Because VA Home Loans are guaranteed by the Veterans Administration, they are easier to qualify for, require no down payment (yes 100% financing is still here), and most importantly don’t require perfect credit.

VA Purchase Loans
I specialize in servicing first time home buyers utilize their VA benefits each and every day. A VA mortgage offers many advantages, as it is very popular with first time homeowners. Because a VA Loan is guaranteed by the Veterans Administration, you should expect lower interest rates and less down payment in relation to a conventional residential home loan.

VA Refinance Loans
The Veterans Administration offers Texas Veterans several different VA Home Loan Refinance Programs. I understand and appreciate those Veterans that have served our great nation, and am here to provide you with a variety of options in order to accomplish your VA refinance goals. If you are considering  refinancing of your current loan to lower your interest rate, or restructuring your payment and equity objectives, I can present you the most viable and beneficial options in the marketplace.

Exciting things are happening with VA home financing – VA is only 1 of only a few options left for true 100% financing and it’s important to stay up-to-date with changes in loan limit increases, and VA Mortgage news, so feel free to subscribe to my blog or follow me on Twitter at @RightMtgGuy.

At the moment, the Fed is 92% complete with their program, and when they back out of it, this is going to attract investors that are going to require more yield. Well more yield for them means higher rates for you (and me).

Be on the lookout here in the next month or so as things progress and wind down.

Recommend locking all and any transactions with these gains. The Treasury Auction is coming out later today, but I would not suggest risking your purchase/refinance on those results.

MBS is currently up 16bp on the morning and hovering around the 1st level of support.

As for today, there are no economic reports set to come out, so looks like what will be a quiet Monday. (Kind of like what Tim Tebow’s experiencing today…)

2 important days this week are Thursday (Jobless Claims) and Friday (Retail Sales). On Thursday we will also see the auction of the 3 and 10 year notes, as well as the 30 year bonds.

Stay put and if anything changes, I’ll be back.

I wanted to repost it so please take a moment to read this, as its VERY important.

—-

U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
by David Streitfeld and Louise Story
Friday, October 9, 2009

A year after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered, industry executives and Washington policy makers are worrying that another government mortgage giant could be the next housing domino.

Problems at the Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees mortgages with low down payments, are becoming so acute that some experts warn the agency might need a federal bailout.

Running questions about the F.H.A.’s future — underscored by interviews with policy makers, analysts and home buyers — came to the fore on Thursday on Capitol Hill. In testimony before a House subcommittee, the F.H.A. commissioner, David H. Stevens, assured lawmakers that his agency would not need a bailout and that it was managing its risks.

But he acknowledged that some 20 percent of F.H.A. loans insured last year — and as many as 24 percent of those from 2007 — faced serious problems including foreclosure, offering a preview of a forthcoming audit of the agency’s finances.

“Let me simply state at the outset that based on current projections, absent any catastrophic home price decline, F.H.A. will not need to ask Congress and the American taxpayer for extraordinary assistance — we will not need a bailout,” Mr. Stevens said in his testimony.

But to its critics, the F.H.A. looks like another Fannie Mae. The hearings on Thursday came on the same day that the federal agency charged with overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided a somber assessment of those giants’ health. In the year since the government stepped in to rescue them, the companies have taken $96 billion from the Treasury, and may need more.

Since the bottom fell out of the mortgage market, the F.H.A. has assumed a crucial role in the nation’s housing market. Created in 1934 to help lower-income and first-time buyers purchase homes, the agency now insures roughly 5.4 million single-family home mortgages, with a combined value of $675 billion.

In addition, these loans are bundled into mortgage-backed securities and guaranteed through the Government National Mortgage Association, known as Ginnie Mae. That means the taxpayer is responsible for paying investors who own Ginnie Mae bonds when F.H.A.-backed mortgages hit trouble.

“It appears destined for a taxpayer bailout in the next 24 to 36 months,” Edward Pinto, a former Fannie Mae executive, said in testimony prepared for the hearing. Mr. Pinto, who was the chief credit officer from 1987 to 1989 for Fannie Mae, went further than most housing analysts and predicted that F.H.A. losses would more than wipe out the agency’s $30 billion of cash reserves.

The issue has polarized Congress. Republicans, who led efforts to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before those companies ran into trouble, are now seeking to bridle the F.H.A. Many Democrats insist the F.H.A. is playing a vital role in the housing market, which is only just starting to stabilize.

“F.H.A. has stepped into the void left by the private market,” Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat from California, said at the hearing. “Let’s be clear; without F.H.A., there would be no mortgage market right now.”

That was the case for Bernadine Shimon. Like many Americans, Ms. Shimon has recently been through some rough times. She lost a house to foreclosure, declared bankruptcy, got divorced and is now a single mother, teaching high school English in a Denver suburb.

She wanted a house but no lender would touch her. The Federal Housing Administration was more obliging. With the F.H.A. insuring her mortgage, Ms. Shimon was able to buy a $134,000 fixer-upper in August.

“The government gave me another chance,” she said.

The government is giving as many people as it possibly can the chance to buy a house or, if they are in financial difficulty, refinance it. The F.H.A. is insuring about 6,000 loans a day, four times the amount in 2006. Its portfolio is growing so fast that even F.H.A. backers express amazement.

For decades it was an article of faith that helping people of limited means like Ms. Shimon get a house was good for the new owner, good for the neighborhood and good for American capitalism. Then came the housing bust, which demonstrated that when lenders allowed people to buy houses they ultimately could not afford, it hurt the parties — while putting the economy itself in a tailspin.

In the aftermath of the crash, there is wide divergence on how easy, or how hard, it should be to become a homeowner. Skittish lenders are asking for 20 percent down, which few prospective borrowers have to spare. As a result, private lending has dwindled.

The government has stepped into the breach, facilitating loans with down payments as low as 3.5 percent and offering other incentives to stabilize the market. Real estate agents in some hard-hit areas say every single one of their clients is using the F.H.A.

“They’re counting their pennies, scraping up that 3.5 percent,” Bonni Malone of Prudential Americana in Las Vegas said. “Mostly they’re buying foreclosed homes from banks, although I had one client who bought from a guy that was dying. It’s turning around the market.”

While the government’s actions have helped avert full-scale economic disaster, there is growing concern that it might have doled out its favors with too generous a hand.

Many of the loans the F.H.A. insured in 2007 and last year are now turning delinquent, agency officials acknowledge. The loans made in those two years are performing “far worse” than newer loans, dragging down the whole portfolio, Mr. Stevens of the F.H.A. said in an interview.

The number of F.H.A. mortgage holders in default is 410,916, up 76 percent from a year ago, when 232,864 were in default, according to agency data.

Despite the agency’s attempt to outrun its fate by insuring ever-larger amounts of new loans to such borrowers as Ms. Shimon — the current rate is over a billion dollars a day — 7.77 percent of the portfolio is in default, up from 5.6 percent a year ago.

Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that the defaults were, in essence, worth it.

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the bad loans occurred,” he said. “It was an effort to keep prices from falling too fast. That’s a policy.”

The troubled loans are nevertheless weighing on the agency’s capital reserve fund, which has fallen to below its Congressionally mandated minimum of 2 percent, from over 6 percent two years ago.

The optimism expressed by Mr. Stevens, the F.H.A. commissioner, places him at odds not only with some outside experts but with Kenneth Donohue, the inspector general of the Housing and Urban Development Department, who is also F.H.A.’s watchdog. Mr. Donohue said the drop in reserves was “a flashing red light” that the agency was not taking seriously enough.

“It might be we’ll get ourselves out of this and that everything will be fine, but I don’t paint that rosy a picture,” Mr. Donohue said. “They’re banking on the fact that the economy will continue to improve, that the housing market will begin to sustain itself.”

He noted that if private lenders had raised their down payment requirements in the last two years, it raised the question, “what does the F.H.A. think it is doing by asking only 3.5 percent?”

Any more than that and Ms. Shimon, 45, would still be a renter. As it was, she cashed in her retirement savings account to come up with the necessary funds. She did not have enough to spare for closing costs, so her mortgage broker arranged a deal where the charges were wrapped into the loan at the cost of a higher interest rate. She cried when the deal was done.

The house was empty and trashed. Slowly, she is trying to bring it back to life. She spent the first few weeks picking up garbage in the backyard.

Is Ms. Shimon a good bet? Even she has no easy answer. Her mortgage payment, $1,100, is half of what she takes home every month. It is not easy to make ends meet. Teachers can get laid off like everyone else.

“The government,” she said, “is doing what it needed to do — taking a risk on people.”

Chaz Fullenkamp, an automotive technician in Columbus, Ohio, got an F.H.A. loan even though he was living on the financial edge. “If I got unemployed, I’d be wiped out in a month or two,” he says. Thanks to the F.H.A., however, he is better off than he used to be.

Mr. Fullenkamp used F.H.A. insurance to buy a house this spring for $179,000. The eager seller paid the closing costs and also gave Mr. Fullenkamp $2,500 in cash. He immediately applied for the $8,000 tax rebate. Even taking his down payment into account, he came out ahead.

“I knew in my heart I could not really afford the house, but they gave it to me anyway,” said Mr. Fullenkamp, 22. “I thought, ‘Wow, I’m surprised I pulled that off.’ ”

As the number of loans has soared, random quality control checks have decreased sharply, F.H.A. staff members say. Mr. Donohue, the inspector general, cited numerous examples of organized fraud in testimony to Congress earlier this year.

“They need to stop taking bad loans in the door,” he said in an interview. “They’re taking on all this volume, they have to have very active underwriting standards.”

Jack Healy contributed reporting from New York.

I wanted to repost it so please take a moment to read this, as its VERY important.

—-

U.S. Mortgage Backer May Need Bailout
by David Streitfeld and Louise Story
Friday, October 9, 2009

A year after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered, industry executives and Washington policy makers are worrying that another government mortgage giant could be the next housing domino.

Problems at the Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees mortgages with low down payments, are becoming so acute that some experts warn the agency might need a federal bailout.

Running questions about the F.H.A.’s future — underscored by interviews with policy makers, analysts and home buyers — came to the fore on Thursday on Capitol Hill. In testimony before a House subcommittee, the F.H.A. commissioner, David H. Stevens, assured lawmakers that his agency would not need a bailout and that it was managing its risks.

But he acknowledged that some 20 percent of F.H.A. loans insured last year — and as many as 24 percent of those from 2007 — faced serious problems including foreclosure, offering a preview of a forthcoming audit of the agency’s finances.

“Let me simply state at the outset that based on current projections, absent any catastrophic home price decline, F.H.A. will not need to ask Congress and the American taxpayer for extraordinary assistance — we will not need a bailout,” Mr. Stevens said in his testimony.

But to its critics, the F.H.A. looks like another Fannie Mae. The hearings on Thursday came on the same day that the federal agency charged with overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provided a somber assessment of those giants’ health. In the year since the government stepped in to rescue them, the companies have taken $96 billion from the Treasury, and may need more.

Since the bottom fell out of the mortgage market, the F.H.A. has assumed a crucial role in the nation’s housing market. Created in 1934 to help lower-income and first-time buyers purchase homes, the agency now insures roughly 5.4 million single-family home mortgages, with a combined value of $675 billion.

In addition, these loans are bundled into mortgage-backed securities and guaranteed through the Government National Mortgage Association, known as Ginnie Mae. That means the taxpayer is responsible for paying investors who own Ginnie Mae bonds when F.H.A.-backed mortgages hit trouble.

“It appears destined for a taxpayer bailout in the next 24 to 36 months,” Edward Pinto, a former Fannie Mae executive, said in testimony prepared for the hearing. Mr. Pinto, who was the chief credit officer from 1987 to 1989 for Fannie Mae, went further than most housing analysts and predicted that F.H.A. losses would more than wipe out the agency’s $30 billion of cash reserves.

The issue has polarized Congress. Republicans, who led efforts to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before those companies ran into trouble, are now seeking to bridle the F.H.A. Many Democrats insist the F.H.A. is playing a vital role in the housing market, which is only just starting to stabilize.

“F.H.A. has stepped into the void left by the private market,” Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat from California, said at the hearing. “Let’s be clear; without F.H.A., there would be no mortgage market right now.”

That was the case for Bernadine Shimon. Like many Americans, Ms. Shimon has recently been through some rough times. She lost a house to foreclosure, declared bankruptcy, got divorced and is now a single mother, teaching high school English in a Denver suburb.

She wanted a house but no lender would touch her. The Federal Housing Administration was more obliging. With the F.H.A. insuring her mortgage, Ms. Shimon was able to buy a $134,000 fixer-upper in August.

“The government gave me another chance,” she said.

The government is giving as many people as it possibly can the chance to buy a house or, if they are in financial difficulty, refinance it. The F.H.A. is insuring about 6,000 loans a day, four times the amount in 2006. Its portfolio is growing so fast that even F.H.A. backers express amazement.

For decades it was an article of faith that helping people of limited means like Ms. Shimon get a house was good for the new owner, good for the neighborhood and good for American capitalism. Then came the housing bust, which demonstrated that when lenders allowed people to buy houses they ultimately could not afford, it hurt the parties — while putting the economy itself in a tailspin.

In the aftermath of the crash, there is wide divergence on how easy, or how hard, it should be to become a homeowner. Skittish lenders are asking for 20 percent down, which few prospective borrowers have to spare. As a result, private lending has dwindled.

The government has stepped into the breach, facilitating loans with down payments as low as 3.5 percent and offering other incentives to stabilize the market. Real estate agents in some hard-hit areas say every single one of their clients is using the F.H.A.

“They’re counting their pennies, scraping up that 3.5 percent,” Bonni Malone of Prudential Americana in Las Vegas said. “Mostly they’re buying foreclosed homes from banks, although I had one client who bought from a guy that was dying. It’s turning around the market.”

While the government’s actions have helped avert full-scale economic disaster, there is growing concern that it might have doled out its favors with too generous a hand.

Many of the loans the F.H.A. insured in 2007 and last year are now turning delinquent, agency officials acknowledge. The loans made in those two years are performing “far worse” than newer loans, dragging down the whole portfolio, Mr. Stevens of the F.H.A. said in an interview.

The number of F.H.A. mortgage holders in default is 410,916, up 76 percent from a year ago, when 232,864 were in default, according to agency data.

Despite the agency’s attempt to outrun its fate by insuring ever-larger amounts of new loans to such borrowers as Ms. Shimon — the current rate is over a billion dollars a day — 7.77 percent of the portfolio is in default, up from 5.6 percent a year ago.

Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that the defaults were, in essence, worth it.

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the bad loans occurred,” he said. “It was an effort to keep prices from falling too fast. That’s a policy.”

The troubled loans are nevertheless weighing on the agency’s capital reserve fund, which has fallen to below its Congressionally mandated minimum of 2 percent, from over 6 percent two years ago.

The optimism expressed by Mr. Stevens, the F.H.A. commissioner, places him at odds not only with some outside experts but with Kenneth Donohue, the inspector general of the Housing and Urban Development Department, who is also F.H.A.’s watchdog. Mr. Donohue said the drop in reserves was “a flashing red light” that the agency was not taking seriously enough.

“It might be we’ll get ourselves out of this and that everything will be fine, but I don’t paint that rosy a picture,” Mr. Donohue said. “They’re banking on the fact that the economy will continue to improve, that the housing market will begin to sustain itself.”

He noted that if private lenders had raised their down payment requirements in the last two years, it raised the question, “what does the F.H.A. think it is doing by asking only 3.5 percent?”

Any more than that and Ms. Shimon, 45, would still be a renter. As it was, she cashed in her retirement savings account to come up with the necessary funds. She did not have enough to spare for closing costs, so her mortgage broker arranged a deal where the charges were wrapped into the loan at the cost of a higher interest rate. She cried when the deal was done.

The house was empty and trashed. Slowly, she is trying to bring it back to life. She spent the first few weeks picking up garbage in the backyard.

Is Ms. Shimon a good bet? Even she has no easy answer. Her mortgage payment, $1,100, is half of what she takes home every month. It is not easy to make ends meet. Teachers can get laid off like everyone else.

“The government,” she said, “is doing what it needed to do — taking a risk on people.”

Chaz Fullenkamp, an automotive technician in Columbus, Ohio, got an F.H.A. loan even though he was living on the financial edge. “If I got unemployed, I’d be wiped out in a month or two,” he says. Thanks to the F.H.A., however, he is better off than he used to be.

Mr. Fullenkamp used F.H.A. insurance to buy a house this spring for $179,000. The eager seller paid the closing costs and also gave Mr. Fullenkamp $2,500 in cash. He immediately applied for the $8,000 tax rebate. Even taking his down payment into account, he came out ahead.

“I knew in my heart I could not really afford the house, but they gave it to me anyway,” said Mr. Fullenkamp, 22. “I thought, ‘Wow, I’m surprised I pulled that off.’ ”

As the number of loans has soared, random quality control checks have decreased sharply, F.H.A. staff members say. Mr. Donohue, the inspector general, cited numerous examples of organized fraud in testimony to Congress earlier this year.

“They need to stop taking bad loans in the door,” he said in an interview. “They’re taking on all this volume, they have to have very active underwriting standards.”

Jack Healy contributed reporting from New York.

Sonny: Get this over with, Mush.

Mush: Come on, dice. Baby needs a new pair of shoes. Come on, seven!

Mush: Come on! Come on, dice!

Sonny: I don’t even have to look.

(Spectator) And seven!

Mush: Craps! I’m out!

Sonny: Get him out of here! Man never hit a number in his life!

As we all have been following lately, rates have been pretty damn good. I mean REALLY DAMN GOOD. That was…until a week or so ago.

I was working with one of my clients and highly advised him to lock in his rate at 4.875% on a 30 Year Fixed, however he decided to float instead of paying a “little” bit more for an extra 15 days. Why? Only he knows.

He is now at a 5.75%. (crickets chirping)

Ladies and Gentlemen- DO NOT END UP LIKE EDDIE MUSH (featured above) and crap out in this market!!! I cannot stress to you enough how important it is to secure a good rate in when you see it. I am coming across several people daily that REALISTICALLY expected rates to go down to the high 3′s because the media puts their dirty little paws on it, and in the end, they lose out on something great.

Would you listen to Al Roker talking to you about mortgage rates or me about weather? I really hope not.

The loan officers that are still here (you can tell who the seasoned ones are) are here for a reason. We have flourished through the good, withstood the bad, study the market, subscribe to various sources of mortgage news, and have a pretty good grasp on what’s going on.

Many feel that when the loan officer says “Mrs. Jones, you need to lock in,” it is mostly viewed as a sales pitch to get your commitment rather than advice, and many clients back off.

I mean this is normal. I can understand it and would probably do the same.

Do this. Next time your loan officer does this, ask them “Why should I secure this rate Mr. Mortgage? And don’t tell me rates are going to go up. Explain WHY” and see what they say. If studdering occurs, move on to the next mortgage professional. If they can advise you with detailed information, they’re a keeper!

In the end, it is only YOU that will win…or lose.

Tommy’s 2 cents

DON’T BE GREEDY.

Sonny: Get this over with, Mush.

Mush: Come on, dice. Baby needs a new pair of shoes. Come on, seven!

Mush: Come on! Come on, dice!

Sonny: I don’t even have to look.

(Spectator) And seven!

Mush: Craps! I’m out!

Sonny: Get him out of here! Man never hit a number in his life!

As we all have been following lately, rates have been pretty damn good. I mean REALLY DAMN GOOD. That was…until a week or so ago.

I was working with one of my clients and highly advised him to lock in his rate at 4.875% on a 30 Year Fixed, however he decided to float instead of paying a “little” bit more for an extra 15 days. Why? Only he knows.

He is now at a 5.75%. (crickets chirping)

Ladies and Gentlemen- DO NOT END UP LIKE EDDIE MUSH (featured above) and crap out in this market!!! I cannot stress to you enough how important it is to secure a good rate in when you see it. I am coming across several people daily that REALISTICALLY expected rates to go down to the high 3′s because the media puts their dirty little paws on it, and in the end, they lose out on something great.

Would you listen to Al Roker talking to you about mortgage rates or me about weather? I really hope not.

The loan officers that are still here (you can tell who the seasoned ones are) are here for a reason. We have flourished through the good, withstood the bad, study the market, subscribe to various sources of mortgage news, and have a pretty good grasp on what’s going on.

Many feel that when the loan officer says “Mrs. Jones, you need to lock in,” it is mostly viewed as a sales pitch to get your commitment rather than advice, and many clients back off.

I mean this is normal. I can understand it and would probably do the same.

Do this. Next time your loan officer does this, ask them “Why should I secure this rate Mr. Mortgage? And don’t tell me rates are going to go up. Explain WHY” and see what they say. If studdering occurs, move on to the next mortgage professional. If they can advise you with detailed information, they’re a keeper!

In the end, it is only YOU that will win…or lose.

Tommy’s 2 cents

DON’T BE GREEDY.

GREAT DECISION, especially now since rates are super low and you can walk into plenty properties with some decent equity.

Ok, step 1 complete.

Next step, picking the right lender.

I’ve written several articles on this previously, but I will summarize countless hours of explanation into ONE sentence:

YOU WILL CHOOSE WHOEVER YOU FEEL MOST COMFORTABLE WITH.

It’s not rocket science. To some consumers,  rates and fees are absolutely everything, and that is OK.

To others, discussing their loan parameters and figuring out WHY they should go on a 15 year mortgage vs. a 30 year makes more sense- a financial plan if you will. Ask most people why they went on the loan program that they did, and see what their response is.

Everyone is different. Remember, you are the one hiring the loan officer to do your loan. The questions that you need to ask yourself are:

1. “Why am I hiring this person?”
2. “What has he/she done for me so far?”
3. “What do you expect from him/her, and vice versa?”
4. “Has the loan officer asked what’s important to ME during the loan?”

Tommy’s 2 Cents:

Would you pay a CPA double what another CPA would charge if they saved you an additional $5,000 off your taxes?

Would you have a fresh-out-of-med school perform heart surgery on you to save a few thousand on the costs?

Would you hire ME or Johnny Cochran to represent you in a criminal trial?

Get the point?

In any profession, what you ultimately pay more for is knowledge.

GREAT DECISION, especially now since rates are super low and you can walk into plenty properties with some decent equity.

Ok, step 1 complete.

Next step, picking the right lender.

I’ve written several articles on this previously, but I will summarize countless hours of explanation into ONE sentence:

YOU WILL CHOOSE WHOEVER YOU FEEL MOST COMFORTABLE WITH.

It’s not rocket science. To some consumers,  rates and fees are absolutely everything, and that is OK.

To others, discussing their loan parameters and figuring out WHY they should go on a 15 year mortgage vs. a 30 year makes more sense- a financial plan if you will. Ask most people why they went on the loan program that they did, and see what their response is.

Everyone is different. Remember, you are the one hiring the loan officer to do your loan. The questions that you need to ask yourself are:

1. “Why am I hiring this person?”
2. “What has he/she done for me so far?”
3. “What do you expect from him/her, and vice versa?”
4. “Has the loan officer asked what’s important to ME during the loan?”

Tommy’s 2 Cents:

Would you pay a CPA double what another CPA would charge if they saved you an additional $5,000 off your taxes?

Would you have a fresh-out-of-med school perform heart surgery on you to save a few thousand on the costs?

Would you hire ME or Johnny Cochran to represent you in a criminal trial?

Get the point?

In any profession, what you ultimately pay more for is knowledge.