8 Bailout Questions Answered

CNN viewers asked us about the proposed rescue of the auto industry. Here's what you need to know.

Give the money to us instead of them

Why doesn't the government just give us all a large amount of money, and we can buy their cars, and that should help out the car companies? --John

Given the amount of money needed to keep the Big Three automakers afloat, it's a lot more efficient to simply lend them the money rather than to spur sales through an incentive program.

American consumers also don't like to be told what to buy. A rebate program would have to specify that they purchase a vehicle from General Motors, Ford or Chrysler, limiting their choices to the Big Three. Consumers and foreign-based manufacturers would likely pressure the program to open up to at least all cars made in the United States.

Also keep in mind that the government isn't giving money to the automakers - it's lending it to them, with the intention of getting it back in a few years. Rebates are not loans, and consumers could not be expected to pay them back.

Bankruptcy and employees' retirement

What would happen to the employees' pensions and 401(k)s if the auto companies were to file bankruptcy? --Dave

The pension funds of the Big Three are in relatively good shape, so it's not likely that the government will be stuck with a large unfunded obligation.

But some workers, who retired from the automakers in their 50s, could see their benefits cuts if the pensions are taken over by a federal agency. The government doesn't promise to pay the same level of benefits for those who retire before 60.

It's not certain they'd see a benefit cut - it will depend upon the value of the pension fund assets and obligations when the government takes over the pension funds. But a benefit cut is possible.

Joining forces

Maybe they should all merge into one big company. Good idea? --Kevin

Very few experts expect Chrysler to survive as an independent company. As the weakest link of the Big Three, it could use help in some very specific areas of the business.

First, Chrysler doesn't have as much of an overseas presence as GM or Ford, so its health is more reliant on the U.S. market.

It could also use help making competitive small cars. Chrysler's strength is in trucks, vans and big cars. It's already formed alliances with other manufacturers: Chrysler has a deal with Nissan, which will build a small car for it. In return, Chrysler will build a truck for Nissan. Chrysler is also building a minivan for Volkswagen.

The benefits of GM or Ford merging with another company are less obvious. Both are international in scope, which have helped buffer the impact of market share losses at home, at least until recently.

Like Chrysler, GM and Ford could use assistance building a stronger line-up of small cars, but merging with a domestic automaker with the same problem wouldn't help that much. Besides, Ford and GM already have plans to sell some of their European small cars here.

One real benefit of a domestic merger would be to reduce each company's output to its current market share without having to go out of business. It would result in a "controlled contraction." This would also give the combined company greater power in negotiating new contracts with unions and suppliers for additional cost savings.

But closing excess factories and car dealerships takes a lot of cash up front. So any kind merger in the short term is less likely because of the current credit crisis.

Deja vu all over again

The automotive industry is a cornerstone of America; how can we make sure this won't happen again? --James

You can't. There is no way to make absolutely certain that a crisis like this will never happen again. But what can be done is to help the industry change so that it can better compete against foreign automakers who have lower costs.

That will likely mean painful sacrifices for industry stakeholders like auto workers, retirees and auto dealers, not to mention those at the auto executives themselves. But an industry failure would be far worse.

Still, there is a chance we will face this decision - whether to bail out the auto industry - again. But some economists argue that even the cost of repeatedly bailing out the industry will be less than the overall cost of allowing it to collapse.

Pink slip for the corner office

If the big three CEO's have dug this hole for themselves and the industry, why do they get to keep their jobs? --Paul

They may not, at least, not all of them.

Chrysler's Bob Nardelli and Ford's Alan Mulally really can't be blamed for any serious hole-digging. They've only been on the job for a couple of years and the problems were pretty serious before they arrived. Mulally even deserves some credit for the fact that Ford says it isn't in imminent danger of collapse and probably won't need to tap the bail-out line of credit it is requesting.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner may be asked to leave his job as part of a loan package. But the industry's fundamental problems predate his 2000 promotion to the top job. GM has made changes in recent years to move away from over-dependence on SUVs and trucks, and it has also negotiated new union contracts that will bring the company's labor costs more in line with those of foreign-based competitors. But Wagoner could be blamed for not making these changes soon enough.

Given GM's untenable costs and increasing foreign competition, some argue that Wagoner was like a mutual fund manager in a bear market. Success may have been too much to expect. He could be credited for keeping the company alive prior to the recent collapse of the nation's overall economy. But, with calls for someone's head coming from Congress, Wagoner's neck seems to fit the guillotine best. It may be time to see if someone else could do this difficult job better.

Union concessions

Has anyone asked these employees whether they would do the same job for substantially less pay and/or fewer benefits in order to be able to keep the plant open? --Jackie

They get asked that question every time there's a new round of union negotiations. Up until recently, the answer was usually "No, we won't." In 2007 negotiations, the union agreed to major concessions and just recently, it said it was willing to consider more.

But the real problem for carmakers isn't the workers in the factories. It's the retirees. Before the 2007 negotiations, domestic automakers paid more than twice as much per worker hour in labor costs than Japanese competitors making cars here. But the actual hourly pay for workers was very nearly the same.

Domestic manufacturers have been making cars here much longer. That means they have many more retirees. The cost of health care for them is a big part of what drives up the overall hourly cost. And having been here longer, the Big Three have more experienced workers who command the top pay range.

In the 2007 round of contract negotiations, retiree health-care costs were shifted to an outside fund so that after 2010, those costs will not be reflected on the automakers' books. Carmakers are now also allowed to pay new workers a lower hourly rate than current workers. That will save substantial costs in the future, with more future savings with further concessions.

Warranty protection

I just purchased a new GM car, and I am worried if GM fails, what will happen with my warranty, and extended warranty? -Michael

If a Detroit automaker does go out of business, it's likely there will be some kind of warranty coverage for people who bought one of their cars in the past or who buy the remaining inventory. But the nature of that warranty is not certain.

This is a key argument for why bankruptcy wouldn't work. Even if the automakers give assurances that warranties will be covered by a third party, consumers will be nervous, making it more attractive to buy from a strong foreign automaker that can still stand behind its cars.

Installing safeguards

What sort of conditions are likely to be put on the bailout money? Can we at least demand that the automakers produce electric cars or cars with gas mileage we specify? -Shaleen

The bailout plan contains provisions for government oversight. Whoever oversees the companies that borrow money will have powers similar to a bankruptcy judge with the ability to negotiate conditions on outside creditors, unions and other parties. That could spark some painful but necessary changes for long-term survival.

Regarding electric cars, new Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules have already been passed that call for big overall fuel economy increases for all manufacturers. GM, Chrysler and Ford are working on new hybrid and electric cars in part to comply with those future requirements, but also to change the public's impression that they are technologically lagging.

When we're talking about business survival, though, it's important to remember that hybrid and electric cars are unlikely to be very profitable, or profitable at all, for years to come.

By Peter Valdes-Dapena and Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writers

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0812/gallery.auto_bailout_questions/index.html

Foreclosure Activity Drops to June Levels

WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of American homeowners dragged into the housing crisis fell last month to the lowest level since June as new state laws lengthened the foreclosure process, RealtyTrac reported Thursday.

"We're going to have a pretty significant spike in January," said Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac's vice president for marketing. Plus, as job losses mount, "increases in foreclosure activity follow that pretty directly," he added.

Nationwide, more than 259,000 homes received at least one foreclosure-related notice in November, down 7 percent from October, but 28 percent higher than a year ago, RealtyTrac said.

The report comes as Democrats, including President-elect Barack Obama, insist that the government must use some of the bailout funds to halt rising foreclosures.

Last week, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that a record one in 10 American homeowners with a mortgage was either at least one month behind on their payments or in foreclosure at the end of September.

RealtyTrac monitors default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions. More than 78,000 properties were repossessed by lenders last month, said the Irvine, Calif.-based company.

The worst recession in decades, falling home values and stricter lending standards have ensnared millions of U.S. households. The Federal Reserve predicts that new foreclosures this year will reach about 2.25 million, more than double pre-crisis levels.

In RealtyTrac's report, Nevada, Florida and Arizona had the nation's top foreclosure rates. In Nevada, one in every 76 homes received a foreclosure filing last month. Florida saw one in every 173 properties receive a foreclosure filing, and in Arizona it was one in every 198 homes. Rounding out the top 10 were California, Michigan, Georgia, Ohio, Colorado, Utah and Idaho.

Among metro areas, the Cape Coral-Fort Myers area in Florida was first, with one in every 59 housing units receiving a foreclosure filing. It was followed by Las Vegas, and the California cities of Merced, Modesto and Stockton.

December 11, 2008 9:55 AM ET, reported by the Associated Press news

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/category/topicarticle.aspx?feed=AP&Date=20081211&ID=9442804&topic=TOPIC_ECONOMIC_INDICATORS&isub=3

Half of modified mortgages in default again

Data raises questions if government funds might be better spent on job creation.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than half of all homeowners who had their loans modified to make the payments more affordable in the first half of the year are already in default again, banking regulators said Monday.

The new data raise questions about whether government money may be better spent on creating jobs, rather than averting foreclosures, said John Reich, director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision office at a housing industry forum sponsored by his agency.

"I do have concerns about allocating federal resources" Reich said.

However, many experts claim the bulk of loan modifications don't actually provide much financial relief for borrowers.

The government's data don't include enough detail about the types of the loan modifications that were made, said Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. "The quality of the [modifications] are not what they should be," she said.

The U.S. economic picture has darkened over the past month. One in 10 Americans with a mortgage is either behind or in foreclosure, and more than 500,000 jobs were lost in November.

Unemployment stands at 6.7%, and the worldwide credit markets have only improved modestly from the freeze that led Congress to approve a $700 billion bailout before the election.

Discussion on Monday's focused on how broad the government's intervention should be, rather than whether the government should play any role at all. The U.S. is on track for 2.25 million foreclosures this year.

"We need a bottom-up approach, in my view, by modifying people's mortgages and helping them stay in their homes," said New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.

Corzine called for a three to six month halt to foreclosures while the government works out a more aggressive plan.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, said the public is likely to be more sympathetic to efforts to assist troubled borrowers, because the link between the foreclosure crisis and the sinking economy is increasingly clear to most Americans.

"It's now in every corner of the country," Zandi said. "I think that people understand that this is a broader issue."

During an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," President-elect Barack Obama declined to say how large an economic stimulus plan he envisions. He said his blueprint for recovery will include help for homeowners facing foreclosure on their mortgages if President George W. Bush has not already acted when Obama takes office next month.

For nearly a year, some consumer advocates, lawmakers and think tanks have advocated a dramatic government response. The effort, they say, should be similar to created the Home Owners' Loan Corp. in 1933 to help borrowers refinance troubled home loans during the Great Depression.

The Bush administration has focused mainly on voluntary industry efforts to modify loans, and those have not stopped the surge in foreclosures.

Bailout Efforts Now Focus On Main Street, Not Banks

Attention Santa Claus: The financial bailout has a new address—It's Main Street, not Wall Street.

Having thrown trillions of dollars at Wall Street and the financial sector, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson now appear ready to do the same for Main Street, with a spate of proposals to help homeowners and the housing market.

In what seemed like a well-choreographed, one-two punch this week, Paulson floated a trial balloon for a plan to ease mortgage rates to stimulate new home buying while Bernanke offered a number of proposals to address soaring home foreclosures.

“It looks like they're finally getting serious about doing something, which is important,” says Robert Brusca, chief economist Fact & Opinion Economics. "There are different remedies for different circumstance and enough programs out there for enough people. I’m encouraged.”

Brusca is among the many analysts who have criticized the Bush administration—and Paulson in particular—for doing too little for homeowners struggling with a housing recession and a credit crunch, while aggressively bailing out banks, brokerages and financial institutions such as Citigroup [C 7.71 0.31 (+4.19%) ] and AIG [AIG 1.94 0.10 (+5.43%) ] at great expense.

That crisis management focus, however, has changed recently, perhaps because of pressure from the Democratic Party following its overwhelming general election victory and a worsening foreclosures rate that is making a bad economy even worse.

The new effort also undescores policymakers' frustration and apparent failure to lower borrowing costs and spur lending, despite a variety of unusual moves, which has included policy reversals.

“This really is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight,” says NYU professor Lawrence White, who previously served as a White House economist and savings and loan regulator.

Managing Mortgages
Criticism and second-guessing aside, the heightened efforts—which began with the Fed’s announcement last week that it would buy some $600-billion in mortgage-backed securities—has already helped the mortgage market by lowering rates.

“Absolutely. For the first time in a long time we are seeing the market reacting to the issues,” says a somewhat ecstatic Melissa Cohn, CEO of the Manhattan Mortgage Company. “Borrowing costs in general are just too high, even as real estate prices have come down.”

Cohn says customer call volume is up 300 percent since the Fed announcement last week.
For the first time this year, the average rate on a 30-year mortgage appears to be safely and solidly below 6 percent m—and headed lower.

As CNBC first reported, the Treasury plan under consideration would buy securities underpinning loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the goal of pushing rates to as low as 4.50 percent.

For many in the industry, that appears to be a magic and powerful number.

The National Association of Realtors estimates that a drop from 6 percent to 4.50 percent will result in the purchase of 750,000 new homes, on top of what’s now a 5-million annual pace.
On a $200,000 house, bought with a 10-percent down payment, the difference in monthly payments is $912 vs. $1079.

“Buyers will jump in if affordability improves,” says the group’s chief economist Lawrence Yun. “The first step is to stabilize prices and absorb the inventory. As long as home price continue to decline there's very little chance of any recovery.”

Fighting Foreclosures
Any recovery is also dependent on stemming the tide of foreclosures, say industry players and analysts, which is what makes the government’s new two-prong approach promising.

Previous measures to address foreclosures through loan modification and other kinds of forbearance, such as the Hope for Homeowners program, have been largely ineffective, according to observers in both the private sector and government.

Another obstacle to modification has been the vast securitization of mortgages, creating a multi-party dynamic to negotiation and modification.

Bernanke's proposals Thursday addressed that and touched on other key concepts such as the government purchase and refinancing of troubled mortgages in bulk, increasing the affordability of monthly payments—which might include the government assuming some of the cost of the write down—and offering more attractive inducements to lenders and firms that service the loans.

“The government becomes the lender and restructures the loan to make them sustainable,” says the American Enterprise Institute’s Alex Pollock, who was CEO of the Chicago Home Loan Bank for about a decade and recently advised Congress on the housing issue.

“Step by step, it looks like we're getting back to the 1930s’ Home Owners Loan Corporation,” he adds, referring to the government’s Depression-era entity that wound up with about 20 percent of the country’s mortgages on its books but still managed to show a profit at the time it was shut down.

Second Guessing
Though the recent measures were generally well received, there's no certainty they'll be implemented. What's more, the probable cost is unknown.

More generally, government involvement of that scale worries some for both economic and ethical reasons.

Skeptics say lower rates alone won't be effective , given the deteriorating condition of the economy.

And, as with the financial sector’s bailout, such measures put too much taxpayer money at risk while rewarding excessive risk-taking by borrowers and lenders. That could anger responsible taxpayers and homeowners, especially since the government's latest proposals lack any provisions for refinancing sound mortgages.

Others worry about the potential for fraud and exploitation, as well as the unintended—and negative—consequences of government intervention in the free markets, particularly at a time when some say there are signs individual real estate markets may be nearing or even at a bottom.

“To what extent does this prolong deflation of the housing bubble,” says independent banking analyst Bert Ely. “It’s one of the things I find troubling about a lot of these programs.”
The answer to that question, of course, as well as the overall effectiveness of the measures won’t be known for some time.

People like mortgage broker Cohn, who’ve seen their business trampled by the credit crunch, are ready to make a leap of faith.

“Everyone is looking for stabilizing factors in the economy,” she says. “The way to save the economy is by saving Main Street.”

By Albert Bozzo, Senior Features Editor 04 Dec 2008 04:17 PM ET http://www.cnbc.com/id/28055285/

U.S. Mortgage Plan Falls Short

Plan to modify Fannie, Freddie loans will help some, but more needs to be done, experts said.

NEW YORK(CNNMoney.com) -- The federal government's plan to streamline modifications of troubled loans held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac won't help the majority of people threatened with foreclosure, experts said.

Under a plan unveiled Tuesday, homeowners whose loans are owned or backed by the mortgage finance companies and who are at least 90 days behind can enter a streamlined modification program. Their payments would be adjusted through lower interest rates or longer repayment terms that would total no more than 38% of their monthly household income. In some cases, payment on part of the loans' principal may be deferred, though not reduced.

The interest rate could be lowered to as little as 3% for five years. After that, it would increase by 1 percentage point a year until it hits either the market rate or the original interest rate, whichever is lower, officials said.

Unlike previous federal efforts, participation by servicers is not voluntary. They will now work with eligible borrowers to reach more affordable mortgage payments, using the guidelines laid out Tuesday.

Also, officials hope the new program, which could help more than 400,000 homeowners, will convince servicers who handle loans held by private investors to follow suit.

Program doesn't cover most subprime loans
While experts and some government officials called the plan a positive step forward, they said much more needs to be done to address the mortgage crisis. The program does not address the heart of the problem -- troubled loans held by private investors.

Though Fannie (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie (FRE, Fortune 500) own or guarantee 58% of all mortgages on single-family homes, these loans represent only 20% of serious delinquencies. The majority of the problem mortgages were bundled into securities, which were sold in pieces to investors.

"This is a step in the right direction but falls short of what is needed to achieve widescale modifications of distressed mortgages, particularly those held in private securitization trusts," said Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman Sheila Bair, who has proposed an alternate plan addressing securitized loans. "As we lend and invest hundreds of billions of dollars to help institutions suffering leveraged losses from defaulting mortgages, we must also devote some of that money to fixing the front-end problem: too many unaffordable home loans."

Problems in the mortgage market remain concentrated in the subprime sector, which are mainly held by investors who have resisted modifying the loan terms.

"Most foreclosures are happening on subprime loans that Fannie and Freddie don't control," said Eric Stein, senior vice president at the Center for Responsible Lending, which has long pressed the federal government to help delinquent borrowers. "More is still needed to address foreclosures on these mortgages. To date, voluntary modifications haven't been sufficient. That's why we still have a foreclosure crisis."

To broaden existing foreclosure fixes, Bair supports using up to $50 billion of the $700 billion financial sector rescue plan to guarantee modified loans. This would give servicers an incentive to adjust the loan terms and could help up to 3 million homeowners, though the number is not firm.

Meanwhile, the FDIC has already adopted a streamlined process to modify troubled loans owned or serviced by the failed IndyMac Bank, which the agency took over in mid-July. Some 3,500 borrowers have accepted the workouts, which also aim to keep payments at no more than 38% of gross income.

Several major servicers -- including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup -- have recently announced expansions of their foreclosure prevention efforts, which could aid nearly a million more borrowers.

The programs will also seek to make payments more affordable by cutting interest rates or stretching out loan terms, but some homeowners can also get their mortgage principal reduced depending on their servicer and financial situation.

Deferring payment on principal
Reducing principal is key to keeping some borrowers -- especially those whose house values have fallen below their mortgage balances -- in their homes, experts said. It makes both the loan more affordable and gives homeowners more incentive not to walk away.

In announcing the plan, officials made a point of saying that borrowers must repay their current mortgage in full, just with more affordable monthly payments.

"Loan modifications are not a gift ... the principal cut on the front end will be paid at the end of the loan, either in extended payments or a balloon payment," said Brian Montgomery, commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration. "This is not loan forgiveness."

However, to make payments affordable, servicers may choose to defer part of the payment -- with no interest -- until the end of the loan, officials said. For borrowers whose homes are worth less than their mortgages, servicers might defer the difference.

Here's how it would work: Let's say a homeowner has a $200,000 mortgage on a house now worth $150,000. The servicer may defer payment on $50,000 of principal. If the home recovers its value and the borrower sells it, he or she would have to pay back the deferred amount at that time. If it doesn't recover, the borrower would have to work out a deal with the servicer, likely a short sale, in which the bank forgives the difference between the sale price and the mortgage balance.

If the borrower stays in the home, he or she would have to pay the deferred amount within 30 days of the last payment, likely 30 or 40 years from now. Homeowners could take out a new mortgage to cover that balloon payment.

Setting industry standards
Officials hope that Fannie and Freddie's influence in the mortgage market will prompt servicers working with private investors to use this streamlined procedure in their own modifications. Often, investors defer to the mortgage finance agencies to set the methodology.

"I ask the private label mortgage-backed securities servicers and investors to rapidly adopt this program as the industry standard," said James Lockhart, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie. "Not only will this streamlined program assist borrowers, but broad acceptance and effective implementation could stabilize communities and property values."

By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: November 11, 2008: 8:48 PM ET

HOPE for Homeowners Program Information

WASHINGTON - The Bush Administration today unveiled additional mortgage assistance for homeowners at risk of foreclosure. The HOPE for Homeowners program will refinance mortgages for borrowers who are having difficulty making their payments, but can afford a new loan insured by HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

"For families struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments, this program will be another resource to refinance into a loan they can afford," said HUD Secretary Steve Preston. "FHA remains a safe and affordable alternative to the high-priced mortgage loans that threaten homeowners' ability to retain their homes. We strongly encourage borrowers to work with their lenders to determine if HOPE for Homeowners is the right program for them."

The HOPE for Homeowners program was authorized by the Economic and Housing Recovery Act of 2008. Since the President signed this vital legislation into law on July 30, 2008, the HOPE for Homeowners Board of Directors has worked diligently to develop and implement the program as directed by Congress. The Board was charged with establishing underwriting standards to ensure borrowers, after any write-down in principal, have a reasonable ability to repay their new FHA-insured mortgage.

The HOPE for Homeowners program begins today and ends September 30, 2011. The program is available only to owner occupants and will offer 30-year fixed rate mortgages - so the borrower's last payment will be the same as the first payment. In many cases, to avoid what would be an even costlier foreclosure, banks will have to write down the existing mortgage to 90 percent of the new appraised value of the home.

Borrower Eligibility
Borrowers are encouraged to contact their lender to determine eligibility, but may be eligible if, among other factors:

• The home is their primary residence, and they have no ownership interest in any other residential property, such as second homes.
• Their existing mortgage was originated on or before January 1, 2008, and they have made at least six payments.
• They are not able to pay their existing mortgage without help.
• As of March 2008, their total monthly mortgage payments due were more than 31 percent of their gross monthly income.
• They certify they have not been convicted of fraud in the past 10 years, intentionally defaulted on debts, and did not knowingly or willingly provide material false information to obtain their existing mortgage(s).

How the HOPE for Homeowners program works
"HOPE for Homeowners will add to HUD's existing efforts to make FHA refinancing available to homeowners who need it most," said FHA Commissioner Brian D. Montgomery. "One year ago, FHA expanded refinancing into its FHASecure program. Since that time, we have helped more than 360,000 families keep their homes by refinancing with FHA, and we will assist a total of 500,000 families by the end of this year."

The Board expects that the primary way homeowners will participate in the program is by working with their current lender. HOPE for Homeowners will serve as another loss mitigation tool available to distressed borrowers.

HOPE for Homeowners also includes the following provisions:

• The loan amount may not exceed a maximum of $550,440.
• The new mortgage will be no more than 90 percent of the new appraised value including any financed Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium.
• The Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium is 3 percent and the Annual Mortgage Insurance Premium is 1.5 percent.
• The holders of existing mortgage liens must waive all prepayment penalties and late payment fees.
• The existing first mortgage must accept the proceeds of the HOPE for Homeowners loan as full settlement of all outstanding indebtedness.
• Existing subordinate lenders must release their outstanding mortgage liens.
• Standard FHA policy regarding closing costs applies, and they may be:
  Financed into the new loan provided the value of the mortgage (including the Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium) does not exceed 90 percent of the new appraised value of the home.
  Paid from the borrowers' own assets.
  Paid by the servicing lender or third party (e.g., federal, state, or local program).
  Paid by the originating lender through premium pricing.
• The borrower must agree to share with FHA both the equity created at the beginning of this new mortgage and any future appreciation in the value of the home.
• The borrower cannot take out a second mortgage for the first five years of the loan, except under certain circumstances for emergency repairs.

The lender will disclose to the homeowner the benefits of the program including home retention, a new affordable mortgage based on the current appraised value, and 10 percent equity. The lender will also explain the prohibition against new junior liens against the property unless directly related to property maintenance, and a minimum of 50 percent equity and appreciation sharing with the Federal government.

The costs to the homeowner include the upfront and annual insurance premiums, as well as a share of the equity created by the write-down associated with the HOPE for Homeowners mortgage and any future appreciation in the value of the home. At settlement, subordinate lien holders will receive a certificate that evidences their interest as an obligation backed by HUD, with payment conditional on the value of HUD's appreciation share.

If the home is sold or refinanced, the homeowner will share the equity with FHA on a sliding scale ranging from a 100 percent FHA share after the first year to a minimum of 50 percent after five years. The lien holder that previously held the highest priority will receive payment up to a proportion of its original interest, not to exceed the amount of available appreciation. This type of delayed payoff will take place until all prior lien holders are satisfied or the amount of available appreciation is exhausted. All remaining appreciation is remitted to FHA.

The HOPE for Homeowners Board of Directors includes HUD Secretary Steve Preston, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. They have named the following people to serve on the board as their designees: FHA Commissioner and Chairman of the Board Brian Montgomery, Federal Reserve Board Governor Elizabeth Duke, Treasury Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Phillip Swagel, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Director Tom Curry.

Read more about HOPE for Homeowners at www.hud.gov/hopeforhomeowners.

NAR's 4-Point Plan to Boost Housing Market

Real Estate Market Outlook for 2009