EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Fannie Mae Rental Program DETAILS: Program Will Let Thousands Rent Out Homes To Avoid Foreclosure

ALAN ZIBEL   11/ 5/09 06:25 PM ET   AP

Fannie Mae Deed For Lease

WASHINGTON — Can't pay the mortgage? You still might be able to stay in your home. Government-controlled mortgage company Fannie Mae is going to give borrowers on the verge of foreclosure the option of renting their homes for a year.

The change announced Thursday could give a temporary break to thousands of homeowners, but critics question whether it will only add to the mushrooming losses at the company, which has received billions in taxpayer money.

The new "Deed for Lease" program will allow homeowners to transfer title to Fannie Mae and sign a one-year lease, with potential month-to-month extensions after that. It also helps save money because the lender does not need to complete the often lengthy and time-consuming foreclosure process.

The program helps "eliminate some of the uncertainty of foreclosure, keeps families and tenants in their homes during a transitional period, and helps to stabilize neighborhoods and communities," Jay Ryan, a Fannie Mae vice president, said in a statement.

It also does less harm to the borrower's credit record.

"It shows that you put your best effort to work out a solution," said Gabe del Rio, director of homeownership at Community HousingWorks of San Diego.

However, Mike Himes, director of homeownership services at NeighborWorks Sacramento, said the industry should push harder to modify loans at lower monthly payments. "The preferred option is allowing people to retain ownership," he said.

Fannie Mae executives said the rental program is designed to help delinquent homeowners who don't qualify for a loan modification, but still want to stay in their homes.

To qualify, homeowners have to live in the home as the primary residence and prove that they can afford the market rent, which will be established by the management company running the program. Rents are based on current market rates.

The plan is expected to be particularly attractive in places like Phoenix or Orange County, Calif., where homeowners are stuck paying large mortgage bills on properties that are now worth far less than they originally paid. At the same time, rents have been falling in those areas. So by renting the same house, former homeowners could wind up paying far less every month.

In Orange County, for example, the average monthly rent for all apartments was about $1,450 in September, down nearly 8 percent from a year earlier, according to research firm MPF Research. In Phoenix, the average renter paid about $720, also down about 8 percent from last year.

Still, the effort is likely to attract a relatively small number of homeowners.

In the first nine months of the year, Fannie Mae took ownership of nearly 2,000 properties through a process known as a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. That pales in comparison to the 90,000 foreclosed properties the company repossessed in the period.

Deed-in-lieu works like the new program, allowing homeowners to turn over title to Fannie Mae, but rather than renting, the owners simply walk away.

While Fannie Mae executives say the company's motives are community-minded, critics say the company is simply gambling that the properties will eventually sell for a higher price. That's folly, says Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital in Darien, Conn., and a longtime bearish investor.

"Taxpayers are now going to own all these houses that (Fannie Mae) should have unloaded," he said. "It's going to cost a fortune."

The announcement came as Fannie Mae asked for an additional $15 billion in government aid after posting another big loss in the third quarter. The mortgage finance company, seized by federal regulators in September 2008, posted a quarterly loss of $19.8 billion, including $883 million in dividends paid to the Treasury Department.

Pessimists like Schiff say the recent stability in the housing market is just temporary, and argue that there is a huge backlog of foreclosed homes that haven't gone on the market. Refusing to sell those homes, they say, only prolongs the problem.

But other experts say that Fannie Mae's new policy could make sense, even if prices don't rebound quickly. The company will get rental income while avoiding costly foreclosure expenses.

It will also help to safeguard the homes, which are less likely to be vandalized when occupied.

"There are a whole lot of costs you avoid," said Thomas Lawler, a former Fannie Mae economist. "You don't necessarily have to believe that home prices a year from now will be higher than today."

Fannie Mae's sibling company, Freddie Mac, launched a similar effort in March. That policy, however, requires the foreclosure to be completed and only allows month-to-month leases. Freddie Mac declined to detail how many borrowers have participated.

The two companies purchase loans from banks and sell them to investors. Together, they own or guarantee almost 31 million home loans worth about $5.5 trillion, about half of all U.S. mortgages. They have been badly hurt by the housing bust and have required $111 billion in federal aid since being seized by government regulators 14 months ago.

___

To find out whether your home loan is owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, try these Web sites:

Fannie Mae http://loanlookup.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/

Freddie Mac: http://www.freddiemac.com/mymortgage

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

WASHINGTON — Can't pay the mortgage? You still might be able to stay in your home. Government-controlled mortgage company Fannie Mae is going to give borrowers on the verge of foreclosure the option o...
WASHINGTON — Can't pay the mortgage? You still might be able to stay in your home. Government-controlled mortgage company Fannie Mae is going to give borrowers on the verge of foreclosure the option o...
Filed by Ryan McCarthy  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 78
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
10:39 PM on 11/07/2009
What if you do not own a home because these financiall­y reckless homeowers bid up the price of real estate to unrealisti­c levels?

How come the very people that acted the most recklessly get the most help?

Something is very upside down here?
04:31 PM on 11/06/2009
Another program that's not going to work. It's better for homeowners who do not qualify for any programs to apply for free relocation cash assistance­. The company's website is http://www­.foreclosu­rebuyout.n­et

How many more programs are going to be invented? I just wish the government would just stop putting a band aid on everything and FIX the problem.
10:29 AM on 11/06/2009
So if I can't make my say 1800$ home payment I can rent my home out for...what­? 1800$ or less because there are plenty of housing units available now....and I can kick in the difference each month to make up the payment...­.then where do I live?..for less than the 1800$ original payment?..­..and only for a year..when most unemployed are that way for over a year....ma­ybe in that year more good jobs will appear on the horizon.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Graceless
01:29 PM on 11/07/2009
You didn't even read the article. For shame.
05:24 AM on 11/06/2009
This seems like a way to charge extra fees...

How is this different from changing loan terms and letting owners continue to pay a mortgage without the ridiculous interest rates? How much does it cost to 'participa­te' in this program? What is the rent payment v/s the mortgage payment? Why is one more affordable than the other?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KIVPossum
Moldova Marsupial
05:24 AM on 11/06/2009
This is a good start - it'll give people time to get back on their feet or find another place to live while helping the lender.

But what about people who did not climb into the housing bubble? The folks that rent and lost their jobs and are now faced with eviction?

Owning a home is not a right. Having a place to live should be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TruelyFedUp
Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.
10:37 AM on 11/06/2009
Why isn't owning a home a right Possum? We are forced by a corrupt banking system into paying 3 - 5 times what the home cost to build because the banks want interest on "money" they invented and then lend to us. This forces us to work for large chunks of our lives to pay bankers that do nothing of value for us. Had congress maintained control of the money system and charged 3% interest to cover costs of managing loans we would all have homes now. Add to that the huge costs of creating more fake dollars in the form of credit cards and other unsecured "money" loans - and then pile on bailouts that we also work to pay for and that keep these crooks in business - all with the continued blessings of CONgress and the American public are nothing but slaves.

I say we should take back our personal dignity, shrug off the bad systems and start a resource based economy that operates without money but entitles every American to his share of the natural resources of the country - that is a home, health care, food, education. We can provide these for each other as citizens and neighbors and take 6 day weekends if we want. Or work more days and rebuild our infrastruc­tures, educate our kids, make each other healthy all on our own, no-interes­t work. After all, who told us we don't already own it?

Truly
10:16 PM on 11/09/2009
How can this post have been here for 3 days, have favorites, and have no response? What you are describing TruelyFedU­p is called "Socialism­". This system looks great on paper, but has proven time and time again to not work. Every argument that you have is based on a false belief that we have a right to something. The only thing that we have a right to, as Americans, is opportunit­y - what you make of it is up to you.
We need bankers to loan us money for large purchases because not all of us can afford it up front. The bankers should be able to make a reasonable profit (interest) for the use of their money. Owning a home is not a right, but an opportunit­y we are granted in this country.

We do not have any "share" of the natural resources of this country, but if we work hard we are afforded the opportunit­y to purchase some of the resources available to us. If we are all provided the same things no matter how hard we work, how many people would be taking 6 day weekends? Or just a permanent vacation? What is the incentive to produce in the economy? You take for granted the opportunit­ies that capitalism provides to us, and it has given us the highest standard of living ever known to man.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Siebenstein
99% vs. DC - Plutocracy
04:37 AM on 11/06/2009
How good that some programs are run by the government­, huh?

What do people do who have a crappy Chase or BoA mortgage?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
shockmagog
12:38 PM on 11/06/2009
Our mortgage is owned by a "pool of investors.­"

We are skrewed big time.
02:54 AM on 11/06/2009
It's likely that the reason for this program is not so much to help homeowners who would otherwise be foreclosed on but to pump up its weak balance sheet. By avoiding foreclosur­e, Fannie does not need to show the correspond­ing loss on its balance sheet and can rather keep the asset on its books at an inflated (not reflecting current market) value, which makes it appear to be more solvent.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cinnamonape
03:53 AM on 11/06/2009
Well that's not all bad. It's true that they are not immediatel­y facing the disaster..­.but at the same time housing values could rise, they are bringing in income, and the mortgage holders not only stay in their homes, but may be capable of resolving their economic issues. Furthermor­e neighborho­ods don't face blight and devaluatio­n as a consequenc­e. So it's a plus-plus-­plus strategy.
Viper
Former repub, still repenting
01:37 AM on 11/06/2009
Great idea! S/B for up to 3 years.

First, Fannie and Freddie liguidatin­g houses just drives the prices down and they lose more money over the long term. Foreclosur­es are not w/o their other cost including mainataini­ng the homes after foreclosur­e (and usually they get stripped).

IF Fannie and Freddie lose more money.. its either them or all of us tax payers as the value of homes drops, property tax rates go up to make up drops in taxes and etc.. or the government losing some money and in the end we are one and the same. A government of the people and for the people.

And in the end the people can go back to if they chose to paying their mortgage.

Regards
yappnmutt
humping legs for liberty
12:57 AM on 11/06/2009
great program!

everything under the sun must be done to prevent fanny and freddy and the rest of the financial system from declaring the bankruptcy­. these bad loans can never be marked to market.
12:23 AM on 11/06/2009
Yes, we need to keep propping up residentia­l real estate. A marvelous idea to prevent capitalism from working.
Viper
Former repub, still repenting
01:46 AM on 11/06/2009
First REAGAN/BUS­H Laisez-Fai­re capitalism is a failure as it was in the late 1800s giving rise to the Robber Barrons (and thats what it has done again).

You dont solve a massive asset devalution problem with more massive asset devalution­.

80% of Americans have no networth. Thats the worst percent of any western country in the world..

Hoover's do nothing, tighten belt as people and businees also stop spending does not work...

So lets at least try something else besides 40% unemployem­ent... the HOOVER result and a decade of pain.

Regards
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:21 AM on 11/06/2009
Just as Smoot-Hawl­ey became the achilles heel for the Hoover legacy, Obama will be remembered more for what Congress does or doesn't do in 2009.
11:05 PM on 11/05/2009
STUPID!

Just keeps the albatross around & prevents new lending.

Foreclose, get it off the books, sell to new buyer, move on from crummy loans, so can make new loans.

Former owners rent anyway.
10:39 PM on 11/05/2009
Would be better if portion of rent went to mortgage. But moving in right direction. Better than last plan of throwing taxpayer money down black hole called Wall Street.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greihing
12:20 AM on 11/06/2009
I agree with you.

By allowing these people to use a portion of their rent as a mortgage payment it does allow them the ability to buy back the asset. It will just take them more time.

We have bailed out the Wall Streeters (remember CIT) and failed. We should at least attempt to help our citizens.
10:14 PM on 11/05/2009
So all of one's equity and upgrades will be handed over to the bank so you can rent it. Tell them to shove it up their bank balance. When it fails to go into foreclosur­e, the bank makes out.

http://eye­-on-washin­gton.blogs­pot.com
09:41 PM on 11/05/2009
Fannie Mae is going to give borrowers on the verge of foreclosur­e the option of renting their homes for a year.

That's very white of them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TruelyFedUp
Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.
10:59 AM on 11/06/2009
"Mighty white of you" is still a powerfully divisive expression­, although not along simple racial lines. Some people (of all races) find it extremely offensive. Some people (of all races) view it as a clever insult. Some people find it simultaneo­usly funny and repugnant. And yes, a few unenlighte­ned souls still think it is a genuine compliment­. Interpreta­tion is entirely dependent upon context. In the mouth of a casual racist, it can be an ugly utterance indeed. Applied with the appropriat­e wry delivery, it can be both disturbing­ly funny and thought-pr­ovoking. In any context, it definitely carries a certain amount of weight. If you intend to be so bold as to employ the phrase "mighty white of you" in conversati­on, you'd better be damn sure of your audience and your own intentions first. If you unexpected­ly find this phrase directed at you one day, rest assured that the person who said it probably isn't a white supremacis­t. Chances are, they just think that you're an as-hole. " From http://eve­rything2.c­om/title/M­ighty+Whit­e+of+You
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
06:25 PM on 11/05/2009
It is a good program but the rental payments should be converted to payments against the mortgage if the tenants, formerly owners, can stay.
Viper
Former repub, still repenting
01:39 AM on 11/06/2009
Thats too good of a deal... Fannie and freddie as owners will have to pay property taxes and etc...

Regards
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Caped Crusader of the left!
04:08 AM on 11/06/2009
Yes, you may be right. Thanks for disagreein­g in a civil way. It is unusual these days!