PSA: Have you adjusted your strategy? re: FNMA reserve changes

PSA: Have you adjusted your strategy? re: FNMA reserve changes

Chris MasonPro Member
Moderator
Lender · CA · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 10k+ votes

A few months back, Fannie Mae announced that they would be changing how their Reserve requirements are calculated in the near future. I just had my first few come out of underwriting held to the new standard (I'd been qualifying folks under whichever of the two was more conservative while waiting), so now this is in effect and not a hypothetical future thing. 

For some of you, your finances and retirement accounts are so on point and conservative that getting a mortgage is a mere formality. None of the below will matter to you at all if your real estate holdings are on top of very healthy/hefty retirement accounts. For those of you that view your real estate holdings as your primary/only retirement vehicle, this is important.

Before: Reserve requirements were almost always 6 months of PITI reserves for each investment property to make Fannie happy. This meant that even if you had a cash flow positive property in 15 or 20 year fixed financing (according to your tax returns), it would still mean a greater reserve requirement, which meant saving longer for the [ down payment + cash to close + reserves ] on the next one, so mortgage guys/gals kind of nudged REI towards 30 year fixed, and there wasn't really any advantage (in terms of reserve requirements) to paying it off faster unless/until you were/did pay it all the way off. There are certainly other advantages to 30 year fixed, that I am sure will be restated below, but this particular advantage (minimizing reserve requirements for the next purchase) has gone away.

Now: 

  • Reserve requirements are based on a combination of the number of financed investment properties you own, and the total outstanding mortgage balances across them. 
  • Fannie Mae is now rewarding you for paying mortgages off, and/or paying them off faster, and is no longer penalizing you for using 15 or 20 year fixed financing. Indeed, because 15/20 year mortgages pay off faster, they will also in fact reduce your reserve requirements in many scenarios (again, assuming it is still cash flow positive according to your tax returns, and thus not messing with DTI).
  • This will potentially allow you to put your savings/earnings to work faster on the next property. 
  • Furthermore, now that the cost of homeowner's insurance isn't a factor in reserve requirements, you can get that super sexy insurance policy you might have wanted that covers more of the stupid things tenants might do ("I have an emotional support baboon..."), without it meaning you are forced to keep more money in a savings account (rather than working for you) just to make mortgage people happy. 
  • Again, I am sure someone will restate the other advantages of 30 year fixed financing. If at the end of the day you had weighed all the pros/cons and were still on the fence, this is something to think about.

Nitty gritty details.

1-4 financed properties. 2% of total outstanding investment property mortgage balances is your reserve requirement. 

5-6 financed properties. 4% of total outstanding investment property mortgage balances.

7-10. 6%.

Note that a paid off property now has no reserve requirement (before, we still had to hit you with taxes/insurance when determining reserve requirements). Nor does a mortgaged primary residence.

Overall, I tend to agree with this change. Freddie Mac hasn't changed anything, so if you're scenario means Freddie is more advantageous, great go with Freddie. 

6Reply
28 views

Most Popular Reply

Rental Property Investor · East Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2014 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
10y

Actualy providing useful information as an OP vs asking some redundant question for the 100th time gets no responses?

Thanks for researching all this and trying to inform the borrower's out there of  important and pretty exciting changes in reserve req's, Chris. 

2 thumbs up for you!

See this reply in the discussion

7 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Rental Property Investor · East Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2014 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    10y

    Actualy providing useful information as an OP vs asking some redundant question for the 100th time gets no responses?

    Thanks for researching all this and trying to inform the borrower's out there of  important and pretty exciting changes in reserve req's, Chris. 

    2 thumbs up for you!

  • Real Estate Investor · Tempe, AZ · Member since 2012 · 874 posts · 648 votes
    10y
    Not much to say, Steve Vaughan except THANKS Chris M. !!!
  • Real Estate Investor · Tempe, AZ · Member since 2012 · 874 posts · 648 votes
    10y
    Ok, I thought of something..... For those of us using retirement accounts as reserves, do we still only get to count 50% of the retirement account balances if we are not yet retirement-aged? Thanks.
  • Paul DefnginPro Member
    Lender · Rockville, MD · Member since 2008 · 498 posts · 199 votes
    10y
    Chris M. - awesome info. Going a bit furthermore, the calculation on the "aggregate unpaid principal balance (UPB) calculation does not include the mortgages and HELOCs that are on the subject property, the borrower’s principal residence, properties that are sold or pending sale, and accounts that will be paid by closing"... ~​Fannie: B3-4.1-01: Minimum Reserve Requirements (03/29/2016)
  • Chris MasonPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Lender · CA · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Dan Schwartz:

    Ok, I thought of something..... For those of us using retirement accounts as reserves, do we still only get to count 50% of the retirement account balances if we are not yet retirement-aged? Thanks.

     It's actually 60% of balance (or vested balance, if applicable), and has been for some time, but yes.

    Semi-liquid things, like mutual funds or stocks that you could liquidate tomorrow with minimal fuss if you so desired, get counted at 70% of value.

  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    10y

    I didn't know that stocks and mutual funds were not counter at 100%. Learn something new every day even though I've been in this business quite a long time.

  • Chris MasonPro Member
    Moderator
    OP
    Lender · CA · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:

    I didn't know that stocks and mutual funds were not counter at 100%. Learn something new every day even though I've been in this business quite a long time.

    It very rarely is an issue because you can just liquidate it, put it in a checking account for an underwriter to look at and check a stupid box, then put it right back into stocks and mutual funds 5 seconds after closing.

    EDIT: This tells you how rare it is and how infrequently it comes up. I just double checked and see that as of a year ago, they are apparently counted at 100% of value. Probably because what was described in the previous sentence is a completely pointless and stupid thing to have to do (and it's been a while since I've had to tell someone to do it). https://www.fanniemae.com/content/guide/selling/b3...

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.