(4) The amount of the loan ount equal to the sum of the balance of the loan being refinanced; the purchase price, not to exceed the reasonable value of the lot; the costs of the necessary site preparation of the lot as determined by the Secretary; a reasonable discount as authorized in § (d)(6) with respect to that portion of the loan used to refinance the existing purchase money lien on the manufactured home, and closing costs as authorized in § .
(5) If the loan being refinanced was guaranteed by VA, the portion of the loan made for the purpose of refinancing an existing purchase money manufactured home loan may be, guaranteed without regard to the outstanding guaranty entitlement available for use by the veteran, and the veteran’s guaranty entitlement shall not be charged as a result of any guaranty provided for the refinancing portion of the loan. For the purposes enumerated in 38 U.S.C. 3702(b), the refinancing portion of the loan shall be considered to have been obtained with the guaranty entitlement used to obtain VA-guaranteed loan being refinanced. The total guaranty for the new loan shall be the sum of the guaranty entitlement used to obtain VA-guaranteed loan being refinanced and any additional guaranty entitlement available to the veteran. However, the total guaranty ount as calculated under § (a); and
(h) Any refinancing loan that might be guaranteed under this section, when Start Printed Page 64470 made or purchased by any financial institution subject to examination and supervision by any agency of the United States or of any State may, in lieu of such guaranty, be insured by the Secretary under an agreement whereby the Secretary will reimburse any such institution for losses incurred on such loan up to 15 percent of the aggregate of loans so made or purchased by it.
1. See VBA Lender Loan Volume Reports, “FY 2017,” VA first eliminated those whose total VA loan volume for FY2017 was greater than $38.5 million (425 lenders). Of those remaining, VA removed any lenders who were part of a depository institution (i.e., a bank) as they would not fall within SBA’s definition of a small business for NAICS code 522292, which specifically applies to non-depository credit. See 13 CFR . Of those remaining, VA consulted financial information provided by lenders to VA in 2017 for purposes of qualifying for automatic closing authority. If no annual financial data was available, VA assumed the lender was a small business. Of all VA lenders, data showed 324 lenders (22%) met the small business definition. For lenders who made VA cash-out loans in FY2017, 238 (19.8%) met the small business definition.
Relevant information about this document from provides additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.
VA’s current regulation concerning cash-out refinance loans is found at 38 CFR . VA is revising § in this rulemaking, and planning additional rulemakings to implement other provisions of the Act.
Fiscal year (FY) 2017 data shows that 1,467 lenders participated in VA loans in FY2017
VA is revising its cash-out refinance rule at 38 CFR to address the new statutory bifurcation. The rule will outline the common characteristics required for the guaranty or insurance of Type I and Type II Cash-Outs. It will also set apart each type of cash-out refinancing to address their unique aspects. VA is further making some technical changes for ease of reading. All the changes are explained in-depth, later in this preamble. VA is not addressing section 3709’s impact on IRRRLs, but plans to do so in a separate rulemaking.
One rationale for departing from the generally accepted principle is when courts must reconcile the understanding between two mutually exclusive concepts. Id. The rationale applies here. The statutory use of the term “and” cannot apply as it generally would, because two of section 309(b)’s criteria are mutually exclusive. Of the four paragraphs in subsection (b), there is one that can apply in every case and two that cannot apply simultaneously. The fourth is dependent. Paragraph (1) provides that refinances of already-guaranteed loans cannot be guaranteed by VA unless “the issuer of the . . . loan provides the borrower with a net tangible benefit test . . .” This paragraph is broad enough to apply in the case of all covered loans. Paragraph (2) describes a case where the underlying loan and the refinancing loan both have a fixed interest rate. Paragraph (3) defines a case where the underlying loan has a fixed interest rate and the refinancing loan will have an adjustable interest rate. It follows that paragraph (2) can never apply in the case of a loan described in paragraph (3), and vice versa. They are mutually exclusive, which indicates that the “and” between paragraph (3) and (4) cannot mean that a single refinancing loan must meet all of subsection (b)’s requirements. Start Printed Page 64461
Before moving to the next point, it should be noted, as well, that linking paragraph (4) to both paragraphs (2) and (3) is a restrictive approach. It would result in VA establishing a larger regulatory footprint than if VA were to link paragraph (4) only to paragraph (3). VA is reluctant to take the more restrictive interpretation for this aspect of the rule. VA does not have data, at least at the moment, to demonstrate how linking the additional try the web-site restrictions of paragraph (4) to paragraph (2) would provide veterans additional advantages. VA also cannot point to data showing a clear market-based reason to impose the larger regulatory footprint. VA does not have other evidence that the more restrictive approach reflects the meaning of the ambiguously structured statute. Nevertheless, VA specifically invites comments on its interpretation of subsection (b), as VA believes it would be helpful to receive public feedback on this important issue.
Furthermore, for additional context in interpreting the meaning of the term “test”, VA looked at other Government-backed lending programs: HUD, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development program. The consensus approach is that, absent a net tangible benefit to a borrower, the loan should not be made.
4. Reasonable Discount
For proper seasoning of the VA-guaranteed loan, VA is adopting the same criteria found in § (b)(2) for Type I Cash-Outs, just stated in a different way. The difference is in form only. Where it made sense structurally for § (b) to include the requirement in the introductory text, it did not make sense structurally in § (c). Accordingly, VA is spelling out that the seasoning period is the later of 210 days from the date of the first monthly payment made by the borrower and the date on which the sixth monthly payment is made on the loan; however, this requirement applies only when the loan being refinanced is a VA-guaranteed or insured loan.