REFinBlog

Editor: David Reiss
Cornell Law School

June 13, 2017

Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Roundup

By Jamila Moore

  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took action against Fay Servicing for their lack of protection of homeowners during foreclosing procedures. The CFPB found that Fay Servicing did not provide borrowers with the necessary protection legally mandated. Additionally, the servicing company did not suspend proceedings when homeowners actively participated in programs to save their homes.
  • National Low Income Housing Coalition released a report analyzing federal minimum wages and its affect on affordable rental housing. Roughly 60% of states “have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage”. In order for families to afford to live in “affordable housing,” they must make 2.9 more than the federal mandated minimum wage. Currently, Maryland, California, and Hawaii have the highest distance between income and a two bedroom affordable rental.

June 13, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments

June 12, 2017

Poverty in NYC

By David Reiss

photo by Salvation Army USA West

NYU’s Furman Center has released its annual State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods along with a focus on Poverty in New York City. The State of the City report is always of great value but each year’s focus is where we get to see the City in a new light. This year is no different:

In New York City in recent years, rents have risen much faster than incomes. The pressures of rising housing costs may be greatest on those with the fewest resources—people living in poverty. New York City has a larger number of people living in poverty today than it has since at least 1970. This sparks a range of questions about the experience of poverty in New York City that we address in this year’s State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods Focus. Who in New York City is poor today? Where do they live? What are the characteristics of the neighborhoods where poor New Yorkers live? Are poor New Yorkers more likely to be living in areas of concentrated poverty than they were in the past? How, if at all, do the answers to each of these questions differ by the race, ethnicity, and other characteristics of poor households?

Though the share of New Yorkers living in poverty has been relatively constant over the past few decades, there was a drop at the end of the last decade and then an increase in 2011–2015. Poverty concentration—the extent to which poor New Yorkers are living in neighborhoods with other poor New Yorkers—followed a similar trend, dropping in 2006–2010 and increasing again since then. The neighborhood of the typical poor New Yorker varies substantially from that of the typical non-poor New Yorker, but those disparities are largely experienced by black and Hispanic New Yorkers living in poverty. The typical poor Asian and white New Yorkers live in neighborhoods that do better on the measures we examine than the neighborhoods of the typical non-poor New Yorker. We also find that neighborhood conditions vary significantly based on the level of poverty in a neighborhood. Higher poverty neighborhoods have higher violent crime rates, poorer performing schools, and fewer adults who are college educated or working. And, poor New Yorkers are not all equally likely to live in these neighborhoods. Poor black and Hispanic New Yorkers are much more likely to live in higher poverty neighborhoods than poor white and Asian New Yorkers. Children make up a higher share of the population in higher poverty neighborhoods than adults or seniors. (1, footnotes omitted)

Policymakers should have a lot to chew over in this report. Let’s hope they give it a read.

June 12, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments

Monday’s Adjudication Roundup

By Jamila Moore

  • An Ohio attorney received a 14 month sentence on Friday, June 9, 2017, for his role in a 70 million dollar Ponzi scheme regarding land trust. This attorney assisted a husband and wife in fraudulent land activities. Similarly, Steven Scudder, was sentenced to three years supervised release for his use of his position as an attorney to “facilitate the Aposteloses’ fraudulent investment scheme.” 
  • A Nashville law firm landed itself in a Florida federal court for its alleged fraudulent practices with timeshare owners. The plaintiffs claimed Castle Law Group PC “masterminded a scheme to solicit timeshare owners using false and misleading advertising.”
  • National Lloyd’s Insurance Co. successfully convinced an appellate court to overturn the lower court’s decision to compel “discovery of its attorney’s fees information in litigation with property owners.” The property owners alleged the insurer did not pay the full amount of claims which led to litigation.

June 12, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments

June 9, 2017

Blockchain and Securitization

By David Reiss

image by  David Stankiewicz

Deloitte prepared a report on behalf of the Structured Finance Industry Group and the Chamber of Digital Commerce, Applying Blockchain in Securitization: Opportunities for Reinvention. It opens,

The global financial system is betting on blockchain to revolutionize many aspects of its business, and we (the Structured Finance Industry Group and the Chamber of Digital Commerce) believe that securitization is one of the areas in the capital markets that could most benefit from this transformation. Janet Yellen, Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, recently called blockchain “a very important new technology” that “could make a big difference to the way in which transactions are cleared and settled in the global economy.” Financial services institutions have already invested over a billion dollars in the technology, with most big banks likely to have initiated blockchain projects by the end of 2017. There are already hundreds of use cases, ranging from international payments to securities processing, while technology firms including Amazon, Google, and IBM are offering a host of blockchain services aimed at the financial industry.

Why are all of these companies investing in blockchain? This new technology has the potential to dramatically disrupt the role of intermediaries—including that of banks—in financial transactions. Traditional activities performed by intermediaries might be changed or even replaced. Blockchain can also bring significant advances in efficiency, security, and transparency to many of the financial sector’s activities.

*     *     *

The Structured Finance Industry Group and the Chamber of Digital Commerce commissioned Deloitte & Touche LLP (Deloitte) to explore how blockchain might reinvent securitization—and how the securitization industry should consider preparing for this rapidly approaching future. This industry is exploring this nascent technology’s potential benefits and costs. Firm answers on blockchain’s likely use cases are not yet available, but discussions with securitization and blockchain experts have led to some key observations and insights about implications and possible paths forward. (1, footnotes omitted)

The report’s bottom line is that “[b]lockchain and smart contracts could catapult the securitization industry into a new digital age.” (2) It finds that

The technology’s potential to streamline processes, lower costs, increase the speed of transactions, enhance transparency, and fortify security could impact all participants in the securitization lifecycle—from originators, sponsors/issuers, and servicers to rating agencies, trustees, investors, and even regulators. (2)

The report provides a nice overview of blockchain basics for those who find distributed ledger technology to be mysterious. The real value of the report, however, is that it provides concrete guidance on how blockchain can be integrated in the securitization process. There is a chart on page 24 and an explanation of it on the following page that shows this in detail. This level of detail makes it much easier to visualize how blockchain can and most likely will change the nature of the business in years to come.

June 9, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments

Friday’s Government Reports Roundup

By Jamila Moore

  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently released a report regarding a study of lower income areas and their credit visibility. The report found that many residents in lower income communities become credit visible when they are lowering their credit score versus residents in higher income communities who become credit visible when they establish a credit line.
  • The House of Representatives passed a bill to roll back a few of the rules the Obama administration put in place to aid the country in recovery after the early 2000’s financial crisis. The Republican dominated House believes that the rules and regulations put in place by the prior administration impede economic growth. The bill proposed by Republicans, the Financial Choice Act, attempts to loosen regulation; however, it is unlikely that the bill will pass the Senate.
  • The United States joined a lawsuit against city of Los Angeles for the misappropriation of funds provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The city allegedly misused millions of dollars due to their lack of adequate affordable housing and oversight practices.

June 9, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments

June 8, 2017

Securitizing Single-Family Rentals

By David Reiss

photo by SSobachek

Laurie Goodman and Karan Kaul of the Urban Institute’ Housing Finance Policy Center have issued a a paper on GSE Financing of Single-Family Rentals. They write,

Fannie Mae recently completed the first government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) securitization of single-family rental (SFR) properties owned by an institutional investor. This securitization, Fannie Mae Grantor Trust 2017-T1, was for Invitation Homes, one of the largest institutional players in the SFR business. When this transaction was first publicly disclosed in January as part of Invitation Homes’ initial public offering, we wrote an article describing the transaction and detailing some questions it raises. Now that the deal has been completed and more details have been released, we wanted to look closely at some of its structural aspects, examine the need for this type of financing, and discuss SFR affordability. (1, citations omitted)

By way of background, the paper notes that

The 2015 American Housing Survey indicates that approximately 40 percent of the US rental housing stock is in one-unit, single-family structures, with another 17 percent in two- to four-unit structures, which are also classified as single-family. Thus, 57 percent of the US rental stock falls under the single-family classification. Although this share increased from 51 percent in 2005 to 57 percent in 2015, this increase was preceded by an almost identical decline from 56.6 percent in 1989 to 51 percent in 2005.

Most SFR properties are owned by mom and pop investors. These purchases were typically financed through the GSEs’ single-family business. Fannie Mae allowed up to 10 properties in the name of a single borrower, and Freddie Mac allowed up to six properties. Rent Range estimates that 45 percent of all single-family rentals are owned by small investors with only one property and 85 percent are owned by those who own 10 or fewer properties. So the GSEs cover 85 percent of the single-family rental market by extending loans to small investors through single-family financing. Of the remaining 15 percent, 5 percent is estimated to be owned by players with over 50 units, and just 1 percent is owned by institutional SFR investors with more than 1,000 properties.

Institutional investors, such as Invitation Homes, entered the SFR market in 2011. Entities raised funds and purchased thousands of foreclosed homes at rock-bottom prices and rented them out to meet the growing demand for rental housing. Then, they built the expertise, platforms, and infrastructure to manage scattered-site rentals. Changes in the business model have required these entities to search for financing alternatives.(1-2, citations omitted)

The paper concludes that “Invitation Homes was an important first transaction—it allowed Fannie Mae to learn about the institutional single-family rental market by partnering with an established player.” (9) It also notes a number of open questions for this growing segment of the rental market: should there be affordability requirements that apply to GSE financing of SFRs and should SFRs count toward meeting GSEs’ affordable housing goals?

That there would be an institutional SFR market sector was inconceivable before the financial crisis. The fire sale in houses during the Great Recession created an opening for institutional investors to enter the single-family rental market.  It is now a small but growing part of the overall rental market. It is important that policy makers get ahead of the curve on this issue because it is likely to effect big changes on the entire housing market.

June 8, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments

Thursday’s Advocacy & Think Tank Roundup

By Jamila Moore

  • Lawmakers see a need to adjust the country’s current flood insurance practice. Currently, the nation’s flood insurance program runs a 25 billion deficit from “storm-damage payouts in recent years.” To date, insurance companies provide approximately 5 million insurance policies to specific regions usually affected by hurricanes and other severe storms. Lawmakers are hoping to decrease the debt while providing reasonable support to those affected.
  • Real estate developers in New York have corrupted the election process in order to ensure their success in various development projects. Lamm and his co-conspirator planned to earn hundreds of millions on their Bloomingburg development which they began in 2006. In 2013 local residents opposed the development, so the duo began determining “other means” to move the project forward.
  • Mortgage rates are their lowest in seven months. On average, lenders are offering mortgages at the high 3% range. The shift in the mortgage rates stem from investor activity in bond markets. For instance, “When investors shed risks, bonds tend to benefit.

June 8, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments