Financing has never been easy for mom-and-pop landlords who want to invest in rental houses. But the market is starting to open up.

In the past, small-time investors often out-and-out lied to would-be lenders that the houses they were buying would be their personal residences. Their only other options were to eliminate the need for funding altogether, by emptying their bank accounts and paying cash, or by finding so-called "hard money" lenders whose terms are often rather stiff.

Sometimes, conventional lenders knowingly "winked" at borrowers who weren't really planning to live in the houses they wished to finance. But even then, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the two major mortgage investors that buy loans from primary lenders -- placed severe restrictions on the number of rental properties individuals can finance.

Fannie Mae won't buy more than four loans made to a single investor, for example, and Freddie Mac limits the number to 10. Even at that, though, the two government-sponsored enterprises' lending guidelines are tighter than Bryce Harper's home run swing.

To fill that void, several big private equity firms, including the Blackstone Group, Colony Capital and Cerberus Capital Management, have created subsidiaries to back small-time investors who own a handful of houses. Blackstone's new venture is called B2R Finance, while Colony Capital has launched Colony American Finance and Cerberus backs FirstKey Lending.

Nearly one quarter of the country's single-family houses -- about 17 million units -- are not occupied by their owners. Some are not actively advertised for rent, and a portion are vacation homes. But the number "is a fairly good proxy" for the total number of rental houses nationwide, says Daren Blomquist of RealtyTrac, a real estate information company.

Since 2011, when the housing market turned around after a five-year lull, institutional investors -- those purchasing 10 or more houses in a calender year -- turned 632,000 or so houses into rentals to take advantage of their low prices and the growing desire of people to rent rather than own.

That leaves roughly 16 million houses that are owned by small-time investors. And those are the people firms like B2R Finance are hoping to serve.

Of course, you still need to have good credit and a hefty down payment of at least 25 percent. But if you meet those criteria and a few others, you might be in business.

The Charlotte-based B2R makes lending decisions largely on the cash flow of the underlying rental properties, as opposed to the borrower's personal debt-to-income ratio, which is a key determinate when lending to people who are actually going to live in the houses they are buying.

The company will lend from $300,000 to $3 million to what it calls "entrepreneurial" borrowers who own at least three houses, townhouses or condominium apartments worth at least $50,000 each, as well as multi-family apartment buildings smaller than 20 units. Loans will have fixed payments for a five- to 10-year term, but will be amortized as if they were 30-year mortgages.

Colony American Finance and FirstKey Lending offer similar terms or lines of credit for "flippers," who buy run-down houses and foreclosures, fix them up and resell.

Colony American's loans range from $500,000 for mom-and-pop investors to $60 million for large institutional investors. FirstKey provides loans of $500,000 to $500 million across a variety of loan products.

B2R will also finance a portfolio of rental houses with a commercial loan, but borrowers have to be corporations. Since many individual owners are not incorporated, they might consider setting up as limited liability companies.

So far, the company has loans with 200 or so borrowers -- each loan covers 15-20 properties -- and has "a very robust" future pipeline, a spokesman says. Significantly, it recently closed on the first-ever multi-borrower securitization -- that is, it bundled 144 loans backed by more than 3,000 properties into a security for sale to investors.

Housing's traditional spring buying season has been noticeably sporadic, if not all but absent, since the Great Recession. But this year is different, according to one Wall Street analyst, who says the buying season is "actually taking place."

That's because lenders are starting to open their coffers and provide more mortgage money for increasingly impatient consumers who have wanted to buy new homes, but have been prevented by tightfisted banks.

At an industry meeting last month, Paul Miller, a managing director at FBR Capital Markets & Co., said he thinks mortgage originations may reach $1.5 trillion this year. That's much higher than last year's $1.12 trillion, or the Mortgage Bankers Association's 2015 estimate of $1.28 trillion. If Miller's on target, roughly 30 percent more mortgage money will be available to qualified homebuyers this year than last.

"Credit will be loosened over the next five years," Miller predicts. However, he also cautions that big banks will remain largely within the tight "credit box" they have inhabited since the downturn began five years ago.

Buyers who aren't eligible for loans under the government's Qualified Mortgage (QM) standards, which major lenders follow almost to the letter, may still be able to get home financing through a growing number of smaller, non-QM lenders. And that, observers believe, will help turn the tide that has made America more of a nation of renters since the "easy money" days that ended abruptly with the crash.

Jaret Seiberg, a financial services policy analyst at Guggenheim Securities, also sees some "green shoots" for the housing sector. He says he's hearing more voices saying, "'Let's try to find more ways for people to get into loans.' There is a door opening to provide relief."

At the same time, Seiberg still sees some roadblocks to looser lending, and wonders if the recovery will be "the shortest giant" when compared to other cyclical upturns after bad times.

He thinks the nation's homeownership percentage may stay at its lower-than-normal rate in the low 60-percent range, as opposed to the former rate that topped 67 percent. A 1-percent increase in the ownership rate would lift about 1.16 million households into the ranks of homeowners.

Seiberg also doubts that the nation's largest lenders will re-enter the non-QM space. He wonders, "Is there enough capital for smaller players?"

One possibility for making more mortgage money available is a new twist on real estate investment trusts (REITs).

REITs have traditionally financed commercial mortgages, such as those for office buildings, hotels and the like. But these days, there are more and more REITs focused solely on residential financing.

One such REIT, Cherry Hill Mortgage Investment Corp., was started in 2013 by Stanley Middleman, the president of Freedom Mortgage Corp., a major QM lender. In its initial public offering that year, it tapped into the capital markets for $158 million.

REITs may become mortgage game-changers because they are allowed to pay out large dividends (up to 90 percent of earnings) to their shareholders, which makes them attractive to investors. As they pay dividends, their value grows, and they can then solicit Wall Street for even more money.

The rest is simple: More capital means more money available to lend to consumers to ensure future buying seasons -- not just in the spring.

"REITs are a good platform to bring liquidity into housing," Middleman says.

REITs could access even more housing money if they were allowed into the Federal Home Loan Banks system (FHLB), a venerable government entity started to help the savings and loan industry make mortgages.

REITs are not currently eligible for FHLB membership. However, those that are affiliated with eligible member companies have a back door into the system. Full membership would give REITs direct access to FHLB's funds.

Where's the barrier to this potential flow of mortgage money? Changing FHLB eligibility has to be done by Congress. And nowadays, it takes an act of Congress to get Congress to act.

Who's to blame for the rather longstanding lack of ready mortgage funding? Some blame the big bad Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank. The Fed has done a pretty good job of propping up the ailing lending business since the recession began by buying securities backed by home loans. The Fed's readiness to buy has kept down the price of mortgage money obtained through Wall Street, which packages mortgages into securities, and that has helped keep rates low and more affordable to buyers.

On the flip side, though, the Fed has bought up so much of the market that it has depressed the normal trading of mortgage securities on the so-called secondary market. The Fed currently holds $1.7 trillion of mortgage-backed securities in its massive portfolio, which is about one-third of the total. And it has effectively taken those securities off the market.

Since the trading of the securities generates more money to lend, the Fed is now seen by many as being an enormous anchor pulling the mortgage money market down.

Not everyone in the industry is a Fed basher, though. Middleman, for one, says, "I think you have to commend the government on the action it took," he says. "I'm pretty proud of the job the government has done."

(Much of the reporting for this column was done by freelance writer Mark Fogarty.)

A decision by federal and state authorities to take legal action against an alleged title insurance kickback scheme, in which cash and marketing services were traded for referrals, should give impetus to legislation that would ban such practices altogether.

In a complaint filed in federal court, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Maryland attorney general accused Genuine Title and its officers of exchanging valuable services with real estate agents and mortgage brokers in return for referring their clients to the company for closing services.

Among other things, the company purchased, analyzed and provided loan agents with data on consumers, then created and mailed letters on behalf of loan agents. It also funneled cash kickbacks through a network of other companies.

Such practices violate provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which bars a "fee, kickback or thing of value" in exchange for a referral of business related to a real estate settlement.

A bill by Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., would remove any ambiguity in that law by prohibiting any agent or broker from receiving a financial benefit for referring clients to a title firm. It would require violators to pay restitution to clients and competitors, and extend the law's statute of limitations from one year to three.

In other words, the measure would protect buyers from what is now an opaque market with hidden commissions and reverse competition.

"When sellers or real estate agents refer buyers to a title insurance company, homebuyers assume they're getting the best deal," said Ellison, a member of the key House Financial Services Committee. "But agents may have a financial stake in the title insurance company they recommend to buyers."

No one is arguing about the need for title insurance, which assures both the lender and buyer that the seller actually has clear ownership and the legal standing to transfer the property. It is also a guarantee that the title agent has reviewed the relevant data to identify any problems. Premiums are based on the price of the house.

Theoretically, buyers have the ability to shop for coverage and negotiate the rate. But according to the Consumer Federation of America, the business is highly concentrated, with five insurer groups controlling about 92 percent of the market.

And as folks approach the end of the long, sometimes nervewracking homebuying journey, most don't have enough energy left to hunt for title insurance bargains. Instead, they follow their realty agent's suggestion to use this closing professional and the insurance he sells.

Kickbacks are the "primary reason" title insurance is so expensive, says J. Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), an association of nearly 300 nonprofit consumer groups.

Insurers primarily compete with other real estate professionals for business, rather than appealing directly to consumers, says Hunter, a former federal insurance administrator under presidents Ford and Carter. Consequently, insurers offer costly considerations for referrals -- considerations like cash, lavish dinners, vacations and even tickets to special events -- that drive up the cost of insurance.

As it turns out, according to a report by the CFA, the Maryland case is hardly unique. Over the years, numerous actions have been taken against title insurers by the feds, the states and even individuals:

-- Just last month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a former secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), along with the state's financial services office, proposed new rules for the title insurance business, saying kickbacks and other improper expenditures have unnecessarily increased the cost of coverage.

The state said that an investigation found inducement arrangements, including meals and other considerations, to be "common and expensive to consumers."

-- The CFPB itself has fined several title companies and big national lenders thousands of dollars. Stonebridge Title in New Jersey was hit with a $30,000 fine, Lighthouse Title in Michigan was nailed for $200,000 and Wells Fargo and JPMorgan were dinged for $35.7 million in a precursor to the Maryland case.

-- Colorado has closed more than 10 title agencies created to receive kickbacks from insurers and pledged to shut down nearly 200 "sham" affiliated real estate businesses that took kickbacks. Similar cases have been settled in California, Michigan and Arizona.