Author Archives: David Reiss

Myths About Home Buying

Posted on by

I was quoted by MainStreet.com in Top 5 Myths About Home Buying Today.  It reads in part,

 

The fact is, buying a home today is absolutely, totally different from buying one in 2003. And right there is why so many myths swirl around a process that, in many ways, is utterly novel from what it has been. What was true isn’t anymore.

* * *

Myth 3: Fixed rate mortgages are the only way to go.

Not true, said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in real estate. He elaborated: “The necessity of getting a 30-year fixed rate mortgage is one of the biggest myths about homebuying. The average American household stays in their home for about seven years. Typically, 30-year fixed rate mortgages have higher interest rates than adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). Homebuyers should take a hard look at their plans for the new home.”

Only 6.5% of applications for mortgages in a recent period were for ARMs, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. A typical ARM went out at 3.21% interest, versus 4.69% for a typical 30 year fixed rate. That adds up to a difference worth tens of thousands of dollars over, say, a seven year probable life of the loan.

Do the math.

 

Benefit Ratios for Qualified Residential Mortgages

Posted on by

As I had noted previously,

the long awaited Proposed Rule that addresses the definition of Qualified Residential Mortgages has finally been released, with comments due by October 30th. The Proposed Rule’s preferred definition of a QRM is the same as a Qualified Mortgage. There is going to be a lot of comments on this proposed rule because it indicates that a QRM will not require a down payment. This is a far cry from the 20 percent down payment required by the previous proposed rule (the 20011 Proposed Rule).

The Proposed Rule notes that in “developing the definition of a QRM in the original proposal,” the six agencies [OCC, FRS, FDIC, FHFA, SEC and HUD] responsible for it “articulated several goals and principles.” (250)

First, the agencies stated that QRMs should be of very high credit quality, given that Congress exempted QRMs completely from the credit risk retention requirements.

Second, the agencies recognized that setting fixed underwriting rules to define a QRM could exclude many mortgages to creditworthy borrowers. In this regard, the agencies recognized that a trade-off exists between the lower implementation and regulatory costs of providing fixed and simple eligibility requirements and the lower probability of default attendant to requirements that incorporate detailed and compensating underwriting factors.

* * *

Fourth, the agencies sought to implement standards that would be transparent and verifiable to participants in the market.” (250)

After reviewing the comments to the 2011 Proposed Rule, the agencies concluded that “a QRM definition that aligns with the definition of a QM meets the statutory goals and directive of section 15G of the Exchange Act to limit credit risk, preserves access to affordable credit, and facilitates compliance.” (256)

I was somewhat disturbed, however, by the following passage. The agencies are

concerned about the prospect of imposing further constraints on mortgage credit availability at this time, especially as such constraints might disproportionately affect groups that have historically been disadvantaged in the mortgage market, such as lower-income, minority, or first-time homebuyers. (263)

While it is important to make residential credit broadly available, the agencies will be doing borrowers no favors if their loans are not sustainable and they end up in default or foreclosure. The agencies should come up with a metric that balances responsible underwriting with access to credit and apply that metric to the definition of a QRM.

Quercia et al. have developed one such metric, which they refer to as a “benefit ratio.” The benefit ratio compares “the percent reduction in the number of defaults to the percent reduction in the number of borrowers who would have access to QRM mortgages.” (20) A metric of this sort would go a long way to ensuring that there is transparency for homeowners as to the likelihood that they can not only get a mortgage but also pay it off and keep their homes.

Reiss on the FHA and Low Downpayment Mortgages

Posted on by

I will be speaking at the Cleveland Fed’s 2013 Policy Summit on Housing, Human Capital, and Inequality on Thursday, September 19 from 2:40PM-4:10PM.  My panel is on

Affordable Housing, Mortgage Underwriting, and Default: The Case of the FHA

In the past few years FHA’s market share has increased substantially, as have its default and foreclosure rates. Recently, the White House announced that the FHA may have to make a capital call to Treasury for the first time in its history, prompting much debate over the future of the organization. In this session, a panel of experts will discuss the FHA’s financial situation, its role in providing affordable housing, and explore potential policy responses.

Moderator:

Emre Ergungor, Senior Research Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

Speakers:

Edward J. Pinto, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, How the FHA Hurts Working-Class Families

David Reiss, Professor, Brooklyn Law School, How Low is Too Low? The Federal Housing Administration and the Low Downpayment Loan

Joseph Tracy, Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Interpreting the Recent Developments in Housing Markets

My summary and implications are below and those for the other speakers can be found at the link above.

Summary and Findings
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has been a flexible tool of government since it was created during the Great Depression. It succeeded wonderfully, with rapid growth during the late 1930s. The federal government repositioned it a number of times over the following decades to achieve a variety additional social goals. It achieved success with some of its goals and had a terrible record with others. Today’s FHA is suffering from many of the same unrealistic underwriting assumptions that have done in so many subprime lenders as well as Fannie and Freddie. The FHA has come under attack for its poor execution of some of its additional mandates and leading commentators have called for the federal government to stop undertaking them. This article takes the long view and demonstrates that the FHA also has a history of successfully undertaking new programs. It also identifies operational failures that should be noted to prevent them from occurring if the FHA were to undertake similar ones in the future. The article first sets forth the dominant critique of the FHA and a history of its constantly changing role. It then addresses the dominant critique of the FHA and evaluates its priorities in the context of legitimate housing policy objectives. It concludes that the FHA has focused on an unthinking “more is better” approach to housing, but that the FHA can responsibly address objectives other than the provision of liquidity to the residential mortgage market.

Implications for Policy and Practice
Leading commentators on the FHA do not fully appreciate the extent to which down payment requirements alone drive the success and failure of new FHA initiatives. Central to any analysis of the FHA’s role is an understanding of its policies relating down payment size. Much of the FHA’s performance is driven by its down payment requirements, which have trended ever downward so that homeowners were able to get loans for 100% of the value of the house in recent times. As is obvious to all, the larger the down payment, the safer the loan. What appears to have been less obvious is that very small down payments are unacceptably risky. Given that the FHA insures 100% of the losses on its mortgages, the down payment requirement is a key driver of its performance. From an underwriting perspective, 20% is clearly desirable as the risk of default is very low even in a down market. But from an opportunity perspective, a 20% down payment requirement would keep large swaths of potential first-time homeowners from entering the market. If down payments are set too high, than an important social goal may be left by the wayside. So it is important that the public discourse weighs the costs and benefits of setting a fixed down payment requirement versus taking a risk layering approach to down payments. In either case, the FHA must balance the goal of safe underwriting with the goal of making homeownership available to households who could maintain it for the long term.

Leverage and the Foreclosure Crisis

Posted on by

Dean Corbae and Erwan Quintin have posted Leverage and the Foreclosure Crisis to SSRN (behind a paywall; available here for free). They ask how “much of the recent rise in foreclosures can be explained by the large number of high-leverage mortgage contracts originated during the housing boom?” (1) Their model and counterfactual experiments suggest that “the increased availability of high-leverage loans prior to the crisis can explain between 40% and 65% of the initial rise in foreclosure rates.” (1)

In their introduction, they note that
The increased availability of loans with low downpayments made it possible for more households to obtain the financing necessary to purchase a house. At the same time however,because these contracts are characterized by little equity early in the life of the loan, they are prone to default when home prices fall. Not surprisingly then, mortgages issued during the recent housing boom with high leverage have defaulted at much higher frequency than other loans since home prices began their collapse in late 2006. (2, citations omitted)
Their finding are, as they note, not so surprising, although it is interesting to see them try to quantify the effect of low-downpayment mortgages.
More importantly, their paper will help inform the ongoing debate as to whether federal regulators should impose strict down-payment underwriting requirements upon lenders or whether they should allow lenders to develop more dynamic underwriting models for which downpayment requirements are just one factor.

 

Fannie and Freddie’s Unreported Billions of Losses

Posted on by

The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Inspector General has warned FHFA Acting Director DeMarco that the FHFA has allowed Fannie and Freddie to defer acknowledgment of billions of dollars of losses relating to seriously delinquent singe-family residential mortgage loans for far too long.

The Office of the IG recommends that estimates of these losses be reported immediately, on an ongoing basis. There are all sorts of obvious good reasons to do this, including the fact that “[c]lassification of loans according to risk characteristics is a critical factor considered by financial regulators to evaluate a financial institution’s safety and soundness”  and that it accords with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. (1)

directly through interest

Fannie and Freddie’s recent reports of billions of dollars of profits have caused a scrum to form around the two companies, as investors in preferred shares seek to get a slice of those profits through a series of lawsuits (here, here, here and here for example), as low-income advocates seek to fund the Housing Trust Fund through a lawsuit (here) and as some politicians forget the risks that these two companies present to the American taxpayer and seek to reanimate the two companies.

In a perfect world, we would ask what kind of residential housing finance infrastructure we want to implement for the next fifty years or so and what should happen to Fannie and Freddie should have little to nothing to do with their current profits or losses. But the political reality is that it does. With that as a given, we should at least have an honest assessment of their balance sheets. But the FHFA is keeping us in the dark. It needs to turn the lights on so that we can understand the true magnitude of these unreported losses so that the debate about Fannie and Freddie can be held with as much accurate information as possible.

If QRM = QM, then FICO+CLTV > DTI ?@#?!?

Posted on by

The long awaited Proposed Rule that addresses the definition of Qualified Residential Mortgages has finally been released, with comments due by October 30th. The Proposed Rule’s preferred definition of a QRM is the same as a Qualified Mortgage. There is going to be a lot of comments on this proposed rule because it indicates that a QRM will not require a down payment. This is a far cry from the 20 percent down payment required by the previous proposed rule (the 20011 Proposed Rule).

There is a lot to digest in the Proposed Rule. For today’s post, I will limit myself to a staff report from the SEC, Qualified Residential Mortgage: Background Data Analysis on Credit Risk Retention, that was issued a couple of days ago about the more restrictive definition of QRM contained in the 2011 Proposed Rule.  The report’s main findings included

  • Historical loans meeting the 2011 proposed QRM definition have significantly lower SDQ [serious delinquency] rates than historical loans meeting the QM definition, but applying this definition results in significantly lower loan volume than QM.
  • FICO and combined loan-to-value (CLTV) are strong determinants of historical loan performance, while the effect of debt-to-income (DTI) is much lower.
  • Adding FICO or CLTV restrictions to the QM definition reduces SDQ rates faster than the loss of loan volume: max ratios achieved at 760 FICO and 55% CLTV. (2)

Certainly, some readers’ eyes have glazed over by now, but this is important stuff and it embodies an important debate about underwriting.  Is it better to have an easy to understand heuristic like a down payment requirement? Or is it better to have a sophisticated approach to underwriting which looks at the layering of risks like credit score, loan to value ratio, debt to income ratio and other factors?

The first approach is hard to game by homeowners, lenders and politicians seeking to be “pro-homeowner.” But it can result in less than the optimal amount of credit being made available to potential homeowners because it may exclude those homeowners who do not present an unreasonable risk of default but who do not have the resources to put together a significant down payment.

The second approach is easier to game by lenders looking to increase market share and politicians who put pressure on regulated financial institutions to expand access to credit. But it can come closer to providing the optimal amount of credit, balancing the risk of default against the opportunity to become a homeowner.

It would be interesting if the final definition of QRM were able to encompass both of these approaches somehow, so that we can see how they perform against each other.

Homeowner Can Challenge Mortgage Assignment

Posted on by

Judge Kennelly has ruled that a homeowner can challenge a mortgage assignment under Illinois law in Elesh v. MERS et al., No. 12 C 10355 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2013). The Court stated that

Defendants argue that Elesh is not a party to the assignment and thus lacks standing to challenge it. Only one of the cases upon which defendants rely, however, is an Illinois case, and that case makes it clear that this supposed “rule” has exceptions. See Bank of America Nat’l Ass’n v. Bassman FBT, LLC, No. 2-11-0729, 2012 IL App (2d) 110729, 981 N.E.2d 1, 6-11 (2012). The basic requirements of standing are that the plaintiff suffered an injury to a legally cognizable interest and is asserting his own legal rights rather than those of a third party. See id. at 6. Elesh unquestionably meets the first requirement; the recorded assignment constitutes a cloud on his title, and Deutsche Bank recently relied on the assignment to prosecute a foreclosure action against him. Elesh also has a viable argument that in challenging the validity of the assignment, he is asserting his own rights and not someone else’s rights. For example, given Deutsche Bank’s apparent lack of possession of the original note, Elesh is put at risk of multiple liability as long as Deutsche Bank claims to hold the mortgage. See id. at 7-8 (citing cases indicating that an obligor has an interest in ensuring that he will not have to pay the same claim twice). In any event, Illinois law, to the extent there is much of it on this point, appears to recognize an obligor’s right to attack an assignment as void or invalid under certain circumstances. (3)

This is a pretty significant case, at least in Illinois, as it provides homeowners with a way to defend against a foreclosure action that does not rely upon whether the loan is in default or not. The Court takes seriously the possibility that the homeowner could otherwise be liable for the same debt twice.  Commentators and courts have downplayed that risk, so it is notable that this Court has taken this position. Time will tell if other courts do so as well.

 

 

 

 

[HT April Charney]