A Way Out Of a Bind for Older Homeowners

Reverse mortgages used to be a way for homeowners to get extra cash during retirement. Now they're also being used for a more-pressing purpose: helping people who are struggling to meet payments on high-interest-rate loans to keep their homes.

The strategy, which is relatively novel but gaining popularity among legal-aid attorneys and housing advocates around the country, calls for persuading lenders to take the cash generated by a reverse mortgage in lieu of foreclosing on older homeowners.

With a reverse mortgage, the bank makes payments to the homeowner instead of the homeowner making payments to a bank. The loan is repaid, with interest, when the borrower sells the house, moves out permanently or dies. The products are complex and have high fees -- typically about 7% of the home's value -- and they make it difficult for homeowners to leave the property to their heirs. But they may be the best option for people who have built up equity in their home and would otherwise lose it.

Most of these older homeowners in trouble had refinanced their home into so-called subprime mortgages. Such loans -- many of which feature adjustable rates that can tack sharply higher after an initial teaser period -- have roiled the mortgage industry and credit markets this year as default rates have shot up, and analysts expect hundreds of thousands of additional subprime loans to go bad over the next several years.

While no one tracks subprime mortgage holders by age, the approximately 30 million Americans 65 and older who own their homes are routinely targeted by subprime lenders with refinancing deals, borrower advocates say. Given that the rescue plan recently proposed by the Bush administration and the mortgage industry doesn't provide relief for individuals who can't afford their current loan terms, reverse mortgages are currently one of the few tools available to help older homeowners facing foreclosure.

The strategy worked recently for Gloria Forts, a 62-year-old retired federal worker in Forest Park, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta. After refinancing her home in August 2006 with a $106,500 mortgage from Fremont Investment & Loan in Brea, Calif., Ms. Forts was facing monthly payments of $950.41. That consumed 70% of her monthly income from Social Security and a pension. Intending to start a new job, she found herself kept at home by diabetes complications and back surgery. In June, she sought help from the Atlanta Legal Aid Society.

Click title for full story.

The Real Mortgage Fraud

Nothing is more fun than doing noble deeds with someone else's money, and right now, Democrats are getting ready for a rollicking good time. Contemplating the subprime mortgage problem, with numerous borrowers unable to pay their debts, the party's presidential candidates and congressional leaders have a simple solution: Fleece the lenders.

The troubles arose because banks and finance companies offered mortgages to millions of people who, despite their imperfect credit histories, yearned to buy homes. The loans generally start out with a low interest rate that, after a couple of years, rises substantially. Some homebuyers now discover that the reset payments are more than they can handle. On top of that, falling real estate prices mean some can't recoup by selling, because the home is now worth less than the mortgage.

This spectacle has brought forth recriminations from politicians who picture the lenders as James Bond villains, cackling at the chance to toss hard-working families out on the street. In fact, this course is almost as bad a deal for lenders as it is for borrowers. They typically lose up to half the value of the mortgage on foreclosures.

From listening to the critics, you'd never guess that. Barack Obama denounces "predatory lenders" for "driving low-income families into financial ruin." Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, blames everything on an epidemic of "abusive lending."

But lenders who made bad decisions are already paying the price. Many mortgage companies have gone bankrupt. And if these loans are so unconscionable, the question is not why the foreclosure rate is so high but why it's so low.

According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, less than 5 percent of subprime adjustable-rate mortgages are in the process of foreclosure. The vast majority of borrowers are making their payments, keeping their homes and asking no one for a bailout.

Nor is it clear that soaring payments are the chief culprit. Foreclosures are most common in places where home prices are falling—such as California, Florida, Michigan and Ohio, which account for half of all foreclosures this year.
Apparently many borrowers, seeing no point in paying off a $200,000 debt for the privilege of owning a $170,000 home, have elected to walk away from their obligations.

The remedies urged by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and the like include placing a moratorium on foreclosures, freezing teaser rates for five years or more, and forcing lenders to reduce loan amounts to reflect deflated home values. These options are conspicuous for a couple major defects.

Click title for full story.