Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creative Advertising? Heck No, It's False Advertising (MORTGAGES)
http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20060622_falseads.htm ^ | 6-22-06 | Henry Savage

Posted on 06/22/2006 6:41:43 AM PDT by Hydroshock

Being a professional mortgage lender and broker, I like to believe that most of us in the business are honest, reliable and knowledgeable. While this is true to a large extent, the relatively few bad guys in this business make us all look bad.

The housing market has cooled and interest rates are on the rise. What's a mortgage broker to do? Well, it's pretty clear that many of them are getting a bit more aggressive in their marketing techniques. Over the last few weeks, I decided to pay close attention to the myriad of mortgage advertisements that constantly bombarded me. If something appeared fishy, I followed up.

Lenders are heavily promoting the so-called "Option ARM." Basically, an Option ARM is a monthly adjustable mortgage that gives the borrower multiple monthly payment options. The borrower can choose between making a payment based on a 15 year amortization, a 30 year amortization, an interest only payment, or a rock bottom minimum payment that carries negative amortization. For folks who are unfamiliar, negative amortization, or "neg-am," occurs when the minimum payment does not cover the interest charged, increasing the balance every month.

I was a big fan of Option ARM programs for the first few years of this decade. Why? Not because of a negative amortization feature, but because these programs are tied to short term interest rates. From mid 2001 until mid 2005, short term rates were hovering between one and 2.50 percent, allowing a fully indexed mortgage rate of three to 4.50 percent. The rates were unbeatable.

Now that the Federal Reserve is on a rate hike campaign, these mortgage deals aren't what they used to be. Fully indexed Option ARMs carry rates in the 7.50 percent range -- more than double what they used to be. Many lenders, however, are silent about this fact when they advertise. Here's a sampling of my research.

I receive a letter in the mail from a mortgage company that touts a debt consolidation loan with an Annual Percentage Rate (APR) of 2.40 percent. An APR is required by federal law to be disclosed on any advertisement that quotes and interest rate. I knew right away a mortgage loan with an APR of 2.40 percent didn't exist. When I called the company for clarification, they told me that the letter contained a "typo" and that the 2.40 percent was a "payment rate" that carried negative amortization. Yeah, right.

I receive another letter from a company that says I am "part of a select group of homeowners to take part in an exclusive mortgage rate reduction program." Seeing as the interest rate on my current mortgage is 5.50 percent, far below market rates, I decided to call for more information. Sure enough, the woman on the line tells me that I was selected to take part in a payment reduction program, not interest rate reduction. It turns out that the program carried a variable rate that's fully indexed at 7.75 percent. The lower payment would have cost me $1,031 per month in negative amortization.

I'm driving back to the office after a lunch appointment and hear a radio ad that starts out like this: "If you're paying more than 1.25 percent on your mortgage, you're paying too much." I call the advertised toll free number and pretend to be an enthusiastic prospect. I ask the fellow on the phone some detailed questions. "Is the rate adjustable?"

"Yes, but the rate is fixed for the first five years."

"The actual interest rate is 1.25 percent for five years?"

"Yes, it a great deal"

This went on for a while. I kept offering the fellow opportunities for him to tell me that the 1.25 percent was a payment rate, not the actual interest rate. It wasn't until I identified myself as a mortgage professional and columnist when he fesses up that the product he was touting was indeed an option ARM with an interest rate of 7.50 percent.

I've got nothing against Option ARMs. They are indeed good for some folks. But the fact is that they're not a very good deal anymore for most folks because the interest rates aren't favorable compared to fixed rates.

Lenders are selling a low monthly payment. And when they sell a low payment, they must disclose that low payments have costs, such as negative amortization. The companies that advertise low payment rates as actual interest rates aren't just misleading the public, they're breaking the law.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Caveat Emptor.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bubbleboy; housing; housingboom; housingbust; housingmarkets; loans; mortgages
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 06/22/2006 6:41:45 AM PDT by Hydroshock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock; Nowhere Man; ex-Texan; MineralMan; HamiltonJay; Mariner

ping


2 posted on 06/22/2006 6:45:52 AM PDT by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

When bait and switch is encouraged in the Real Estate business by the DOJ in the Real Estate Brokerage business what do you expect?

The mortgage guys promoting these programs reek of slime in their radio ads.

Ultimtely it's the greed of individual consumers to get something for nothing that gets them into trouble with negative amortization loans.


3 posted on 06/22/2006 6:49:47 AM PDT by rwilson99 (Too soon... to forget. See United 93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99

Like it or hate the credit industry is out of control. The leaning standards are the loosest I have ever seen them. As rates keep going up I expect to see more of this type of shananagans from them.


4 posted on 06/22/2006 7:00:26 AM PDT by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Hydroshock; 4CJ
Prov. 10:21The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.

22The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it.

Bad thing about prosperity is that folks blow off God and tell America to kiss off...

6 posted on 06/22/2006 7:12:31 AM PDT by BikerGold (Reliously Uncoooorrrrect...Reliously UUUUUUncorrect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
5 to 7 per cent interest was fair when homes cost $20,000. To me, those interest rates are usurious considering many homes cost at least "$500,000.
7 posted on 06/22/2006 7:13:26 AM PDT by wizr (John 3:16 & 17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerGold
I have found (the hard way at times) if you stay close to God's word and commandments you have an easier, happier, more prosperous life. See my tag line to get an idea on my thoughts on debt.
8 posted on 06/22/2006 7:18:50 AM PDT by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

Yesterday's MPAA numbers gave the average for a one-year ARM as 6.22%; their average for a 30-year fixed was 6.72%. Anybody getting an ARM with the spread that small richly deserves their eventual bankruptcy.


9 posted on 06/22/2006 7:19:22 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

That is the one think that troubles me and makes me thing the foundation of this mess is shaky. Rates have been at historic lows but people are still getting these risky loans. I would never buy a house I could nto afford 125% of the total payment, including taxes and insurance. And put at least 10% down on a 30 year fixed note.


10 posted on 06/22/2006 7:37:45 AM PDT by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wizr

"5 to 7 per cent interest was fair when homes cost $20,000. To me, those interest rates are usurious considering many homes cost at least "$500,000. "

Huh? So if I'm a lender, and I write 25 loans for $20,000 at 6% that's ok. But if I write one loan for $500,000 at 6%, thats usury?

The rate is the rate. I don't see where the amount principle matters.


11 posted on 06/22/2006 7:40:39 AM PDT by brownsfan (It's not a war on terror... it's a war with islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

I dub thee Willie Green II. May your reign be long and bountiful.


12 posted on 06/22/2006 8:02:30 AM PDT by L98Fiero (I'm worth a million in prizes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero

Who?


13 posted on 06/22/2006 8:03:32 AM PDT by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

Before you came along, he posted the articles like this. He's gone now and you are more than worthy to take his spot.


14 posted on 06/22/2006 8:06:12 AM PDT by L98Fiero (I'm worth a million in prizes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..........


15 posted on 06/22/2006 8:25:26 AM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwilson99
Ultimtely it's the greed of individual consumers to get something for nothing that gets them into trouble with negative amortization loans.

I'm surprised they don't have prepayment penalties in these loans, too. That way, if you find you are getting screwed, you can't refinance your way out of it without paying thousands of dollars in penalties, too.

16 posted on 06/22/2006 8:38:48 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
Sadly, with the way home prices have been skyrocketing, it would be physically impossible for most first time home buyers to come up with that 10% down. They could never save at a rate that would match property appreciation. I was in that situation and needed a 100% down loan. After 2 years, I had the PMI dropped because the property value appreciated almost 50%.
17 posted on 06/22/2006 8:42:18 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wizr

Are you ok earning 5% on your money market account? That's close to the current market rate. So do you think banks should charge you less for a home loan then they are paying you on your deposits?

No bank would survive if they did that. In fact, the FDIC would shut them down. The interest rate market is not controlled by the individual banks.

It doesn't get much better for consumers than the current interest rate environment. You can lock in a 30 rate of under 7% and earn 5% on a daily basis. Enjoy it, because the spread is usually closer to 4%.


18 posted on 06/22/2006 9:31:00 AM PDT by VegasCowboy ("...he wore his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to feel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VegasCowboy

Nope. Got no MMA. Don't owe anyone $500,000 bucks. I just think that all these people, that think that life is wonderful because they are making so much money, don't understand that the dollar value has been made worthless.


19 posted on 06/22/2006 9:40:51 AM PDT by wizr (John 3:16 & 17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
There always is a catch to mortgage payments. Like for example, an unpleasant balloon payment that's due. The buyer still has to watch out for the fine print to make sure there's not a ticking time bomb hidden inside the mortgage agreement designed to explode at the worst possible time. Do your homework, compare offers and shop around for the best deal.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

20 posted on 06/22/2006 9:45:29 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson