Tag Archives: liquidity

Federal Home Loan Banks during Financial Stress

Posted on by
Reply

I was happy to participate in the discussion group process for the Government Accountability Office’s report, Federal Home Loan Banks: Role During Financial Stress and Members’ Borrowing Trends and Outcomes (GAO-26-107373). The Highlights of the report include

The Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank) System consists of 11 federally chartered FHLBanks that support liquidity by making loans to member financial institutions (including banks) in the U.S. As of June 2025, 93 percent of banks (approximately 4,100) were members of an FHLBank, allowing them to obtain liquidity via secured loans. GAO’s analysis found that the FHLBanks generally serve as a reliable and consistent source of funding for banks of all sizes throughout the financial cycle. They can also play a key role in the health of small banks (those with $10 billion or less in assets). This has been the case despite concerns raised in some academic and other literature that FHLBank lending could exacerbate periods of financial stress—for example, by masking problems at troubled member banks or increasing resolution costs when a member bank fails.

Banks’ FHLBank borrowing trends. From 2015 through June 2025, most U.S. banks were FHLBank members and obtained secured loans at least once. Banks’ total outstanding borrowing (as of quarter-end) ranged from $189 billion to $804 billion during this period. Although most active FHLBank members maintained relatively consistent FHLBank borrowing, a small number of large banks (with more than $10 billion in assets) drove substantial increases in aggregate borrowing at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and during the March 2023 liquidity crisis. For example, large banks were responsible for 97 percent of the increased borrowing in the first quarter of 2023. However, median FHLBank borrowing as a share of median total assets generally stayed within a consistent range from 2015 through June 2025, including for large banks. This suggests that their overall reliance on FHLBank loans during stress periods was largely unchanged.

Outcomes associated with FHLBank borrowing. GAO’s econometric models, which controlled for bank health, macroeconomic factors, and economic cycles, found that higher FHLBank borrowing by a bank was generally associated with positive outcomes for the bank. From 2015 through 2024, higher FHLBank borrowing was associated with (1) increases in real estate lending and (2) lower likelihood of being flagged as a problem bank or of failing or closing voluntarily. These results were largely driven by small banks, which make up 97 percent of banks in GAO’s analysis.

Federal Home Loan Banks’ Liquidity Role During Financial Crises

Posted on by

The historic Federal Home Loan Bank Board Building            AgnosticPreachersKid CC BY-SA 4.0

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has invited me to participate in a review of the Federal Home Loan Banks’ Liquidity Role During Financial Crises. I have previously written about the FHLBs here. The invite reads in part,

GAO is an independent, nonpartisan federal agency that supports Congress by evaluating federal programs and activities. In response to a request from the House Committee on Financial Services, our team is conducting a review of the Federal Home Loan Banks’ (FHLBank) liquidity role during financial crises.

As part of our work, we plan to provide Congress and the public more information on the strengths, limitations, and feasibility of certain changes that academics, interest groups, and others have suggested to address perceived issues with FHLBank lending during crises. We identified the changes through a review of academic, trade, and grey (dissertations, blog posts, etc.) literature since 2007. We then narrowed the list down to a shorter list of changes for further discussion. While we recognize there is currently substantial discussion around the FHLBanks’ housing mission and membership, we are focusing on FHLBanks’ lending to banks. Please note that the changes to be discussed are not GAO recommendations.

The GAO is seeking input “from individuals, organizations, federal agencies, and FHLBanks on the list of changes to address concerns with FHLBank lending during crises.” I had previously written that while the FHLBank System

was originally designed to support homeownership, it has morphed into a provider of liquidity for large financial institutions.

Banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citibank NA and Wells Fargo & Co. are among its biggest beneficiaries and homeownership is only incidentally supported by their involvement with it.

As part of the comprehensive review of the system, we should give thought to at least changing the name of the system so that it cannot trade on its history as a supporter of affordable homeownership. But we should go even farther and give some thought to spinning off its functions into other parts of the federal financial infrastructure as its functions are redundant with theirs.

This GAO review is a good start to subjecting the System to such a comprehensive review!

Paying off Mortgages before Retirement

Posted on by

By Erwin Bosman - Imported from 500px (archived version) by the Archive Team. (detail page), CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71327793

I was quoted in Should You Pay off Your Mortgage before Retirement? It opens,

Getting rid of what may be your largest monthly expense and unburdening yourself of debt are great benefits of becoming mortgage free at any age. But it may be particularly attractive as you approach retirement.

“Back in the 20th century, people used to burn their mortgage documents once they had paid the loan off,” said David Reiss, a law professor who specializes in real estate and consumer financial services at Brooklyn Law School in New York. “That practice reflected the freedom that many felt from no longer having to borrow to own their family home.”

Indeed, that emotional freedom helped make the idea of paying off your mortgage before retirement conventional wisdom for financial planning.

And there are still good reasons to consider it.

“It’s always helpful to pay attention to rules of thumb like, ‘You should pay off your mortgage before retirement,’” said Reiss. Those rules are often true under typical circumstances. But you want to understand the assumptions behind the rules and see how they compare with your situation.

Traditionally, the main reasons to pay off your mortgage before retirement are to get rid of the monthly payment (perhaps allowing for a better balance of income with expenses) and to gain the emotional benefit of having your home paid off, said Casey Fleming, a California-based mortgage advisor and the author of Buying and Financing Your New Home.

But there can be other considerations as well. These can include:

Each of these areas can provide good reasons to sunset a mortgage, but also good reasons not to. It all depends on personal circumstances, so it’s important to take a closer look.

Balancing income and expenses

For some people, retirement means shifting to a fixed income that may be lower than what they brought in during their working years. Eliminating a significant bill ahead of time — like a mortgage payment — may make living on a fixed income a little more affordable.

But that may not be the case for everyone.

“For instance, most people see a significant drop in income when they retire,” Reiss said. “If that is not the case for you — you have a great pension, your spouse is still working, etc. — then you have more flexibility when it comes to your mortgage.”

When matching income and expenses in retirement, it’s important also to take a long-term view. For example, if your spouse will retire a few years after you do, you may want to increase your mortgage payments to time their retirement with your loan payoff date.

Emotional benefits

When you carry a mortgage, someone else has a powerful legal hold on your home. Forget to pay your homeowner’s insurance bill? Your lender can buy coverage — very expensive coverage — on your behalf. Miss too many loan payments? Your lender can foreclose.

As noted earlier, taking back that power made paying off the mortgage a celebratory event. Not only did people burn mortgage documents, but some also hung eagles over their doorways, using the symbol of American freedom to herald their freedom from mortgage debt to visitors.

Yet you’re never truly free of foreclosure risk — you’ll still have to pay your property taxes even after you’ve extinguished your mortgage. And most people should still carry homeowner’s insurance, even when a lender doesn’t require it — which means you’ll have to answer to your insurance carrier. If they don’t like the wood-burning stove in your garage, you’ll have to take it out unless you can find another company that approves having it.

Still, many people feel differently about their homes once the mortgage is paid in full.

Liquidity

Paying off your mortgage before you retire — assuming that you’re not already on schedule to do so — means using assets you might otherwise allocate elsewhere.

Generally, if you have enough money in your retirement fund to handle your living expenses comfortably, plus a cushion for extraordinary expenses (like medical bills as you get older), then it’s safe to pay off your mortgage, Fleming said.

But it may be unwise to use liquid assets, such as stocks, bonds, and cash, to pay down your mortgage as you approach retirement because home equity is far less liquid. If, after you retire, you wish you had that money back, you may have to look at options for selling your home, refinancing it, or getting a reverse mortgage, all of which require time and fees.

Return on investment

Paying off any sort of debt gives you a guaranteed return on investment. If you’re carrying a mortgage at 7 percent, paying it off may be attractive because you typically would have difficulty earning a guaranteed 7 percent long term anywhere else.

Of course, with a lower mortgage rate or a higher risk tolerance, early mortgage repayment becomes less attractive from an ROI perspective. So, it becomes a personal choice about risk and lifestyle.

Taxes

Another argument in favor of paying off your mortgage before retirement is if you won’t lose a tax deduction by doing so.

“The standard deduction is pretty high now, and many seniors don’t benefit anymore from the mortgage interest tax deduction,” Fleming said.

If your standard deduction is greater than your itemized deductions — and for the vast majority of Americans, it is — you can’t reduce your tax obligations by deducting your mortgage interest.

However, the standard deduction in effect today could halve in 2026. The doubling of the standard deduction that became effective in 2018 is one of many tax code provisions that’s set to expire at the end of 2025.

And even if your mortgage interest by itself doesn’t get you over the standard deduction threshold — in 2023, that’s $13,850 for single taxpayers, $27,700 for married taxpayers who file jointly, and $20,800 for heads of household — when combined with other itemizable deductions such as charitable donations and state and local income taxes, paying off your mortgage early might increase your tax bill.

“If you pay off a mortgage early, you are saving on mortgage interest, but you may also be giving up the mortgage interest deduction,” Reiss said. “If you do not pay it off early, you can earn interest in a bank account, but you will be paying taxes on that interest. You want to think through the consequences of your choice to see which is the most financially attractive, including the tax consequences.”

Rethinking The Federal Home Loan Bank System

Posted on by

photo by Tony Webster

Law360 published my column, Time To Rethink The Federal Home Loan Bank System. It opens,

The Federal Housing Finance Agency is commencing a comprehensive review of an esoteric but important part of our financial infrastructure this month. The review is called “Federal Home Loan Bank System at 100: Focusing on the Future.”

It is a bit of misnomer, as the system is only 90 years old. Congress brought it into existence in 1932 as one of the first major legislative responses to the Great Depression. But the name of the review also signals that the next 10 years should be a period of reflection regarding the proper role of the system in our broader financial infrastructure.

Just as the name of the review process is a bit misleading, so is the name of the Federal Home Loan Bank system itself. While it was originally designed to support homeownership, it has morphed into a provider of liquidity for large financial institutions.

Banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citibank NA and Wells Fargo & Co. are among its biggest beneficiaries and homeownership is only incidentally supported by their involvement with it.

As part of the comprehensive review of the system, we should give thought to at least changing the name of the system so that it cannot trade on its history as a supporter of affordable homeownership. But we should go even farther and give some thought to spinning off its functions into other parts of the federal financial infrastructure as its functions are redundant with theirs. 

Money, Government and Mortgages

Posted on by
photo by By Chris McAndrew - https://api.parliament.uk/Live/photo/F7tZ5nm6.jpeg?crop=MCU_3:4&quality=80&download=trueGallery: https://beta.parliament.uk/media/F7tZ5nm6, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=67598699

Robert Skidelsky

I just finished reading Money and Government by Robert Skidelsky (2018).  It is a bit tough in parts for non-economists, but it is a great read for those trying to understand the appropriate relationship between economic theory and government policy.  While that may sound dry indeed, it is of key importance to the design of a post-Financial Crisis world regulatory order.

The book delves into the the “Mysteries of Money,” providing a short history of a deceptively simple topic that I continue to find to be difficult to wrap my head around:  what exactly is money and what can you do with it?  The book then goes into some inside baseball analysis of the history of economic thought.  I skimmed this section because it related some pretty technical debates among early economists to set up its more accessible discussion of Keynesian economics and its challenger, Milton Friedman-led Monetarism.  The book then takes a look at how economic theory impacted governments’ responses to the Financial Crisis, for good and for ill.

I think readers of this blog would be most interested by Skidelsky’s insights in the final section, where he tries to sketch “A New Macroeconomics.”  He asks and answers the question, “What Should Governments Do and Why?”  He wants to make banking safe and address inequality.

Readers of this blog will be particularly interested in his analysis and  recommendations for the mortgage market.  He argues that the “main theoretical mistake behind securitization was the assumption that securities are always liquid:  they can always be sold quickly and without (much) loss.”  (328)  The Financial Crisis demonstrated in spades that this was not true.  He argues that “[c]ompelling banks to hold mortgages for a period of years” is the solution to this particular problem.  (363) I do not think that I agree with this solution, but as he argues his point at a high level of generality, it probably is best to say that the devil will be in the details for any reform program in this sphere.

I found his analysis of populism compelling.  He argues that the “political divide between right and left . . . is increasingly overshadowed by one between nationalism and globalism.” (372)  I won’t go into the details here, but he has a very trenchant analysis of how the economist’s theoretical Homo economicus fails to account for important aspects of our humanity as individuals, as members of groups and as citizens of nation-states.  He warns that we do that at our peril:  citizens of democracies will punish their leaders for failing to take into account their complex need to flourish in all of those ways that economists can reduce down to one-dimensional units of measurement, such as “utility.”

Yale University Press says that the book is out of print, but Amazon has paperback copies available if you dig a bit on the book’s web page (and, of course, there are Kindle versions available for those so inclined).  I recommend that you get yourself a copy.

Rising Mortgage Borrowing for Seniors

Posted on by

graphic by www.aag.com/retirement-reverse-mortgage-pictures

J. Michael Collins et al. have posted Exploring the Rise of Mortgage Borrowing Among Older Americans to SSRN. The abstract reads,

3.6 million more older American households have a mortgage than 2000, contributing to an increase in mortgage usage among the elderly of thirty-nine percent. Rather than collecting imputed rent, older households are borrowing against home equity, potentially with loan terms that exceed their expected life spans. This paper explores several possible explanations for the rise in mortgage borrowing among the elderly over the past 35 years and its consequences. A primary factor is an increase in homeownership rates, but tax policy, rent-to-price ratios, and increased housing consumption are also factors. We find little evidence that changes to household characteristics such as income, education, or bequest motives are driving increased mortgage borrowing trends. Rising mortgage borrowing provides older households with increased liquid saving, but it does not appear to be associated with decreases in non-housing consumption or increases in loan defaults.

The discussion in the paper raises a lot of issues that may be of interest to other researchers:

Changes to local housing markets tax laws, and housing consumption preferences also appear to contribute to differential changes in mortgage usage by age.

Examining sub-groups of households helps illuminate these patterns. Households with below-median assets and those without pensions account for most of the increase in borrowing. Yet there are no signs of rising defaults or financial hardship for these older households with mortgage debt.

Relatively older homeowners without other assets, especially non-retirement assets, may simply be borrowing to fund consumption in the present—there are some patterns of borrowing in response to local unemployment rates that are consistent with this concept. This could be direct consumption or to help family members.

Older homeowners are holding on to their homes, and their mortgages, longer and potentially smoothing consumption or preserving liquid savings. Low interest rates may have enticed many homeowners in their 50s and 60s into refinancing in the 2000s. Those loans had low rates, and given the decline in home equity and also other asset values in the recession, paying off these loans was less feasible. There is also some evidence that borrowing tends to be more common in areas where the relative costs of renting are higher–limiting other options. Whether these patterns are sustained as more current aging cohorts retire from work, housing prices appreciate, and interest rates increase remains ambiguous.

The increase in the use of mortgages by older households is a trend worthy of more study. This is also an important issue for financial planners, and policy makers, to monitor over the next few years as more cohorts of older households retire, and existing retirees either take on more debt or pay off their loans. Likewise, estate sales of property and probate courts may find more homes encumbered with a mortgage. Surviving widows and widowers may struggle to pay mortgage payments after the death of a spouse and face a reduction of pension or Social Security payments. This may be a form of default risk not currently priced into mortgage underwriting for older loan applicants. If more mortgage borrowing among the elderly results in more foreclosures, smaller inheritances, or even estates with negative values, this could have negative effects on extended families and communities.

Nonbanks and The Next Crisis

Posted on by

 

 

Researchers at the Fed and UC Berkeley have posted Liquidity Crises in the Mortgage Markets. The authors conclusions are particularly troubling:

The nonbank mortgage sector has boomed in recent years. The combination of low interest rates, well-functioning GSE and Ginnie Mae securitization markets, and streamlined FHA and VA programs have created ample opportunities for nonbanks to generate revenue by refinancing mortgages. Commercial banks have been happy to supply warehouse lines of credit to nonbanks at favorable rates. Delinquency rates have been low, and so nonbanks have not needed to finance servicing advances.

In this paper, we ask “What happens next?” What happens if interest rates rise and nonbank revenue drops? What happens if commercial banks or other financial institutions lose their taste for extending credit to nonbanks? What happens if delinquency rates rise and servicers have to advance payments to investors—advances that, in the case of Ginnie Mae pools, the servicer cannot finance, and on which they might take a sizable capital loss?

We cannot provide reassuring answers to any of these questions. The typical nonbank has few resources with which to weather these shocks. Nonbanks with servicing portfolios concentrated in Ginnie Mae pools are exposed to a higher risk of borrower default and higher potential losses in the event of such a default, and yet, as far as we can tell from our limited data, have even less liquidity on hand than other nonbanks. Failure of these nonbanks in particular would have a disproportionate effect on lower-income and minority borrowers.

In the event of the failure of a nonbank, the government (through Ginnie Mae and the GSEs) will probably bear the majority of the increased credit and operational losses that will follow. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the government shared some mortgage credit losses with the banking system through putbacks and False Claims Act prosecutions. Now, however, the banks have largely retreated from lending to borrowers with lower credit scores and instead lend to nonbanks through warehouse lines of credit, which provide banks with numerous protections in the event of nonbank failure.

Although the monitoring of nonbanks on the part of the GSEs, Ginnie Mae, and the state regulators has increased substantially over the past few years, the prudential regulatory minimums, available data, and staff resources still seem somewhat lacking relative to the risks. Meanwhile, researchers and analysts without access to regulatory data have almost no way to assess the risks. In addition, although various regulators are engaged in micro-prudential supervision of individual nonbanks, less thought is being given, in the housing finance reform discussions and elsewhere, to the question of whether it is wise to concentrate so much risk in a sector with such little capacity to bear it, and a history, at least during the financial crisis, of going out of business. We write this paper with the hope of elevating this question in the national mortgage debate. (52-53)

As with last week’s paper on Mortgage Insurers and The Next Housing Crisis, this paper is a wake-up call to mortgage-market policymakers to pay attention to where the seeds of the next mortgage crisis may be hibernating, awaiting just the right conditions to sprout up.