Tag Archives: 30 FRM

Is Trump a Negative for the Housing Market?

Posted on by

TheStreet.com quoted me in Is Trump a Negative for the Housing Market? It opens,

At first blush, real estate industry professionals saw a lot to like with the election of Donald Trump to the presidency. Trump was and is pro-business, and he made his billions in the commercial real estate sector. This, real estate pro’s thought, is a guy who has the industry’s back.

But not every real estate specialist views the Trump presidency as a net positive.

Take Tommy Sowers, from GoldenKey, a real estate technology platform with locations in San Francisco and Durham, N.C.

Sowers holds a “strong belief” that President Donald Trump will actually be detrimental for the real estate industry, making it less affordable for Americans to buy homes.

“During the campaign, Donald Trump spoke about home ownership numbers being the lowest they have ever been since 1965 at 62.9%,” says Sowers. In a nation where homeownership is seen as synonymous with the American dream, it’s no surprise that he wanted to highlight this low rate and suggest ways to increase it, he says. “The reality is that his policies and actions indicate the opposite,” he says.

Sowers lists several reasons why Trump may not be the industry savior some real estate professionals might have counted on:

Rising interest rates – “While this responsibility sits with the Federal Reserve, which has kept interest rates low in recent years, Trump has blasted them for doing this stating that they are ‘creating a false economy,'” Sowers explains. “Most economists predict that interest rates will now rise in 2017.”

Dismantling Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) – “During the 2008 financial crisis, the taxpayer bought out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and now under government control they play a greater role than before the crisis in sustaining real estate sales and providing liquidity to the housing market,” Sowers says. “Trump wants to privatize them – a shake up to this arrangement could mean that banks stop offering the lower cost 30-year fixed rate mortgages.”

Cutting FHA home insurance – This was one of Trump’s first acts in office, making it more expensive for borrowers to insure their homes, Sowers notes. “His pick for Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, wants to limit the mortgage interest deduction,” he adds. “This may not impact the average US homebuyer but in many areas across the country the average home is above the threshold of $500,000.”

Immigrant confidence – “We are a nation of immigrants and many are here legally with green cards,” Sowers states. “His latest immigration policy has sent shock waves to foreign investors and will likely stunt confidence in immigrants that are here legally from buying a home.” President Trump has said he hopes to encourage further building with the National Association of Home Builders, he adds. “However, with so many immigrants working in the construction industry, his policies are likely decrease the speed of development,” Sowers says. “With less new homes being built, people are likely to wait and not move or buy a new house.”

There are other areas of concern, experts say. For example, reducing government regulations may thrill real estate professionals, along with buyers and sellers, but industry experts say that will actually hurt the U.S. housing market.

“Trump’s commitment to weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the consumer protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will have a harmful impact on the housing market in the long run,” predicts David Reiss, a law professor at the Brooklyn Law School, in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Reiss says Trump and his allies argue that Dodd-Frank has cut off credit, but the numbers don’t bear that out. “Mortgage rates are near their all-time lows,” he says. “Dodd-Frank, which created the CFPB and mandated the Qualified Mortgage and Ability-to-Repay rules, put a brake on most of the predatory behavior that characterized the mortgage market before the financial crisis. Getting rid of Dodd-Frank and the CFPB may loosen mortgage lending a bit in the short term, but in the long term it will allow predatory lenders to return to the mortgage market, big-time.”

“We will the see bigger booms followed by bigger busts,” he adds. “That kind of volatility is not good for the housing market in the long term.”

Mortgage Bankers and GSE Reform

Posted on by

photo by Daniel Case

The Mortgage Bankers Association has released GSE Reform Principles and Guardrails. It opens,

This paper serves as an introduction to MBA’s recommended approach to GSE reform. Its purpose is to outline what MBA views as the key components of an end state, the principles that MBA believes should be incorporated in any future system, the “guardrails” we believe are necessary in our end state, as well as emphasize the need to ensure a smooth transition to the new secondary mortgage market. (1)

While there is very little that is new in this document, it is useful, nonetheless, as a statement of the industry’s position. The MBA has promulgated the following principles for housing finance reform:

  • The 30-year, fixed-rate, pre-payable single-family mortgage and longterm financing for multifamily mortgages should be preserved.
  • A deep, liquid TBA market for conventional single-family loans must be maintained. Eligible MBS backed by a well-defined pool of single-family mortgages or multifamily mortgages should receive an explicit government guarantee, funded by appropriately priced insurance premiums, to attract global capital and preserve liquidity during times of stress. The government guarantee should attach to the eligible MBS only, not to the guarantors or their debt.
  • The availability of affordable housing, both owned and rented, is vitally important; these needs should be addressed along a continuum, incorporating both single- and multifamily approaches for homeowners and renters.
  • The end-state system should facilitate equitable, transparent and direct access to secondary market programs for lenders of all sizes and business models.
  • A robust, innovative and purely private market should be able to co-exist alongside the government-backed market.
  • Existing multifamily financing executions should be preserved, and new options should be permitted.
  • The end-state system should rely on strong, transparent regulation and private capital (including primary-market credit enhancement such as mortgage insurance [MI] and lender recourse, or other available forms of credit risk transfer) primarily assuming most of the risk.
  • While the system will primarily rely on private capital, there should be a provision for a deeper level of government support in the event of a systemic crisis.
  • There should be a “bright line” between the primary and secondary mortgage markets, applying to both allowable activities and scope of regulation.
  • Transition risks to the new end-state model should be minimized, with special attention given to avoiding any operational disruptions. (3-4)

This set of principles reflect the bipartisan consensus that had been developing around the Johnson-Crapo and Corker-Warner housing reform bills. The ten trillion dollar question, of course, is whether the Trump Administration and Congressional leaders like Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the Chair of the House Banking Committee, are going to go along with the mortgage finance industry on this or whether they will push for a system with far less government involvement than is contemplated by the MBA.

Can Fannie and Freddie Be Privatized?

Posted on by

Kroll Bond Rating Agency posted Housing Reform 2017: Can the GSEs be Privatized? The big housing finance reform question is whether there is now sufficient consensus in Washington to determine the fate of Fannie and Freddie, now approaching their ninth year in conservatorship.

Kroll concludes,

The Mortgage Bankers Association sends a very clear message about privatizing the GSEs: It will raise rates for homeowners and add systemic risk back into the financial system. Why do we need to fix a proven market mechanism that is not broken? KBRA believes that if Mr. Mnuchin and the President-elect truly want to encourage the growth of a private market for U.S. mortgages, then they must accept that true privatization of the GSEs that eliminates any government guarantee would fundamentally change the mortgage market.

The privatization of the GSEs implies, in the short term at least, a significant decrease in the financing available to the U.S. housing market. In the absence of a TBA market, no coupon would be high enough to support the entire range of demand for mortgage finance, only pockets of higher quality loans as with the jumbo mortgage market today. Unless the U.S. moved to the Danish model with 100% variable rate notes, no nonbank could fund the production of home mortgages efficiently and commercial banks are unlikely to pick up the slack for the reasons discussed above.

In the event of full privatization of the GSEs, private loans will have significantly higher cost for consumers and offer equally more attractive returns for financial institutions and end investors, a result that would generate enormous political opposition among the numerous constituencies in the housing market. Needless to say, getting such a proposal through Congress should prove to be quite an achievement indeed. (4)

I disagree with Kroll’s framing of the issue:  “Why do we need to fix a proven market mechanism that is not broken?” To describe Fannie and Freddie as “not broken” seems farcical to me. They are in a state of limbo with extraordinary backing from the federal government. It might be that we would want to continue them with much the same functionality that they currently have, but we would still want this transition to be done intentionally.  Nobody, but nobody, was thinking that putting them into conservatorship was the end game,

While the current structure has some advantages over privatization, the reverse is true too.  The greatest benefit of privatization is getting rid of the taxpayer backstop in case of a failure by one or both of the companies.

We shouldn’t be saying — hey, what we have now is good enough. Rather, we should be asking — what do we expect out of our housing finance system and how do we get it?

There appears to be a broad consensus to reduce taxpayer exposure to a bailout.  There also appears to be a broad consensus (one that I do not support as broadly as others) to protect the 30 year fixed rate mortgage that remains so popular in the United States.

Industry insiders believe that a fully private system would not provide sufficient capital for the mortgage market. They are also concerned that a fully private system would put the kibosh on the To Be Announced (TBA) market that provides so much stability for the mortgage origination process.

A thoughtful reform proposal could incorporate all of these concerns while also clearing away the sticky problems built into the Fannie/Freddie model of housing finance.

“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is not a good enough philosophy after we have lived through the financial crisis. We should focus on the big questions of what we want from our 21st century housing finance system and then design a system that will implement it accordingly.

Mortgage Moves in 2017

Posted on by

MortgageLoan.com quoted me in Three Mortgage Moves o Consider in 2017. It opens,

How much do you think about your mortgage? Probably not much at all.

But financial professionals say that homeowners can save money, lower the amount of interest they pay each year and maybe free up some extra cash, all by tweaking their mortgages, whether they are paying off a conventional loan, FHA mortgage or VA loan.

If you’ve gotten into the habit of ignoring your mortgage, it’s time to take a look at what is probably your biggest financial obligation. Here are three suggestions from mortgage lenders and financial pros to use your mortgage to better your finances in 2017.

Going Short-Term

Are you paying off a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage? It might be time to refinance that loan, not for the benefit of lower interest rates but to turn your mortgage into one with a shorter term.

Turning your loan from a 30-year version to a 15-year one will result in a higher monthly mortgage payment. But you’ll also dramatically reduce the amount of interest you’ll have to pay over the life of your loan. Mortgage rates with 15-year, fixed-rate loans are lower than the ones attached to longer-term loans, too.

“Going shorter term is a big financial benefit,” said Jason Zimmer, president of Lockport, Illinois-based Parlay Mortgage. “The 15-year loan is where you want to go. You can save so much money.”

Look at the financial difference: Say you are paying off a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage of $250,000 at an interest rate of 4.09 percent. Your monthly payment, not including property taxes or insurance, will be about $1,200. But you’ll pay a total of $184,000 in interest if you take the entire 30 years to pay off your loan.

But say you now owe $225,000 on that same loan. If you refinance that amount to a 15-year, fixed-rate mortgage with an interest rate of 3.33 percent, your monthly payment, not including taxes and insurance, will jump to just under $1,600. But if you take the full 15 years to pay off this loan, you’ll only pay about $61,000 in interest, a huge savings from that 30-year loan.

“Lots of people don’t consider a 15-year, fixed-rate mortgage for a refinance because they knew they could not afford one when they bought their house in the first place,” said David Reiss, professor of law at Brooklyn Law School in New York City. “But if you have had your house for more than a couple of years, and your income has increased in the interim, refinancing into a 15-year, fixed-rate mortgage can be a great way to get a lower interest rate and pay a lot less interest in the long run.”

The Jumbo/Conforming Spread

Posted on by

elephant-310836_1280

Standard & Poor’s issued a research report, What Drives the Variation Between Conforming and Jumbo Mortgage Rates? It opens,

What drives the variation between the conforming and jumbo mortgage rates for the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) product offered in the U.S. residential housing market? While credit and interest rate risk are the main factors at play, S&P Global Ratings explores how these risks relate to capital market execution and whether this relationship translates into additional liquidity risk. In our study, we compare the historical spreads between the two average note rates over time, and we also examine the impact of certain loan credit characteristics. Our data indicate that the rate difference grows in periods for which the opportunity for securitization declines as a viable exit strategy for lenders. (1)

S&P also finds that “[r]isk-based pricing trends also appear to influence the jumbo-conforming spread” and that “[t]he currently narrow spread suggests that a combination of g-fee increases and jumbo credit migration has, to some extent, counteracted the lack of liquidity in the non-agency market.” (1)

The report offers some concise background:

The 30-year FRM is a product unique to the U.S. residential housing market. Lenders in other countries typically offer adjustable-rate or balloon mortgages, which serve as the primary debt tools for housing finance. The 30-year FRM has not been globally adopted, partially because the long-term amortization schedule can saddle a lender with substantial interest rate risk in addition to potentially prolonged credit risk. However, the structure of the mortgage financing system in the U.S. provides an exit strategy: lenders can typically sell loan pools into a reasonably deep market if they are averse to the credit, duration, or convexity risks posed by these long-term assets.

In the U.S., the majority of mortgage financing is channeled through government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have a mandate to buy mortgages for their own portfolios and securitize loan pools, which are subsequently sold to investors. Mortgages that are not financed via the GSEs are often either securitized in the non-agency market or held in institutional portfolios. Both agency and non-agency securitizations optimize funding sources and liquidity, thereby allowing homeowners to enjoy relatively low mortgage rates across the U.S. (1)

My main takeaways from the report are that (1) the decrease in securitization since the financial crisis has contributed to a wider spread between jumbo and conforming mortgages; (2) the high guaranty fee for conforming mortgages pushes down the spread between jumbo and conforming mortgages; and (3) the credit box appears to be loosening a bit, which should mean that jumbos will become available to more than the “super-prime” slice of the market.

Homebuyer’s Guide to Rate Hike

Posted on by
Day Donaldson

Fed Chair Yellen

U.S. News & World Report quoted me in A Consumer’s Guide to the Fed Interest Rate Hike. It opens,

The era of cheap money isn’t exactly over, but on Wednesday, after seven years of having near zero interest rates, the Federal Reserve voted to raise the central bank’s benchmark interest rate from a range of 0 percent to 0.25 percent to a range of 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent. Economists have largely seen this as a positive development – it means the American economy is considered strong enough to handle higher interest rates – but, of course, the all-important question on everyone’s minds is likely: What does this mean for me?

It depends, of course, on where you’re putting your money these days.

Homebuying. While it’s expected that the minor interest rate hike will result in it being more costly to borrow money to buy a home, that isn’t necessarily the case. Numerous factors influence mortgage rates, from where in the country your home is located to the state of the global economy to whether inflation is believed to be around the corner. Still, there’s a pretty fair chance that the interest rate hike will lead to higher borrowing costs.

But it’s worth remembering that even if the rates go up, it’s still cheap to buy a house compared to the recent past. According to Freddie Mac’s website, the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage currently stands at 3.94 percent. If you bought a house, say, 15 years ago, the annual average rate in 2000 was 8.05 percent.

David Reiss, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in real estate, says he wouldn’t rush out to buy a home based on the Fed’s announcement.

“I would caution strongly against letting the Fed’s actions on the interest rate influence the home-buying decision all that much, no matter what market you live in,” Reiss says. “First of all, the mortgage market has taken the Fed’s likely actions into account already, so interest rates … incorporate some of the rise in rate already.”

Bottom line, he says: “Generally, people should be buying a home when it makes sense for their lifestyle. Expect to stay put for a while? Maybe you should buy a home. Expecting kids? Maybe you should buy a home. Retiring to a warmer clime?  Maybe you should buy a home.”

Again, the interest rate climbed 0.25​ percent, and while the Fed has indicated that rates may continue to rise, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has stressed that any future hikes will be gradual.

“Small changes in interest rates do not generally make that much of a dollars-and-cents difference in the decision to buy,” Reiss says.

Buying A Home After Retirement

Posted on by

17512-an-elderly-woman-washing-produce-pv

HSH.com quoted me in Buying A Home After Retirement Is Possible, but Challenging. It reads, in part,

The ideal situation is to enter your retirement years without any monthly mortgage payments. But what if you’ve finally found your dream home at the same time that you’re leaving the working world? What if you’re ready to buy a home in a new city in which you’ve always wanted to live, but you’re approaching your 70th birthday?

The good news is that the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act law prohibits lenders from denying potential borrowers because of their age. The bad news is that you’ll have a mortgage payment and the burden of caring for a house in your retirement years.

“It can be bad to have a mortgage payment in your 80s,” says Keith Baker, professor of mortgage banking at North Lake College in Irving, Texas. “All sorts of things can happen to you, unfortunately. What if you develop Alzheimer’s? What if your children aren’t financially sophisticated and can’t take over handling your mortgage for you? There are all kinds of reasons not to have a mortgage when you’re that age. But if you can afford a mortgage payment when you’re in your 60s and early 70s and you’re in good health, why not buy that home that you’ve always wanted?”

If you want to buy a home after you’ve retired, you’ll need to first consider several factors, and you’ll need to overcome a variety of hurdles both to qualify for a mortgage loan and to find a home that fits your changing needs as you get older.

*     *     *

Many borrowers apply for 30-year loans because they generally come with the lowest monthly payments. But such a long-term loan might not make sense for borrowers who are already in their retirement years, says David Reiss, professor of law and research director for the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School in New York City.

“If you are 62, you will not have paid [the loan] off until you are 92,” says Reiss. “Retirees should look at their expected incomes over those 30 years to ensure that they have sufficient income to cover the mortgage over the whole period.”

Income can fluctuate during the retirement years. Maybe payments from a legal settlement run out. You might struggle to find renters for your investment properties. Royalties can dwindle. At the same time, expenses — especially medical ones — might rise.

Reiss says that it makes sense for retirees to take out a loan with a shorter term, such as a 15-year fixed-rate loan, if they can afford the higher monthly payments that come with such loans.