lending Statement (TIL) required by the Federal Reserve nor
the Good Faith Estimate of Settlement (GFE) required by HUD.
Recently, my mailbox has alerted
me to another glaring shortcoming in disclosure requirements. This one
applies to second mortgages, a rapidly growing segment of the market.:
"I obtained an FHA
adjustable rate loan 1 1/2 years ago, and later took out a second
mortgage. When FHA came out with a program providing for a streamlined
refinance into a fixed-rated loan, I applied for one and was approved. To
my surprise, however, I found that the second mortgage lender must agree
to be subordinated to a new first mortgage, and my second mortgage lender
categorically refuses. I have written the president of the bank and gotten
no response�It never occurred to me to ask about this when I took out
the second mortgage, and the lender's policy of refusing to subordinate
was nowhere disclosed�"
What shook me up about this letter
is that it could have happened to me. I was aware that the second mortgage
lender had to agree to be subordinated to a new first mortgage, but I was
not aware that there were lenders who categorically refuse to do it.
Such stubbornness makes no
business sense. So long as the borrower is not increasing the balance of
the first mortgage, which was the case for the letter-writer, the position
of the second mortgage lender is not affected by the replacement of one
first mortgage with another. Indeed, since the interest rate will be
lower, which reduces the payment burden on the borrower, the position of
the second mortgage lender is if anything strengthened. OK, it takes a
little clerical time to fill out the necessary forms, so charge the
borrower a reasonable amount for your trouble. But refusing to be
bothered? That's treating your customers with contempt!
Second mortgage lenders should be
required to disclose their subordination policy in their Truth in Lending
statement. A suggested sample disclosure is contained below. If
they want to limit subordination to cases where the balance of the first
mortgage is not increased, fine. If they want to be pig-headed and refuse
to allow it under any circumstances, that's fine too, so long as consumers
are forewarned about this when they take out their loan.
But consumers should not hold
their breath waiting for the regulations to be changed. Mortgage
disclosure is a politically super-charged area that moves at a glacial
pace when it moves at all. You must protect yourself, and the way to do it
is to ask about subordination policy at the first contact with a lender.
If the lender doesn't allow
subordination, march out the door.
There's another second mortgage lender down the street. If they say they
do allow it, ask about conditions if any, if there is a fee and how long
it will take. If the answers are satisfactory, get it in writing and make
sure it is incorporated in the loan documents so that if the loan is sold
the new lender will be bound by it.
Suggested
Disclosure on Subordination
Is Subordination Allowed?
Yes No ConditionalPeriod Fee
New First Mortgage
No Change in Balance
Balance Includes Refi Costs
Cash-out
Note: If
conditional, explain the condition
Copyright Jack Guttentag
2002
Jack Guttentag is Professor of Finance Emeritus at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Visit the Mortgage Professor's web site for more answers to commonly asked questions.
Related Articles From Mortgage Professor's web site:
HUD's Proposals For Reform
October 19, 2002
On July 29, 2002, HUD released a set of
proposals to substantially change the ways in which home loans are originated in
the US. As usual, the proposals were open for comment, and many thousands
of them were received. Mine was among them, and is shown ...
more...
Upfront Mortgage Brokers Listed by State
IMPORTANT
NOTICE: BEFORE CONTACTING BROKERS LISTED BELOW,
READ
"HOW
TO DEAL WITH A UMB"
Upfront
Mortgage Brokers as of
December 10, 2005
Arizona
Resident Brokers
Keith
Carothers, AZ Mortgage Dr.
Fee: Negotiated on a case-by-case basis
www.azmortgagedr ...
more...
Shopping For a Mortgage On-Line
September 19, 2005, Revised December 5, 2005,
Revised January 12, 2005
This article is on the why, which,
and how of shopping for a mortgage on-line: why seek a mortgage
this way, which sites are the best, and how do you shop
effectively?
Why Shop For a ...
more...
Questions About Mortgage Brokers and Lenders
June 24, 2002
I get tons of mail from
borrowers who are confused about the differences between lenders and mortgage
brokers, and how these differences matter.
"What is a
mortgage broker?"
A mortgage broker is
a loan provider who offers the loan products of different ...
more...