By DON THOMPSON;  SACRAMENTO, Calif.; The Associated Press

The federal government's main regulator of home loans is objecting to mortgage-related bills in California and says they could end up increasing lending costs and harming the housing market.

Lenders say the legislation goes well beyond the terms of the $25 billion settlement announced in February between the nation's largest banks and more than 40 states over foreclosure abuses. They picked up a powerful ally in the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled companies that own about 60 percent of California's mortgages.

The agency's general counsel, Alfred Pollard, said in a letter to California lawmakers that some of the bills, if signed into law, would encourage borrowers to sue lenders.

"Increasing legal risks for lenders and investors — where existing remedies exist and where new language creates incentives for litigation — ultimately creates harm for all homeowners," he wrote.

He particularly objected to a bill intended to address "robo-signing," a practice that was targeted in the national bank settlement. It's when banks approve foreclosures without properly reviewing the documentation.

Pollard said the wording is so vague that the legislation could end up penalizing lenders even for unintentional errors or omissions. In turn, that would encourage lawsuits as part of a strategy to stall legitimate foreclosures and result in penalties and attorneys' fees that would add costs for lenders, he said.

Pollard also objected to a bill seeking to protect tenants from being forced out of their rental homes by foreclosures.

He said the Federal Housing Finance Agency is concerned that the legislation could encourage abuse of the foreclosure process by letting property owners rent distressed properties to friends and family members. That would allow them to take advantage of the bill's restrictions on evicting tenants and foreclosing on the property.

Pollard's comments are in a five-page letter to lawmakers dated Friday and obtained by The Associated Press this week. The bills were proposed by state Attorney General Kamala Harris, who helped secure $18 billion for California in the bank settlement and are awaiting action in a conference committee.

Lenders are objecting to the bills in part because they would make permanent in state law provisions of the nationwide settlement that were intended to address temporary concerns about the lending process. Harris' spokesman, Shum Preston, defended her package of mortgage-related bills.

"The legislation is being carefully crafted to provide these homeowner protections while discouraging frivolous litigation and its associated costs," he said.

The federal housing agency and Harris have sparred repeatedly since she took office in 2011.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not included in the nationwide mortgage settlement, and Harris is investigating their role in 12,000 foreclosed properties in which they acted as landlords. She also is investigating their involvement in selling or marketing mortgage-backed securities.

The conference committee's co-chairwoman, Sen. Noreen Evans, told reporters Tuesday that committee members are debating who should be allowed to file lawsuits to challenge foreclosures and under what circumstances. But the Santa Rosa Democrat said she wants the legislation to include strong penalties to prevent robo-signing.

Lawmakers said the committee intends to work with the lending industry on how best to enforce the requirements.

Before the mortgage meltdown, the role of the underwriter was to assess the risk of the loan.  They had well-defined guidelines to follow, but they still had latitude to use their judgment if there were reasons to support their decision – often referred to as "compensating factors".  For example, if the borrower was paying a larger percentage of their monthly income toward their monthly obligations than the guidelines specified, an underwriter could make a favorable decision to grant the loan if the borrower had a history of having substantial balances in their accounts.  The theory was that if the borrower felt squeezed with some unexpected expenses in some months, they could handle it because they had savings as backup.

In those days, underwriting was both science and art – a mixture of adherence to written guidelines and using judgment as to when it would be prudent and acceptable to stray from the guidelines and accept a reasonable risk.  Of course, the property is always the security for the loan, so that if there was a problem on the loan that resulted in default, the lender could take the home through foreclosure and sell it to recover the amount owing on the loan.

One statistic that I have seen is that in 1990, the average equity in a home was 45% (meaning the loan was 55% of the value).  Now, the average equity in a home is 7%, with the loans representing 93% of the value.  Part of this was because the lending industry was encouraged and allowed to make loans that allowed for much smaller down payments.  When I started my loan career in 1977, conventional loans required 20% down payments.  There were very few loans that allowed for 5% or 10% cash down at that time.  And part of the reduction in equity was because property values have dropped.

Just prior to the mortgage meltdown, loans totaling 100% of the purchase price were very common.  Borrowers could receive a first loan of 80% of the value and combine it with a second loan of 20%.  No down payment was required, and in many cases the requirement to verify income and assets were minimal or non-existent.  

All of this helped create the housing bubble that eventually burst.  Prices were inflated as a result of more and more "qualified" buyers competing for the available homes.  And now we are all living in the reality that values are lower, short sales and foreclosures area huge part of the real estate market and underwriters no longer feel that they have any room to make a mistake on a loan decision.

Since most of the loans that we create are being sold to FHLMC (Freddie Mac) and FNMA (Fannie Mae), the loan request has to be approved through an automated underwriting system (AUS) that is programmed with their particular guidelines.  Obviously, we have to do an excellent job of making sure that the data that we input is accurate or else the AUS decision is unreliable and will need to be regenerated with the correct data.

The underwriter's role is no longer to assess the risk of the file and to use their judgment.  They now have to follow the AUS findings and make sure that all the paperwork that is stipulated is in order and that there are no loose ends that could raise questions.  In a real sense, the underwriter is now more of an auditor.  For example, that is why we see conditions that require all numbered pages of bank statements, even if several of them are boilerplate or blank.  Even though those pages add nothing to the file, the concern is that if they are not produced something is being withheld or hidden from the underwriter that could otherwise affect the quality of the file.

Bottom line:  Be prepared for a lot of paperwork and inquiry into seemingly inconsequential details.  The requests are not necessarily addressing any potential risk that the loan presents, but are a result of a very thorough checklist that must be completed in its entirety before the loan will be finalized.

Some of the key provisions of HARP 2.0 include:

• Only loans owned by FHLMC and FNMA are eligible.  You can research if your loan is owned by FNMA at http://www.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/ and with FHLMC at https://ww3.freddiemac.com/corporate/
• Your loan must have been purchased by FHLMC or FNMA by May 31, 2009.  This is not the date that you applied for the loan, nor the date that you were approved, nor the date that your loan transaction was recorded with the county recorder.  It is the date that the closed loan finally became part of FHLMC's and FNMA's holding, which could typically have been 30-90 days after the transaction was finalized.
• You must be current on your loan payments, with no 30-day late payment in the last 6 months and no more than one 30-day late payment in the last 12 months.
• There is no stipulated limit to the loan-to-value ratio in the HARP 2.0 guidelines, but each investor and lender may choose to be more conservative in their offerings to the public.

Here are some frequently asked questions that may be helpful:

Will the Home Affordable Refinance Program help avoid foreclosure?    No. The Home Affordable Refinance Program is not designed to delay, or stop, foreclosures. It's meant to give homeowners who are current on their mortgages, and who have lost home equity, a chance to refinance at today's low mortgage rates.

The borrower is really far underwater on his/her mortgage. Can they still use HARP?  Yes, they can. There is no loan‐to‐value restriction under the HARP mortgage program and the LTV can be as high as possible as long as the loan is eligible with the rest of the program criteria. Investor overlays will apply.  (Just so you understand why the lenders may be more conservative:  if they create a loan that is 125% of the value of the property, and they are not able to sell that loan to FHLMC or FNMA because of they misinterpreted a guideline or the paperwork was not completely in order, the lender must retain that high-risk loan in their portfolio – no company will want to buy it from them.  The lenders do not want to be in that position.)

If the loan refinances with HARP using an ARM, do they still get "unlimited LTV"?  No, if the loan is an ARM, the LTV is limited to 105% loan‐to‐value. Only fixed rate loans that are <=30 year terms get the unlimited LTV treatment.

Is an appraisal required with the HARP mortgage program?  Although the home's value doesn't matter for the HARP mortgage program, an "automated valuation model" (AVM) on the home will be run in the AUS (automated underwriting system). If the value meets reliability standards, no physical appraisal will be required.

Does the borrower have to refinance the HARP loan with their current mortgage lender/servicer?  No, the borrower can do a HARP refinance with any participating mortgage lender.

When the borrower purchased the home, they put down 20%. Their home is now underwater. If they refinance with HARP, will they have to pay mortgage insurance on the new loan?   No, if there was no mortgage insurance on the original loan, then it’s not required on the new
loan regardless of the LTV.

The borrower pays PMI now. Will the PMI payments go up with a new HARP refinance?  No, the private mortgage insurance payments will not increase. However, the "transfer" of the mortgage insurance policy may require an extra step. The coverage and premium should stay the same.
(Note: United Guaranty, a prominent mortgage insurance company, may not be participating in the HARP program.)

What's the maximum loan amount for a HARP refinance?  HARP refinances are limited to conforming loan limits including High Balance limits.

Can the borrower do a cash‐out refinances with HARP?  No, the HARP mortgage program doesn't allow cash out refinance. Only rate‐and‐term refinances are allowable.

Can a second/vacation home refinance with HARP?  Yes, second/vacation property are eligible with HARP, even if the home was once a primary residence. The loan must meet typical program eligibility standards.

Can a borrower refinance an investment/rental property with HARP?  Yes, he/she can refinance an investment/rental property with HARP, even if the home was once a primary residence. The loan must meet typical program eligibility standards.

The borrower’s old home is rented out. Is it HARP‐eligible even though it's an investment property now?   Yes, the loan can refinance as a HARP Refinance program for former primary residence ‐‐ even if there's a renter there now.

Are condominiums eligible for HARP refinancing?  Yes, condominiums can be financed on the HARP refinance program. There’s no additional project review required. However, we must represent and warrant that the property is not a condotel, coop hotel or motel or timeshares.

Can mortgages be consolidated with a HARP refinance?  No, they cannot be consolidated with the HARP refinance program. It's for first liens only. All subordinate/junior liens must be re‐subordinated to the new first mortgage.

Can closing costs be paid with a HARP refinance?   Yes, mortgage balances can be increased to cover closing costs in addition to other monies due at closing such as escrow reserves, accrued daily interest, and a small amount of cash. In no cases may loan sizes exceed the local conforming loan limits.

When does the HARP program end?  All Harp loans must fund by December 31, 2013, which is the extended date and when the program expires.

I would encourage you to get in touch with me to explore your options.  Let me assist you in researching if your loan is owned by FHLMC and FNMA; sometimes the data input at their websites is tricky.  Be prepared for twists and turns in the process.  Not only are we dealing with FHLMC and FNMA guidelines, but each of the investors and lenders have their own interpretation of how to implement the program, so we have multiple layers of guidelines to satisfy. 

Many borrowers feel that there is no urgency to take action right now because of the forecast of a prolonged low-interest rate environment.  But, behind the scenes, increases in fees to obtain a loan are being implemented and that is being masked by the focus on low interest rates.

Let's take a look at some of the fee increases that are occurring and that are being proposed for the future that will affect the cost of borrowing.

FNMA and FHLMC:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the largest purchasers of conventional mortgages.  Since the mortgage meltdown and the evaporation of investors in the private sector, approximately 75% of the mortgages created are purchased by these two government sponsored enterprises.

The new loans that are being originated and purchased by them now should be of the highest quality, but FNMA and FHLMC are still trying to recover from huge portfolio losses from the large number of loans that went delinquent or into foreclosure in the last five years.

One of the ways that FNMA and FHLMC can generate revenue is through delivery fees that they charge lenders for the loans they purchase.  The fees are factored into the interest rate and fee structure that is quoted to the borrower.  So the consumer will end up paying higher interest rates or higher fees to cover these charges, and because it is not disclosed as a line item, most borrowers would think that the market made an upward move, and not realize that the increase was a result of a government imposed fee.

There is already a delivery fee increase scheduled for April 1, but it was not designed to recover for previous losses.  An increase of 1/10th of one percent is being imposed to pay for the payroll tax cut deal that was negotiated by Congress in December.  That level of increase is just the beginning.  The enabling legislation allows for that fee to further increase as is necessary to pay for the tax cut.  We are expecting that the delivery fee may rise to as much as 1/2 of one percent in the not-too-distant future.

The curious part of all of this is that there was a lot of sentiment in Washington to have the government disengage from FNMA and FHLMC because they no longer want to have the taxpayers backstop the losses that have been accumulating.  But, in direct opposition to that stated goal is the fact that they are using the two agencies as a revenue source to pay for other obligations of the government.  It is difficult to understand how they want to rely on FNMA and FHLMC as revenue sources at the same time they want to eliminate government involvement in those agencies.

Stay tuned on this one, because it looks like the government may not be able to have it both ways and may be involved with FNMA and FHLMC for a long period of time.

FHA

FHA is also scheduled for some fee increases in the beginning of April.  FHA has become the last refuge for borrowers whose credit, cash, or qualifying ratios don't meet the conventional loan underwriting guidelines.

Their programs allow for borrowers to purchase a home with as little as 3.5% cash down payment, and with credit scores that do not meet the threshold stipulated for conventional loans.  These loans present higher risks for the lenders because of those factors and protection for that risk is covered by an insurance fund specifically for FHA loans.

There are two components for the insurance fund.  One is a fee paid at closing called an up-front mortgage insurance premium (UFMIP).  The second portion is a periodic fee that is called Monthly Mortgage Insurance (MMI).  It is based on a calculation for the year and is collected on a monthly basis. 

Currently the UFMIP is set at 1.0% of the loan amount and can be financed in addition to the base loan amount.  This helps the borrower from having to pay extra cash at closing for this mortgage insurance premium.  Effective with FHA cases that begin after April 9, 2012 that fee is going to increase to 1.75% of the loan amount and can still be financed.  Based on today's rates, that would increase the monthly payment by about $7.00 per month to finance the fee increase of $1500.00 on a loan amount of $200,000.

Currently MMI is 1.15% of the loan amount per year.  This is going to increase to 1.25%.  Using the same $200,000 loan amount example, it would increase the monthly payments by almost $17.00 per month.  The monthly payment increase of almost $24.00 combined will not disqualify many borrowers from obtaining their new FHA loan.  But it still represents higher monthly outgo for the borrower and an increase in the amount they owe on their new loans.

Bottom line:  Call me to discuss taking action before the fee increases are fully implemented.  Time is money!

When lenders create loans for sale to FNMA (and FHLMC), they are required to underwrite the loans to specific guidelines that are specified by both of those agencies.  When FNMA purchases these loans, they do not have the capacity to audit each file to make sure that they are up to the specified standards, so they require the lenders to make certain representations and warranties to FNMA that the files adhere to the requirements.  FNMA will do audits of a sampling of the loans that they buy, and part of the agreement when lenders sell the loans is that they agree to repurchase the loans from FNMA if the files do not meet the standards.

In addition to the audits done on a small percentage of the loans they purchase, FNMA will also comb through a file if the loan starts to go delinquent.  In that case, since FNMA wants to minimize losses, they will often go back to the lender and trigger the repurchase clause if all of the paperwork in the file is not perfect.  The lender in that case has to buy back the loan, maybe generating a loss in the transaction, and then deal with the delinquent borrower to get the loan back on track if possible.  What Bank of America was experiencing was that FNMA was no longer providing a predictable pattern of when they were going to ask for Bank of America to repurchase the loan.  Bank of America decided that they could not adequately plan for the potential volume of demands from FNMA to repurchase loans and the potential losses that would entail and decided to not sell loans to FNMA any longer.

So, what does all this mean to you as a potential borrower?  Lenders try to limit their exposure to having to repurchase loans, and that is the major reason that the loans require so much paperwork and that there are so many questions to be answered for the loan file.

You have all heard how stringent the underwriting of loans has been, many times beyond what is considered reasonable.  Underwriting used to be an assessment of risk by the lender, but it has developed more into an auditing function.  The underwriter is now responsible for making sure that not only is the loan within the acceptable levels of risk, but also that all of the paperwork in the file is perfect.  This has generated continual requests for paperwork to answer any questions in the file.  Whether it is tracking down the reasons for income on pay statements that is not just wages and salary, or why the borrower is showing deductible job-related expenses on their tax returns, or the source of recent large deposits into their checking accounts or any number of other requests, the underwriter will chase down all loose ends in the file.  Also, the standard paperwork of the loan application, disclosures, final loan documents all need to be signed and dated properly so that there are no discrepancies in the file. 

All of this is done so that there is the utmost confidence on the part of the lender that the file will withstand any scrutiny by FNMA and they will have no reason to invoke the repurchase clause to the lender.  The vast majority of loans that are sold to FNMA go to them without being audited.  When a loan starts having problems, FNMA will look for reasons to move the loan back to the lender.  The lender is doing everything they can to make that loan bullet-proof and you as the borrower need to comply if you want the benefits of the new loan.

Some homeowners will get some relief through this settlement but most will not.  The agreement only affects borrowers whose loans are owned and serviced by those five banks.  According to one statistical source, about 62% of California home loans are owned by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who are exempt from this settlement.  There is no relief for those borrowers at this time any maybe not at all.  Also, if the loan is an FHA or VA, it is not eligible, and if the borrower has been in foreclosure or bankruptcy in the last two years, they cannot refinance either.

The funds are designated for borrowers to accomplish paydowns of principal balances on existing loans that are higher than current property values, to help refinance borrowers to lower interest rates who are current on their loans but are underwater on their equity position, and to provide some measure of restitution on properties foreclosed on between 2008 and the end of 2011.

It is unfortunate that so many homeowners bought when property values were near the peaks and have suffered the loss of home value and ultimately lost the homes through foreclosures.  In most cases this situation came about when the borrower put little or no down payment on the home purchase, and the loan balances quickly exceeded the reduced home values.  This provided little incentive for a borrower to do what was necessary to make payments on the loan, retain the home ownership and not let the property go into foreclosure. 

There are certainly some winners and losers in this plan.  Winners would include the lucky homeowners who can receive some relief from this plan (almost like winning a lottery prize).  Politicians can claim that they took on the evil banks and won.  And I guess we can claim that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (and ultimately the taxpayers) were winners by being exempt from this plan.

Losers will include all the rest of the borrowers who will not get mortgage relief, or beneficial refinances, or cash payments provided to them because they put larger down payments on their property purchases, or fought harder to make their mortgage payments because they wanted to preserve their home for their family.    The big banks are losers also, because they became the most visible remaining entities for the mortgage mess, and their reputations are damaged at this point.

It will be great when we can put this whole era of the "mortgage meltdown" behind us; when we can have all the foreclosed properties work their way through the market and values can start increasing again; when those increased values will eliminate the short sale situations that are prevalent now.  At that point we may have a chance to begin to get the government out of the lending environment and let the free market (which does not exist at the present time) begin to take a foothold again.

It would be so much healthier when the banks can create loans for their own portfolios, or if they do want to sell them in the secondary market to other banks or investors, that the structure is in place to make sure that the loan quality is what the investor expects.  A healthy market like that could keep the ponderous government regulations from being an anchor on the business of creating quality loans for credit-worthy borrowers.

The mortgage market did work for a long time.  We need to get back to that point and make the process so transparent that all the parties – and that means the investors, the banks, the brokers and the borrowers – have a big incentive to do the right thing.

The policy comes amid mixed signals in the economy.  On the one hand, there are indications that the economy is improving although at a very slow pace.  Typically, there is less manipulation of interest rates when the economy improves.  On the other hand, since the growth in the economy and in the housing sector is not very robust, and since inflation is considered to be at a very low rate right now, keeping interest rates low is designed to be a stimulative tool.  There is a risk that inflation could increase as a result.

Another factor that could contribute to inflation is the Fed policy of QE (quantitative easing), another term for infusing money into the economy.  We have already seen QE and QE2, with indications that QE3 is on the horizon, with the exact timing of the infusion still unknown.

The risk to the economy is that the government may be creating an artificial bubble by its control of interest rates and money supply.  When the free market is allowed to enter into the equation again, we may find that rates increase rapidly and the cost of borrowing to individuals, companies and even the government may be significantly higher.

Think of the consequences for a borrower who has borrowed short-term (or has an adjustable rate loan with periodic rate reviews) and has been enjoying low interest rates.  When the time comes for the loan to be renegotiated or adjusted and rates are higher, the borrower will be facing higher payments than they have been accustomed to.  This situation may create a severe hardship for the borrower to meet their new, higher obligations.  The solution for a borrower is to lock in the low interest rates for the long term, such as the 30-year fixed programs.  This allows them to enjoy the benefits of low interest rates and they will not have to face the uncertainty of what rates may be in the future.

Companies and the US Government do not have the luxury of locking in interest rates for long periods of time.  There was a time when borrowing long-term was considered the prudent thing to do for all the reasons stated above.  In the last 20 years or so, the immediate gratification of lower interest rates was considered more appealing than the certainty that came from longer term borrowing.   The result has been that government borrowing is predominantly in the short-term category and when rates start to move upward, there will be significant increases in the cost of borrowing.

For you as a borrower, now is the time to pay close attention to interest rates and to see if you can qualify for these low, long-term rates.  If there are issues preventing you from qualifying right now, let's work together to develop a game plan to help you take advantage of the savings while the Fed is committed to keeping rates low.

One of the key items of all new tax cuts (or extensions of existing tax cuts) is that they are supposed to be "paid for".  Meaning if the revenue eliminated from the tax cuts is no longer available, then the money needs to come from some other source.

In this case, the source of the funds is coming by way of Freddie Mac (FHLMC) and Fannie Mae (FNMA).  The announcement included the following:    “On Dec. 23, 2011, President Obama signed into law the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011. Among its provisions, this new law directs the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to increase guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) by no less than 10 basis points from the average guarantee fees charged by these companies in 2011 on single-family mortgage-backed securities.

This requirement is effective immediately, meaning that the average guarantee fees charged in 2012 need be at least 10 basis points greater than the average guarantee fees charged in 2011 and that this increase be remitted to the U.S. Treasury, rather than retained as reserves by the Enterprises. The law also requires FHFA to determine a schedule for guarantee fee increases over a two-year period that must satisfy other requirements of the law.

To begin implementation of these requirements, President Obama directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to announce before year-end to their seller-servicers that, effective April 1, 2012, the guarantee fee on all single-family residential mortgages shall increase by 10 basis points.

In early 2012, FHFA will further analyze whether additional guarantee fee increases are appropriate to ensure the new requirements are being met. FHFA will announce plans for further guarantee fee increases or other fee adjustments that will then be implemented gradually over the two-year implementation window, taking into consideration risk levels and conditions in financial markets. FHFA will monitor closely the increased guarantee fees imposed as a result of the new law throughout its effective period, which ends Oct. 1, 2021.”

What this means to you as a borrower is that despite any changes in the interest rates that are determined by market forces, you can expect the cost of borrowing to increase by at least 1/10th of one percent in fees.  That may not sound like a lot of money, but on a loan of $250,000 the increase cost will be $250 which is merely a distribution from borrowers to wage-earners who are receiving the benefit of the payroll tax holiday..  And the fee will most likely increase, since it is very rare for the cost of anything that the politicians approve to not be much higher than the original published estimate.

So, if you start hearing of higher interest rate and fee quotes in the near future, it may not be because the market is making a move upward.  It may only be because the politicians have identified a resource to use in the shell game of taxes, fees and cuts. 

After there were so many losses from the mortgage meltdown that the taxpayers had to step in and cover, there was a lot of discussion and apparent commitment to reduce the government's role in FHLMC and FNMA.  It does not look like there is any plan to disengage from government participation in FHLMC and FNMA if they are using the Government Sponsored Enterprises as a funding source for other shortfalls in the system of revenue collection.  It would have been nice to have more transparency in the process and not make costs to borrowers higher in order to help some other constituency.

All in all, 2011 was a good year.   I had some major accomplishments including the publication of my book – Home Sweet Home Loan, Essential Concepts For Winning The Mortgage Game – and my recent appearance on KWSD Fox 5 San Diego.  I was also able to help many borrowers with successful transactions and by sharing my knowledge to help them move forward in reaching their goals.

I want to extend my reach even farther in 2012.  I have a goal of helping 1000 borrowers during the year, and I would like to ask for your help to make that happen.

First of all, I define helping borrowers as sharing my knowledge and experience with them to help move them in a positive direction toward their goals.  Zig Ziglar, the noted motivational speaker, has said that "you can get everything you want in life, if you help enough other people get what they want".  I know that if I have enough meaningful conversations with prospective borrowers and give freely of myself, that a certain number will choose to work with me and become clients. 

To reach my goal, I need reach about 3 new people a day.  This could come from live conversations, new subscribers to this newsletter, or from people who obtain my book.  I will be attempting to have more media appearances and I am reaching out to others on my mailing list to ask for their enthusiastic referral of their acquaintances to me.

What I would like you to do is make an entry in your phone for "Mortgage-Doug Brennecke" with my cell phone number of 619-846-4322 and e-mail of dbrennecke@roadrunner.com.  When you encounter a friend, client, or acquaintance that is commenting on needing a new home loan, or is talking about a less-than-great experience that they are having with a current transaction, please provide my name and contact information to them and encourage them to give me a call.

You know me and how I work with my clients.  My goal is always to listen to my clients, educate them, and tell them the truth.  I will do my best to assist your referred contacts with the information that they need at the time to help them move from Point A to Point B.

I don't know at this point if I will be able to reach my goal.  But I do know that I can't do it by myself, so I want to thank you in advance for your help in moving me in the right direction.  I also know that if I want to reach 1000 prospective borrowers and fall short, I will still have reached many more than if I had not set the goal in the beginning.

I hope that you have big goals in 2012 as well.  Please let me know how I can assist you in achieving those.

I look forward to the challenge, the adventure of talking with so many new people and having 2012 be a significant year with your participation.

Here's to a great New Year!  Cheers!

It was my first time to be interviewed on television, and I had some nervous anticipation as I tried to prepare for any questions that would come my way.

What I found interesting was that some of the questions were a bit surprising to me, but they really should not have been.  It was a reminder that it is easy to spend each day answering e-mails and phone calls, reviewing lender guidelines, and working toward developing new business.  Sometimes, what gets lost in the day is learning more about what is important to the general public, and what is on their minds about the mortgage industry.

Erica Fox's questions gave me a renewed glimpse as to what consumers may be thinking about if they are not actively seeking a loan at the present time.

Here is the link for the video:  http://www.fox5sandiego.com/videogallery/66767197/Business/Do's-and-Don'ts-of-Mortgages

My goal in providing The Brennecke Report is to educate you as prospective borrowers about the changes in the mortgage environment and to prepare you for when you are ready to take action.  I will continue to do my best to address timely topics that I think may be of interest to you and I would like to request that you give me some ideas of what you would like more information about.   

So, please comment on this post with topics that you would like me to address, or if you prefer, please send me an e-mail at ideas@dougbrennecke.com with your suggestions.

Thank you for your interest in The Brennecke Report, and I hope that each of you has a blessed holiday season.