June 22, 2017
Thursday’s Advocacy & Think Tank Roundup
- Buyers are hungry for a home. Their hunger have caused sellers to control pricing and possess high demands on the buyers. In fact, the sale of existing homes increased in May. Despite seller control, buyers have not given up and have found ways to “cut a deal” given the low inventory of existing homes.
- This time last year the median price for an existing home was 5.8% lower than the price of a home now. On the surface, it seems like many more Americans are purchasing homes at a reasonable price. However, a closer look at the average shows that many homes were sold at a much higher price. When the lower priced homes sold and the higher price sold homes are averaged together, the median price of homes sold is $252,800. This seems great; however, it shows a lack of sell of reasonably price homes.
- Beginning July 1, 2017, the Big 3 Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs) are changing their reporting practices. When the shift occurs, many consumers may experience an increase in their credit score. This increase will likely affect consumers with pending or current tax liens and/or civil judgments.
June 22, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
Wednesday’s Academic Roundup
- Foreclosures and the Labor Market: Evidence from Millions of Households across the United States, 2000-2014, Makridis and Ohlrogge
- Regulatory Issues and Challenges Presented by Virtual Currencies, Caytas
- LawTrust, and Development of Crowdfunding, Rau
- Import Competition and Household Debt, Barrot, Loualiche, Plosser, and Sauvagnat
- Mortgage Choice in Rural Housing, Miller and Park
June 21, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
June 20, 2017
Increasing Price Competition for Title Insurers
The New York State Department of Financial Services issued proposed rules for title insurance last month and requested comments. I submitted the following:
I write and teach about real estate and am the Academic Director of the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship. I write in my individual capacity to comment on the rules recently proposed by the New York State Department of Financial Services (the Department) relating to title insurance.
Title insurance is unique among insurance products because it provides coverage for unknown past acts. Other insurance products provide coverage for future events. Title insurance also requires just a single premium payment whereas other insurance products generally have premiums that are paid at regular intervals to keep the insurance in effect.
Premiums for title insurance in New York State are jointly filed with the Department by the Title Insurance Rate Service Association (TIRSA) on behalf of the dominant title insurers. This joint filing ensures that title insurers do not compete on price. In states where such a procedure is not followed, title insurance rates are generally much lower.
Instead of competing on price, insurers compete on service. “Service” has been interpreted widely to include all sorts of gifts — fancy meals, hard-to-get tickets, even vacations. The real customers of title companies are the industry’s repeat players — often real estate lawyers and lenders who recommend the title company — and they get these goodies. The people paying for title insurance — owners and borrowers — ultimately pay for these “marketing” costs without getting the benefit of them. These expenses are a component of the filings that TIRSA submits to the Department to justify the premiums charged by TIRSA’s members. As a result of this rate-setting method, New York State policyholders pay among the highest premiums in the country.
The Department has proposed two new regulations for the title insurance industry. The first proposed regulation (various amendments to Title 11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York) is intended to get rid of these marketing costs (or kickbacks, if you prefer). This proposed regulation makes explicit that those costs cannot be passed on to the party ultimately paying for the title insurance. The second proposed regulation (a new Part 228 of Title 11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York (Insurance Regulation 208)) is intended to ensure that title insurance affiliates function independently from each other.
While these proposed regulations are a step in the right direction, they amount to half measures because the dominant title insurance companies are not competing on price and therefore will continue to seek to compete by other means, as described above or in ever increasingly creative ways. Proposed Part 228, for instance, will do very little to keep title insurance premiums low as it does not matter whether affiliated companies act independently, so long as all the insurers are allowed to file their joint rate schedule. No insurer will vary from that schedule whether or not they operate independently from their affiliates.
Instead of adopting these half-measures and calling it a day, the Department should undertake a more thorough review of title insurance regulation with the goal of increasing price competition. Other jurisdictions have been able to balance price competition with competing public policy concerns. New York State can do so as well.
Title insurance premiums are way higher than the amounts that title insurers pay out to satisfy claims. In recent years, total premiums have been in the range of ten billion dollars a year while payouts have been measured in the single percentage points of those total premiums. If the Department were able to find the balance between safety and soundness concerns and price competition, consumers of title insurance could see savings measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
The Department should explore the following alternative approach:
- Prohibiting insurers from filing a joint rate schedule;
- Requiring each insurer to file its own rate schedule;
- Requiring that each insurer’s rate schedule be posted online;
- Allowing insurers to discount from their filed rate schedule so that they could better compete on price;
- Promulgating conservative safety and soundness standards to protect against insurers discounting themselves into bankruptcy to the detriment of their policyholders; and
- Prohibiting insurers from providing any benefits or gifts to real estate lawyers or other parties who can steer policyholders toward particular insurers.
If these proposals were adopted, policyholders would see massive reductions in their premiums.
Some have argued that New York State’s title insurance regulatory regime promotes the safety and soundness of the title insurers to the benefit of title insurance policyholders. That may be true, but the cost in unnecessarily high premiums is not worth the trade-off.
Increased competition is not always in the public interest but it certainly is in the case of New York State’s highly concentrated title insurance industry. The Department should seek to create a regulatory regime that best balances increased price competition with adequate safety and soundness regulation. New Yorkers will greatly benefit from such reform.
June 20, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Roundup
- The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) released their 2016 Report to Congress. This report is mandated by federal statute and examines many mortgage and financial institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Additionally, the report provides guidance for each company’s regulatory rules and FHFA’s research and publications.
- The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided approximately 220 million dollars in funds this week to America’s lowest income citizens. The Housing Trust Fund, established by Congress in 2008, dispersed funds to various states in order to aid the poor and homeless.
- The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2017 (AHCIA), if approved may improve the productiveness and effectiveness of America’s low-income housing tax credit. If the the shifts are approved, more applicants will qualify for a boost. Additionally, if the proposed Act removes the cap on QCT, more than 20% of families will qualify the housing aid in designated areas.
June 20, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
June 19, 2017
Treasury’s Trojan Horse for The CFPB
The Hill posted my latest column, Americans Are Better off with Consumer Protection in Place. It opens,
This month, the Treasury Department issued a report to President Trump in response to his executive order on regulation of the U.S. financial system. While the report does not seek to do as much damage to consumer protection as the House’s Financial Choice Act, it proposes a dramatic weakening of the federal government’s role in the consumer financial services market. In particular, the report advocates that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s mandate be radically constrained.
Republicans have been seeking to weaken the CFPB since it was created as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. The bureau took over responsibility for consumer protection regulation from seven federal agencies. Republicans have been far more antagonistic to the bureau than many of the lenders it regulates. Lenders have seen the value in consolidating much of their regulatory compliance into one agency.
To keep reading, click here.
June 19, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
Monday’s Adjudication Roundup
- A Florida Appeals Court threw out a 30 million verdict against a small Florida town. Initially, a property owner won the case based upon the town’s “taking” of their property; however, the Florida appellate court found an error in the trial’s definition of taking. As a result, the Court ordered a new trial which will consider the issue of a “partial taking.”
- Sunoco Inc. is experiencing trouble with their planned “Mariner East 2 pipeline project.” The corporation recently sought to use eminent domain to garnish the needed land in order for them to proceed with their planned project; however, the trail court determined the company lacked authority to use eminent domain for land seizures.
- Two U.S. citizens are unhappy with a U.S. Tax Court’s ruling regarding their charitable donation. The pair claimed a total of $11 million in deductions in the 2004 tax year based upon their charitable donation which partly stemmed from an easement of one of the owner’s “historic warehouse in Manhattan. The Court finds the easement was recorded later than the year claimed on their tax returns; therefore, it was not an easement in the 2004 tax year.
June 19, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments


