Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we need jumbo lenders. On the retail side, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Union Bank, and First Republic Bank offer attractive terms.

On the wholesale side (the channel I work through), we don’t have very many choices any more. ING, First Federal Bank, and US Bank are the only lenders that we work with that have attractive programs at this point in time. I understand that LIME Financial will be offering some competitive jumbo terms shortly.

Are there any suggestions out there for jumbo lenders with attractive programs?

Come visit us in the Fox Mall right by Baskin Robbins. We’ll be giving out information about our new program for seniors; a no-cost, debt-free alternative to a reverse mortgage.

I hope to see you there!

5/1 ARM      6.125%

7/1 ARM      6.375%

These rates are with a 1 point cost. Other options are available. These quotes assume a purchase transaction with 20% down,  full income and asset documentation, a 680 credit score, and a 30 day rate lock.

Will this move be duplicated by other option ARM lenders, such as Washington Mutual, Downey Savings, Chevy Chase Bank, and Countrywide? Stay tuned.

Ironically, the rates on many of these option ARM loans are going down, and will probably continue to go down for awhile.

Although the rates may continue to go down on these loans, I think it would be wise for homeowners with this type of loan to check out other options. Property values in the future are a concern of mine. If a homeowner waits to refinance because their rate is attractive now, they may not be able to refinance later because their property value may be lower. It would be wise for these homeowners to contact a competent mortgage advisor to find out what their options are right now. 

Wake up! You need to know several important components of your option ARM. There may be a reason to explore refinancing sooner rather than later.

The first thing you need to check is the date your loan started. The easiest way to find this out is to check with your mortgage advisor. If he is a good one, he will have this info on his database.

The date of inception is important because, generally speaking, the lender will re-cast the payment at the end of each five year increment of the loan. Re-casting means re-calculating the payment (usually it is a very large increase) in order to pay off the loan by the end of the term of the loan.

As an example, suppose you obtained a 30 year option ARM loan in August 2003. Guess what? You are going to receive a letter in the mail shortly stating that the payment has been re-amortized to a 25 year loan based on the current interest rate and the outstanding balance. Ouch!

A second component of your option ARM mortgage you need to know about is the maximum balance allowed. Generally speaking, lenders will allow the outstanding balance to increase anywhere from 5% to 25% of the original balance. For example, if you obtained a $500,000 loan with a maximum balance of 110% of the original balance, the maximum the loan can increase to is $550,000.

If it reaches the maximum, the lender will re-cast your payment to have the loan paid off by the end of the loan term. You need to know how much you can allow the balance to increase, rather than being surprised by a letter from your friendly lender informing you of their decision to raise your payment.

The last thing you need to know is about interest rate trends. If you are not near the end of a five year period, and if you are not near the maximum balance allowed, then your decision whether to refinance or not should be determined more by the direction of interest rates.

There is an excellent website, MoneyCafe, that gives graphs and charts of the most commonly used indexes for option ARM mortgages. If you look at this website, and consult with your mortgage advisor, you can make a pretty good guess of the direction of your option ARM mortgage rate. Use this information to determine if you should stay put or pursue another opportunity!

I understand these emotional benefits. However, I think many people make the mistake of isolating the payoff of the mortgage as the “high and mighty” goal while downplaying other important financial objectives, not to mention the tax ramifications of paying down the mortgage.

Here is when a 15 year loan does not make sense:

- The homeowner does not feel comfortable with the mortgage payment.

- The homeowner does not have six months of income saved in a purely liquid account in case of income interruption. Life happens - having six months of liquidity for emergencies is great financial protection in case of an emergency. 

- The homeowner carries credit card debt - how much sense does it make to pay principal while paying high interest on non-deductible debt?

- The homeowner is not fully funding retirement as allowed by tax laws - a homeowner is letting the IRS whack him twice by paying principal, which reduces the interest deduction, and not taking advantage of tax advantaged accounts that they could be using.

- The homeowner does not have enough funds to pay for higher education for their children - they’ll probably wind up refinancing anyway to pay for it.

- The homeowner does not have adequate life, disability, and/or health insurance - Is it smart to leave a non-working spouse with a high payment 15 year loan without adequate insurance coverage?

Here is one another scenario where it does not make sense. Suppose you have enough liquidity set aside to pay the loan off. Why would you continue to pay a large chunk of principal each month and erode your tax benefits of the interest deduction?

Here is another example of why it does not make sense. I learned this listening to a podcast of a very wise, in my opinion, mortgage advisor named Ed Conarchy. He said something like this, “Suppose I gave you a dollar. Would you rather invest it in something that taxed you at your ordinary income rate (which for many of us is in the 25% to 40% range), or at the capital gains rate, which for long-term capital gains is 15%?”

 When you pay principal, you are reducing the amount of interest owed, therefore, you are decreasing your interest deduction, and increasing your taxable income. Are you better off taking that dollar and investing it in something that taxes you at a lower rate? I know my answer.

The point of this article is that the homeowner’s whole financial picture needs to be evaluated, hopefully with the help of competent advisors on both the asset side and liability side of the balance sheet.

Until now, the program has been a flop. The rates offered were very unattractive.

Finally, they have decided to reduce the rates on these “agency jumbo” loans. Coupled with the overall decrease in market interest rates this week, they finally are worth taking a look at.

Today, the rates are about the same as they were yesterday.

I am advising my clients to get their documentation together now before the massed flood the lenders with applications because I am anticipating a slowdown in the processing. A slowdown could mean that the rates may not be as good for the people in the back of the line as they are for the people in the front.

What you may not be aware of are the guidelines are different for the agency jumbo loans than they are for the traditional conforming loans.

The agency jumbo loan will allow a borrower to borrow up to 90% of the sale price. Mortgage insurance is required above 80%.

Seller contributions are allowed up to 3% of the sale price. Many times borrowers use these funds to finance a buydown of the interest rate.

Let’s look at an example of a buydown scenario using today’s market rates on a listing price of $800,000. With 10% down, the loan amount would be $720,000.

Let’s assume you have a choice of reducing the price $24,000, or getting the seller to contribute $24,000 toward closing costs. Which choice is best for you, the home buyer?

Let’s look at reducing the price first. With a $776,000 sale price, 90% of $776,000 is $698,400. The rate with no points is 6.625%, and the principal and interest would be $4472. Property taxes, using 1.25% of the sale price is $808 per month. Mortgage insurance would be $303 per month. So, the total would be $5583 per month.

Now let’s assume the other scenario. The sale price will be $800,000. The seller is going to contribute $24,000 toward the closing costs. The buyer decides to use this contribution to buy down their interest rate. With a $720,000 loan amount, he will be able to obtain a fixed rate at 5.75%. The principal and interest would be $4202 per month. The property taxes would be slightly higher, $833 per month. The mortgage insurance would be slightly higher, $312 per month. The total would be $5347 per month.

I strongly believe in the buydown strategy. Although this buyer had to pay $2400 more toward his down payment, the benefits far outweigh the costs.

This buyer will save $236 per month. This savings can be used to fund something useful, such as a college or retirement fund.

Most importantly, there is a benefit most people don’t realize; although the seller pays for the buydown, the buyer gets a tax benefit although the seller made the contribution for it(I am not a licensed tax preparer - please consult with your licensed tax preparer for limitations).

In this example, if the buyer was in a 33% tax bracket, he would realize an $8000 tax savings in the year he purchased ($24,000 x .33% tax bracket in points paid to buy down the rate to 5.75%)!

The buydown of a conforming jumbo loan is a great strategy for all involved.

Buyers benefit from reduced monthly payments and tax benefits.

Sellers benefit from using a unique strategy to get their house sold.

Real estate agents benefit because if they use this strategy they will be viewed to be more knowledgable than the average agent. In addition, they will gain a reputation as being able to sell homes at a higher price, because this strategy helps the values in the neighborhood.

Rates have not moved much this week. That could change tomorrow when the Fed announces their decision regarding the Federal Funds Rate at 11:15 Pacific Time. I am going to go out on a limb and predict that they will not change rates - the consensus is that they will cut .25%.

 Burlingame has 54 single familyhomes for sale with 10 listed as pending - not much change from last week. The lowest priced listing is for $659,000. The highest priced listing is for $2,995,000, which is a $100,000 increase of the highest priced home for sale from last week.

Hillsborough has 55 homes for sale with 3 listed as pending sales, according to mlslistings.com. The price range is between $1,995,000 to $18,000,000. Once again, the highest priced home for sale is in the $2,000,000 price range. We’ll wait another week to see if we can draw any conclusions about what is happening in the Hillsborough home sale market.

 WAMU approved my clients for a 90% CLTV equity line based on an appraised value of $2,600,000. It was a fully documented loan, and it closed in January 2007.

After receiving this letter, my client and I had a conference call with a supervisor from the WAMU consumer loan division. He stated that the decision to reduce the equity line amount was based on the results of an automated valuation model (AVM) of the home that determined that the home had declined in value from $2,600,000 to $2,398,252. My rough math tells me that the value, based on their AVM, dropped 8 to 9%.

Because of a 8% to 9% drop in value, WAMU arbitrarily decided to cut the amount available by approximately 70%! Over one year later they decide to change the CLTV from 90% to roughly 70% based on a computer model of an expensive home, not even a full appraisal!

Both myself and my client understand that WAMU has the right to cut the available balance of the equity line based on their determination of value. What we do not understand is why they cut the CLTV from 90% of the perceived value to 70% of the perceived value.

My client is paying a rate based on a 90% CLTV. Did they offer to reduce his rate based on a 70% CLTV? No.

 We asked the supervisor if he could change the amount available back to the 90% CLTV that the original loan was based on. This would reduce the available line amount from $939,700 to $760,000. He said no. He said my client could provide an appraisal from an appraisal firm of WAMU’s choice, or a property tax assessment. Then they would consider increasing the line.

 The actions of WAMU in this case stink! I truly believe that they are cutting my client’s available credit because of their problems. What do you think?