Only a few days remain to post your comment on the proposed rule changes that could be the death knell for seller financing. You can post your here http://1.usa.gov/pF9Fv0. The comments I submitted can be found below:
The SAFE ACT intended to protect consumers from big businesses and I applaud these efforts whenever they accomplish what they set out to do. My concern is when unintended consequences arise and citizens, American property owners as well as future American property owners, can actually be harmed. I am requesting that private individuals be exempted from the proposed rules changes and submit the following comment.
1. The seller did not construct the home to which the financing is being applied.
2. The loan is fully amortizing (no balloon mortgages allowed).
3. The seller determines in good faith and documents the buyer has a reasonable ability to repay the loan.
4. The loan has a fixed rate or is adjustable after 5 or more years, subject to reasonable annual and lifetime caps.
5. The loan meets other criteria set by the Federal Reserve Board.
Under this Act the only buyers who will be able to use seller financing are the buyers who can already qualify for conventional financing with perhaps the exception of how much of a down payment they need.
Seller financing has always been the alternative to government regulated financing. It is a meeting of the minds between two private individuals who negotiate an arm’s length contract to purchase property using an installment sale.
Seller “financing” provides housing for millions who otherwise could not qualify for conventional loans. It additionally, provides an outlet for properties that do not qualify for conventional or even GSE programs such as older manufactured homes that provide entry level and retirement housing for many Americans.
Homeowners are neither bank officers nor mortgage lenders. By requiring them (many if not most of whom who take back a mortgage are older Americans) to qualify buyers using bank standards means they will simply refuse to sell with owner financing. Thus millions of people will be deprived of home ownership. This will have a near term negative impact on the current economy by reducing the number of sales which pay transfer taxes to our state and county governments and long reaching effects in terms of preserving property rights as well as one’s ability to freely buy and sell property. Even the Wall Street Reform Act saw fit to allow up to 3 seller-financed transactions per year without MLO requirements.Why should a buyer be required to divulge their income and assets to the very person with whom they are negotiating the terms of a sale? This is not required when there is a 3rd party lender. Requiring the buyer to turn over all their financial information to a stranger opens the door for identification theft and fraud. It also deprives American’s, both buyers and sellers, to use their free will to honestly come to a meeting of the minds and transact the purchase or sale of a property in a manner beneficial to the principals (not a 3rd party lender who may have no vested interest).
This also opens the door to an additional risk; predatory borrowing. This is where an unscrupulous buyer knowledgeable about the Dodd-Frank Act leads an uninformed seller (and this will be the majority of sellers) into negotiations not in compliance with the ability-to-repay requirements. That buyer lives in the property trying to resell it for a profit and if they are not successful within three years they rescind the sale and get all their money back. This will jeopardize the ability of many deserving people who may never qualify under bank standards (Federally mandated or not) to ever own their piece of the American dream because no one would accept that risk.
By not allowing a property owner to negotiate a balloon payment, there is a good chance that a seller 55 years or older will die before receiving all their equity. Many seniors have invested in real property with the intent of selling it using seller financing (an installment sale) in order to supplement their income in retirement, but also with the hope that they would not be stuck with a 30-year investment. The Dodd-Frank Act does the same thing insurance companies do that sell 30 year annuities to seniors. Our government has criticized this deplorable practice because seniors will die before they receive all their investment.
The restriction of no balloon doesn’t affect just seniors, it has financial consequences for anyone using seller financing. Under the Act community banks are allowed to originate fully amortizing loans with a five-year balloon. The rationale is that they hold these loans in their own portfolios and the government recognizes their need to hedge against inflation and rising interest rates. Yet, the Act does not recognize that private property owners who have 100% skin in the game need the same protection. If there has to be a restriction it should at the very least be the same allowance given to community banks of a balloon in 5 years.I have heard the suggestion that a seller financing the sale of his or her own property would completely avoid the issue of licensing by retaining the services of a licensed loan originator. If a mortgage loan originator (MLO) fails to properly follow the ability-to-repay guidelines the buyer still has three years in which to rescind the sale which leaves the seller at risk and will most likely bankrupt them. As I am sure you can see, the unintended consequences of these proposed rule changes, if accepted “as-is” without exempting individuals will negatively impact millions of American families.
This could be financially devastating to the seller. Let’s not forget that today’s buyer will be tomorrow’s seller. These sellers are a diverse group. They come from all walks of life: low income, high income, non-English speaking, seniors, widows, minorities, but this requirement places the same standards on individuals as banks and mortgage lenders, only with more risk – the banker is in the business of mortgage loan origination and factors that risk into his business plan, whereas the individual seller does not have capital reserves and doesn’t do this as a business. Also, unlike a bank, they do not carry errors and omission insurance.
My mother is 80 years old and owns two properties; a condominium and a co-op. Neither of these will qualify for bank financing in the current market. At some point she may need to sell and convert these properties into an income stream to provide for her long-term care unless she can find a cash buyer. A cash buyer will likely force her to accept a substantially lower price because she’ll have no other option available to her and she’ll be at risk that for up to 3 years, that a case of buyer’s remorse could reverse her sale. Is that in her best interest? Additionally, as her and many other seniors in a similar situation exhaust their reduced assets, the government will be forced to pick up the tab for her care, further exacerbating the federal debt or reducing the quality of life for America’s elderly.On behalf of my family and families across America I am asking that you clearly distinguish between banks who are lenders who actually lend money and property owners who are principals in negotiating an installment sale in order to collect their equity in the sale of a home. In a seller financed transaction both parties are consumers neither of whom need be disadvantaged by these proposed rules.
Please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected]
Your decisions will impact millions of American families. Thank you for your consideration.