by Calculated Risk on 2/02/2007 03:56:00 PM

From the Boston Globe: Subprime borrowers facing tougher qualifications for mortgages

"It's tightening up a lot," said Eddie Carmona, branch manager at Homewood Mortgage in Carrollton, Texas, a mortgage broker that handles subprime borrowers.

Carmona said down payment requirements are the biggest change he's seen.

"Before, you didn't have to bring a down payment," Carmona said.

Other changes:

Higher credit scores. Previously, borrowers with a FICO credit score as low as 570 (out of 850) could qualify for a single loan financing 100 percent of their home purchase, Carmona said.

"Now, across the board, it's jumped up to a 600 FICO score for an 80/20 loan," Carmona said, in which a second loan has to be taken out to finance the remaining 20 percent of the home value.

Rising interest rates. Rates on subprime mortgages have risen about a full percentage point since September, Carmona said, while regular mortgage rates have been relatively steady.

More stringent savings requirements. "They want to see borrowers have at least three months of reserves in their account in case of an emergency," Carmona said.

And from the AP: California lawmakers question risky mortgage lending practices

California lawmakers on Wednesday began considering restrictions on unorthodox mortgage-lending practices that have allowed hundreds of thousands of Californians to buy homes they otherwise could not afford.

About half of all new home loans in California are something other than the traditional 30-year fixed loan. They use features such as no money down and variable interest rates, while giving borrowers creative monthly payment options - such as paying only the interest or even less than that.

Such low introductory payments - or teaser rates - are offered in exchange for higher bills that will kick in years later, sometimes tripling or quadrupling monthly payments. Regulators said many of those riskier loans were taken out in 2004 and 2005 and will start resetting to higher rates this year.

"The exposure to these sorts of products, the growth, is unprecedented," Raphael Bostic, an associate professor at the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development, told a Senate committee. "The regulatory oversight of these types of practices is relatively lax."

I've been watching for California on the CSBS site, and it sounds like California will adopt the Guidance soon.

For some lively discussion of the tighter standards, try the BrokerOutpost. First a complaint from a broker:

Had my a.e. prequal a file...80/20 719 stated at FIELDSTONE...underwriter approved file, was called conditions on its way...2 days pass, where are conditions...only to find out, file went to 2nd underwriter for 2nd signature who declined it for PAYMENT shock...

call my A.E. in shock, we went overguidlines together...guidelines state if payment shock is over 200 then MUST have 3 mnths sourced and seasoned reserves (my client had 6 months)

And the response from an apparent company representative:

Our guidelines do read that payment shock in excess of 200% require 3 months PITI sourced and seasoned. My guess is that there were other issues with the file and an extreme payment shock created multiple layers of risk. Remember, guidelines are exactly that-a guide. If an underwriter doesn't feel comfortable with something in the file, they go to another U/W or Branch manager for a second opinion. With defaults and fraud on the rise, who can blame a person for wanting a second opinion when they don't feel comfortable. I would talk to your AE and ask what the real problem with the file was....chances are there was something else. As far as your AE's files being declined, yes our programs have changed, so have everyone elses. If AE's don't study up on new products, their files will be declined because of changing guidelines....maybe your file was one of them.

The "programs have changed, so have everyone[s]".