But is it good news or bad news for you as a consumer?

Their are multiple small changes but the two I see as the most significant are:

1. Multiple late payments will now carry a heavier penalty than in the past. These are the 30, 60, 90 day lates that show up under “Derogatory” accounts.

2. The penalties for using too much of any credit are increased. If you have any type of credit with a maximum amount available your score will be lowered if you owe  more than 30% of the total maximum allowed. This can be your VISA or Sears card, or a Home Equity Line of Credit. NOTE.

 This applies even if it is a company credit card in your name.

The result of these changes can mean your credit score can be lowered even if you never had a late payment in your life. Too much credit availability is a no-no. This will apply most frequently when applying for a mortgage, when the bank will assume your total debt to be the maximum amount of money you can get at with just your signature.

While 90% of mortgage lenders resist  handing out any type of loan modifications, despite being advised and even pressured by the government to do so, Bank of America claims it is now taking the lead. The initial B of A model seeks to conditionally (read: unlikely) cut up to 30% off the principal of 45,000 home mortgages nationally. Note: This is not the same as a reduced payment.

This program is very limited in breadth and scope. It applies only to those homeowners with negative amortizing ARM’s.  The principal reduction program will not be available to underwater homeowners with fixed rate mortgages or ARMs with amortized payment schedules. B of A claims their goal is to reduce homeowners’ monthly payments to an amount equal to 31% of their household income – the parameter set by the federal government two years ago, in 2008, based on long-standing fundamentals of mortgage lending.

In practise this program will apply only a few of the loans B of A inherited when it took over Countyrywide; specifically (negative amortization loans), where the Borrower is at least 60 days late!!

A more important problem is that the proposed modifications will usually result in a HIGHER MONTHLY PAYMENT for people already unable to make the current minimal payment.

For a delailed analysis of this Public Relations Excercise check http://blog.firsttuesdayjournal.com/2010/04/lenders-attempt-to-lock-homeowners-into-paying-underwater-homes/

Already, effective from April 5th, the upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium was increased from 1.75% to 2.25%, (a 29% increase).

Now, in a further attack on the 1st Time Buyer, this misguided lady proposes a 300% increase on the ongoing monthly Mortgage Insurance payment.

To understand the impact of this consider a new $300,000 purchase with a 30 year fixed FHA loan.at 5.5% interest rate. The monthly payment will go from $1,804 up to $2,051. An increase of 12%.

Put another way; If the maximum you could qualify for was $300,000 before, it would now be only $270,000.

At one fell stroke this bill would eliminate an enormous number of willing buyers at the bottom end of the market.

When you consider that each 1st Time Buyer potentially creates a move up Buyer we can’t afford  this kind of interference in this very fragile recovery.

A mortgage is the cheapest form of debt for the average homeowner. This is partly because it has a low interest rate, but also brings with it enormous tax benefits. For most people this lowers the actual interest rate by more than a third. The real after tax rate on a 5.5% mortgage is actually 3.625%.

The vast majority of consumer debt is much higher than this. It seems clear to me that no one should be trying to pay off the mortgage with money which would be far better used to pay off a credit card.

Another major consideration should be whether tying up more money in your house is good for your on-going financial security. Once you make that payment you can never get it back without either selling or refinancing the house. Unless you have enough other assetts to handle job loss or other family emergencies you would probably be better served by investing that money where you can quickly get at it in such circumstances.

For a more detailed conversation on this topic check the following link to the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/your-money/mortgages/20money.html?ref=realestate

 MBSs are simply BONDS. Their prices go up and down based on our old friends Supply and Demand. As with all Bonds,  when   pricies go up the Interest Rate on them goes down, and vise-versa.

So in order to see where Mortgage Interest Rates are going we simply track the prices of the Bonds known as MBS’s.

You can safely ignore the uninformed pundits of the media repeating the ridiculous mantra that Mortgage interes rates are driven by the 10 year Treasury. The MBS’s deal only with Mortgages. The 10 year Treasury is an indicator of the entire U.S. financial system and will often point in the opposite direction to the MBS market.

Now let’s come back to the $1.25 Trillion worth of MBS’s bought by the Federal Reserve as part of the Governments Financial Stimulus program. Having this much money looking to buy MBS’s (DEMAND) has artificially kept the price of them up, and as a result kept Mortgage Interest Rates down. As of the last day of March this program is finished. Now there is a reduced demand for MBS’s and an inevitable inrease in Mortgage Interest Rates.

This will begin to happen right away and continue until the market stabilizes at the level dictated by regular market forces. This will be at a higher rate than we are at now.

For an excellent summary of this process check out the following link 

http://www.mortgagesuccesssource.com/ezine.php?ez=1003

The lesson here is that if you want to become a homeowner it’s time to get serious before these rate increases get too far away from what you can afford.

The Administrations well meant efforts to make it possible for many homeowners to avoid foreclosure has stirred up a hornet’s nest among some media commentators.

The Plan described at http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov/ uses up to $75 billion to provide incentives to holders of FANIE MAE and FREDDY MAC loans to work with Borrowers to refinance, or modify existing problem loans, rather than simply go ahead and foreclose.

This is a classic version of the glass ½ full, or ½ empty. Typically, in our current exclusively partisan media, the answer is dictated solely by political affiliation regardless of the facts.

This is unfortunate because there are legitimate reasons for supporting, opposing, or, better still, improving the current process.

One the one hand it is a legitimate effort to try to help Joe Public get through a situation brought about by failures in our economic systems. Given the Trillions of dollars being ploughed back to the very people who caused this situation, the $75 Billion allocated to this program is peanuts.

On the other hand there is a valid argument to be made that subsidizing refinances, or modifying problem loans, is simply putting off an inevitable final default. This can often hurt the very people it purports to help by having them use up scarce funds in a doomed attempt to save an impossible situation, rather than simply give the property back to the Lender and getting  on with life.

The December report on the status of this program provides ample ammunition for both schools of thought, and the regulators have shifted emphasis to try to deal with the problems showing up.

The summary shows that 728,000 loan modifications are already in the required trial phase. Unfortunately only 31,382 have completed that phase and have become permanent, saving homeowners an average of $550 per month. The low rate at which Trials become Permanent  is a serious problem raising concerns that a significant number of these modifications are simply allowing the Banks to delay acknowledging the number of bad loans on their books and to avoid taking the losses on to their Balance Sheets.

If that is true then the inevitable result will be a longer period of foreclosed properties coming to market as these failed modifications fall apart.

As with most things there is not a simple answer, but on balance I come down on the side of giving the program a fair shot. This is based mostly on my view that given the countless billions we have poured into supporting the financial institutions that caused the problems,  a little effort to give similar assistance to the victims is not unreasonable.