Register or Sign in        Email This Page     Link To This Page    
Visit MND at MBA in NYC!
# of Questions
You are here:  Home »  Community Comments
on Mon Feb 23 2015, 4:51 PM
Re the new Point2 platform - Point@, or at least its syndication services, were purchased by ListHub. So isn't this new product competing against itself?
on Mon Feb 23 2015, 2:03 PM
Wow great post. Really puts a good perspective for the mortgage lenders.
on Sun Feb 15 2015, 11:00 AM
I agree with Jeffrey Miller, the 1960's is not even close to all the new variables of the 21st century. For a statistic company CoreLogic certainly is making multiple assumptions to derive their desired answer. First of all with all the factor of the entire GREAT RECESSION we were ALL were upside down with NO LEVERAGE. So any FORECLOSURES included in the study during the GREAT RECESSION is skewed. Let's talk about ability to FORECLOSURE? The BIG banks decided after buying mortgage for pennies on the dollar from Countrywide and other companies that Moody misrepresented C paper loans as A paper loans, decided why not make money on selling homes verse servicing home. The Making Homes Affordable did nothing for all those loans, it was a green card to take these homes and make hundreds of thousands of dollars. Tell homeowners to go into default for 2 months knowing they did not qualify for HARP and take their homes. In 2010 Foreclosing was not a negative aspect for most BANKs, (as the loans did not cost them face value, so from the BANKS perspective it was perfect time, the borrower had no leverage but the BANK had tons of leverage.Yes for the economy yes, foreclosing as a nighmare but for the BANKS they made millions. So for Corelogic to try to give risk factors to the lenders about foreclosures is hysterical. The entire system a skewed due to Moody's A paper BS, Wall Street insuring loans that were C paper for A paper and making money on the insurance when the loan did not perform. And then Banks picking up loans for pennies on the dollar.....So doing statistics during these times of BANKS and INVESTORS not being ethical certainly skews any results as what caused the problem, did NOT exist in 1960. And it is what caused the GREAT recession that CoreLogic is choosing to ignore. Good try CoreLogic, but the level foundation must be established before comparing apples to apples. It's studies like these that are harmful to the system. And insult the rest of us. I pray the majority of us agree with me on that.
on Sat Feb 14 2015, 10:55 AM
this is a stupid comparison, in 1960-1965 people did not lose their jobs every two or three years due to huge economic swings. Your job was secure.. I rarely to NEVER see anyone at the same job for more than 10 years....
on Fri Feb 13 2015, 10:20 PM
I think the QM Ability to Pay rules should be different for refinances than for purchases, allow a higher DTI for the refis if the new payment is lower than the one they've been paying successfully for a number of years without late payments. On jumbo refi's acquired with 50% DTIs ten years ago, I've proposed taking them from an interest-only 10/1 ARM to a fully amortized 7/1 ARM that lowers there payment by $500/mo, but doesn't pass the 43% DTI test. Also, it's difficult for most to qualify for a 15 year loan and still clear the 43% DTI test, even though it would reduce lender risk because it gets more equity "skin in the game" much faster. The cynic in me says the QM rules are designed to protect MBS investors and loan servicers from refinances that cost them money.
on Fri Feb 13 2015, 8:34 PM
I love the way all theses studies try to negate the culpability of The Big Banks. So it's back to comparing now with way back then... but the situations couldn't be more different. I don't recall back then 11,000 Certified Property Appraisers submitting a petition to the FBI stating the Banks had told them either overappraise... or you'r out of work. I don't recall, back then, mortgage loan officers being paid EXTRA in the form of Yield Spread Premiums to put Prime customers into sub prime loans, I don't recall back then (although it probably was happening) the LIBOR being purposefully manipulated by the Banks... in favor of the Banks. I could go on and on and on. Articles like the above are an attempt by industry insiders to apply apathy to the largest theft in the History of Mankind.... and that's just a shame.
on Fri Feb 13 2015, 5:38 PM
It's called - ability to SELL. Not LTV. People don't foreclose if selling is an option.
on Thu Feb 12 2015, 3:38 PM
Hi Matthew. Great article. I am in mid of refinancing, but have not locked a rate yet. Based on your expertise and experience, do you think rates might go back down, or should I quickly lock at the current rate? I am thinking 25 or 30 year Refi. Thank you - really appreciate your advise.
on Mon Feb 9 2015, 4:50 PM
Hello I appreciate your input please. I am planning a home purchase and it is new construction availble only in may. So should I lock for a 90 day lock or should I wait for 1 month and do a 60 day lock ? Also if I go for a 90 day lock, what is the best rate any one can offer me please. thankyou
on Thu Feb 5 2015, 6:44 PM
Disgusting. Sure, reinstall the bubble with 97% financing, but have a 45 back end with perfect credit, 25% LTV and assets many multiples of the loan amount and get blown out of the water. One size fits all regulations that take all the thinking away from underwriting is an unmitigated recipe for disaster. Way to go Dodd/Lollipop Cowboy, CFPB, "Safe" Act, Comp Rules, HVCC, etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitim.
on Thu Feb 5 2015, 6:22 PM
Andy they will be collecting interest through the month for all loans that were originated prior to the January 21st change. Anything originated after and paid off will not incur the full months interest. I thought the same thing too at first.
on Wed Feb 4 2015, 9:52 AM
Well follow the money didnt the govt bail them out...just saying
on Wed Feb 4 2015, 9:42 AM
There is no "test" for NMLS it is merely a placation in my opinion and a way to track people in the business. This is not a licensing issue it is a quality of employees issue. Taking kickbacks have nothing to do with competence, rather it goes to a mentality of greed and politics that still runs rampant in the industry.
on Sat Jan 31 2015, 3:57 PM
Just wanted to note, a seller has been forced to perform (sell) however.
Ted Rood
Senior Loan Officer , MB Financial Bank
on Fri Jan 30 2015, 1:12 AM
Overall closing rate for refinances was 51.2%??? Are you kidding me? I can't imagine closing under 90%. Must be a lot of loans getting started without DU runs, paychecks in hand, etc!
on Wed Jan 28 2015, 3:22 PM
who's offering the 3.25 rate for VA loans? Thanks, Joe
Ted Rood
Senior Loan Officer , MB Financial Bank
on Tue Jan 27 2015, 5:15 PM
jurko2jm, I know a lot of Wells folks who write loans all over the country, and don't have state licenses. Both Wells and Chase are obviously depository banks. Why would you think their LOs would have to be licensed on a state by state basis?
on Tue Jan 27 2015, 10:53 AM
Dan: passing the NMLS means virtually nothing as far as competence goes. While working for a depository since '06 I took both Nat'l and UST, 93% on both, to prove a point to our mtg banker/broker bretheren. This arrangement is nothing more than a larcenous character ignored by higher-ups who are generally oblivious when your closing 1billion/day
Ted Rood
Senior Loan Officer , MB Financial Bank
on Tue Jan 27 2015, 12:11 AM
I've been working for depository lenders (so exempt from licensing test) since 2008, and wouldn't need to take that test to know that CASH payments for referrals are NOT RESPA compliant. I'd venture a guess that licensing had far, far, less to do with this than a cozy relationship between a title company and some idiotic LO's.

More From MND

Mortgage Rates:
  • 30 Yr FRM 3.77%
  • |
  • 15 Yr FRM 3.08%
  • |
  • Jumbo 30 Year Fixed 3.77%
MBS Prices:
  • 30YR FNMA 4.5 108-22 (0-06)
  • |
  • 30YR FNMA 5.0 110-30 (0-04)
  • |
  • 30YR FNMA 5.5 112-12 (0-06)
Recent Housing Data:
  • Mortgage Apps -13.19%
  • |
  • Refinance Index -15.99%
  • |
  • Purchase Index -7.08%