Miami-Dade Housing Agency Second Mortgage Program
Recommendations for Change and Improvement
Submitted by a committee of participating lenders on May 27, 2004
(click here for print friendly version)
The Context
Housing values in Miami-Dade County have steadily
increased in the past five years, making homeownership a huge challenge for potential
low-income buyers. In one year from 2002 to 2003 the average sales price in Miami-Dade
County increased from $154,000 to $174,000. Assessed values of properties have increased
as they are sold, thereby making real estate taxes higher. Insurance premiums have
also continued to increase.
In this context of rising housing prices, Miami-Dade
Housing Agency (MDHA) is charged with the responsibility of using Surtax, SHIP,
and HOME programs to make homeownership affordable for qualifying low-income families
through a second mortgage. In an effort to maximize the limited funds, MDHA has
required borrowers to pay the highest monthly payment for which they qualify. All
of this makes it difficult for low-income borrowers to bridge the gap between the
increasing market value and their stagnate income.
The Problems
MDHA has chosen to use policies and procedures
for second mortgage loan approval and funding that are too slow and unclear, include
unnecessary steps or documents, and ask lenders to do things that violate federal
law.
-
MDHA confuses and mixes the required income certification
of the borrower for SHIP eligibility and the qualifying income of the borrower for
the loan. While SHIP requires projecting income for the whole household ahead for
a year, standard underwriting criteria requires using only the loan applicants income
from the past.
-
MDHA often insists that lenders violate the Federal
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by asking lenders to obtain and provide to them
documentation on persons who are not part of the loan transaction (i.e. a spouse
who is not applying).
-
MDHA is often needlessly more restrictive than
the federal or state government or local lenders regarding citizenship status.
-
MDHAs random, arbitrary, and unannounced changes
in the guidelines mean that lenders are unaware of the requirements.
-
The MDHA chart is ambiguous regarding the second
mortgage amount and the interest rate, meaning that any two reasonable people could
select a different loan amount and different interest rate. This results in MDHA
staff restructuring the loan and delaying the closing.
-
MDHA staff are expected to carry out functions
for which they have not been trained. Staff do not keep up with the changing nature
of the mortgage lending law and practice.
-
MDHA staff add unnecessary steps to the preparation
for closing, even after their supervisor or the lender clearly points out the problem.
MDHA often delays the entire process significantly beyond industry standards from
checking in the file initially to closing the loan.
-
MDHA will change the funding source for loan part
way through the approval process and require addition documentation.
-
Some files are not opened for one to two weeks
after a lender submits it. Delays in opening the file mean that borrower documents
are stale before the file is opened. MDHA has no system to inform lenders which
staff is handling their file.
-
House inspections required by MDHA are often not
requested until the rest of the loan is nearly ready for closing, rather than immediately
upon receiving the file, needlessly extending the closing date. Often the inspection
will reveal issues that need to be resolved before closing that could be addressed
while other things are proceeding.
-
MDHA staff do not all ask for the same documents
so that the lender does not know for sure how to prepare the file.
-
MDHA demands verification of employment for SHIP/SURTAX-funded
loans rather than proof of an effort to obtain it which is what SHIP/SURTAX requires; this
difference delays the preparation of the file.
-
Too often MDHA staff attempts to re-process and
re-underwrite the loan, which seriously delays the closing; they often dont trust
their lender partners work.
-
MDHA adopted the strange lending practice of allowing
lenders to submit loans only during a three-day window every two months.
-
MDHA does not make available to its lending and
CDC partners the amount of funds available from each of the funding sources.
-
MDHA has set an artificial cap on the sales price
that has no relation to the local housing market.
Proposals for Change
The context and the problems with the second
mortgage program at MDHA cry out for change and improvements. The original concept
for the second mortgage program is exactly what Miami-Dade County needs. Those people
who created the program were visionary people who know what this community needed.
The following are two options to improve the delivery of the funds to eligible homebuyers.
Option One
MDHA makes the required changes and improvements
to the program and the process in order to overcome the problems and close loans
in a timely manner.
-
MDHA must separate the income certification of
the borrower for SHIP eligibility and the qualifying income of the borrower for
the loan. MDHA staff will do the income certification of the borrower for SHIP eligibility and the participating lenders will do the qualifying income of the borrower for
the loan. MDHA does not need to duplicate the work of the lender; it must have a
reasonable trust in the capacity of lenders to do the loan processing and underwriting
that they are in business to do. Lenders who prepare unsatisfactory loan files will
be asked to leave the program.
-
MDHA must stop requiring lenders to gather information
from borrowers that violate federal law. MDHA must stop adding requirements that
federal and state programs do not require.
-
MDHA must establish unambiguous, public underwriting
guidelines for the program, with the loan amount and interest rate chart revised
to reasonable clarity.
-
MDHA must establish a policy for not pushing the
ratios to the limit thereby pushing folks out of the housing market or creating
homeowner financial instability when taxes and insurance go up and there is no margin
to absorb it. The lenders recommend that the housing ratio is acceptable if it is
between the range of 30-33% of borrowers gross monthly income. The combined CLTV
(combined loan to value) must accommodate the second mortgage subsidy.
-
MDHA must hire knowledgeable staff and provide
adequate training at all staffing levels, recognizing that the mortgage lending
industry continues to change. MDHA at all levels must require its staff to consistently
follow the guidelines of the program and not allow staff to independently determine
the rules. Staff who choose not to use the guidelines must be disciplined and/or
dismissed.
-
MDHA must establish clear, public, timely, and
ongoing internal processes for taking a loan from intake to closing so that lenders
and borrowers know that the inspection has been ordered, how the loan is being funded,
and who is doing what and when. This means establishing a certain number of days
for certain tasks, such checking the file in and confirming the reservation of funds
with the lender within three days.
-
All MDHA staff must ask for the same documents
and MDHA administration must stop requiring verification of employment for SHIP-funded
loans and ask only for proof of an effort to obtain it.
-
MDHA must announce no less than monthly the amount
of funds available from each of the funding sources and the number and dollar amount
of loans closed in the previous month.
-
MDHA must establish a sales price cap, similar
to FHA and Fannie Mae that adjusts each year reflecting the previous years housing
market activity.
-
MDHA must establish a regular monthly meeting
with lenders and CDCs in order to review and improve loan underwriting guidelines
and general expectations of the program.
Option Two
MDHA does not re-underwrite the loan, instead,
MDHA bootstraps onto the underwriting that has already been done for that transaction.
-
Under this option, MDHA would not directly underwrite
its loans. Instead, it would establish the desired underwriting criteria for its
second mortgage program and would do the income certification of the applicants.
-
The participating private sector lenders would
originate, process, and underwrite their loans based on the criteria set by MDHA.
MDHA does not re-underwrite the loan.
-
After the private sector lender has completed
its underwriting, the file would be submitted to MDHA which would then review income,
family size, the amount of the loan, and interest rate. If the private sector lender
had underwritten the loan correctly MDHA would proceed expeditiously by sending
the request to the accounting department for funding the loan. Each lender will
sign a certification to MDHA for each file that the loan was approved in accordance
with the standards of the mortgage lending industry. Lenders who prepare unsatisfactory
loan files will be asked to leave the program.
- If implemented, this procedure would be similar
to what other local government agencies are already doing with their second mortgage
programs (Miami-Dade Housing Finance Authority, City of Miami, and Broward Housing
Finance Authority).
-
MDHA must establish a regular monthly meeting
with lenders and CDCs in order to review and improve loan underwriting guidelines
and general expectations of the program.
Many of the bullet points of Option One apply
for this option, including the monthly meeting with lenders and CDCs.
Conclusion
It is clear that the management and implementation
of the second mortgage program at Miami-Dade Housing Agency has reached a crisis
point. Unlike the present situation, the lender partners associated with the program
must be allowed a material role in the policy and decision making process involving
these and any agency-recommended policy and procedure changes going forward. As
lender partners we assert that our position is valid based on individual and corporate
experience. As regulated financial institutions with a federally legislated mandate
to serve this vital segment of the population, we can no longer continue our support
of a Miami-Dade County housing assistance program whose often uninformed policies
and arbitrary decisions directly and adversely affect our ability to serve the needs
of homebuyers of low and moderate income. To perpetrate such an environment will
only continue to erode each of our institutions hard-earned corporate goodwill with
the citizens of our community.
|