Tag Archives: mortgage

More on the 50-Year Mortgage

Posted on by
Reply

CC0 1.0 Public Domain Pixnio

Marketplace interviewed me in Trump Floated a 50-Year Mortgage to Address Housing Affordability. How Would That Work? The transcript reads,

President Donald Trump proposed a 50-year mortgage over the weekend, in a social media post. The idea came from Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director.

“The average age of a first-time home buyer is now 40 years old. The notion that you’d finish paying off your mortgage at 90 is probably not something that most people contemplate when they want to buy a home,” said David Reiss, a professor at Cornell Law School.

Still, in the short term, a 50-year mortgage would appear cheaper — slightly. Robert Bridges did the math; he’s associate professor emeritus at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business.

“The payment on a 50-year mortgage, for instance, for a $200,000 loan at 6% would be about $1,052, where a 30-year loan would have a payment of $1,199,” Bridges said.

So that’s a difference of $147 in that example. But it comes with costs to the borrower as well, for starters the interest rate would be higher.

“You pay more for a 30-year mortgage than you do for a 15-year mortgage,” Reiss said. “So you will probably pay more for a 50-year mortgage than you would for a 30-year mortgage.”

According to the American Enterprise Institute, a 50-year mortgage would, initially, increase a homeowner’s buying power by 8%.

“Over time, maybe months, maybe years, that would fade,” said Edward Pinto, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Basically, if everyone’s buying power goes up, so does the price of housing. And a longer mortgage also means it takes longer to build up equity.

“And then you’re really left with not much advantage, and you become really a renter with a mortgage,” Pinto said.

A longer loan where it takes longer to build equity also leaves homeowners more vulnerable to risks in the market if home prices stagnate, which Pinto predicts they will in the coming years.

“This has been tried with 40-year loans before, and every time it’s been tried in the United States, it’s failed,” Pinto said.

Failed because they’re too risky, he said. That’s one reason we don’t already have 50-year mortgages.

“It doesn’t seem like this is really the remedy for the housing problem that we all know we have in this country,” Bridges said.

Which is first and foremost, he said, that we don’t have enough of it.

Trump & Pulte’s 50-Year Mortgage

Posted on by
Reply
Concrete Crack Repair - All About Driveways

CC BY-NC 4.0 Deed https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Politico quoted me in ‘Band-Aid,’ ‘Distraction’: Experts Slam Pulte, Trump 50-Year Mortgage Idea. It opens,

The Trump administration is entertaining a potential plan for the government to back 50-year mortgages to address a housing affordability crisis.

But, in a housing market defined by low supply, industry experts warn that changes in financing are likely to be little more than a “band-aid” and a “gimmick,” while posing bigger risks to homebuyers.

“As a country, the mortgage term is not what we should be worried about. We should be focused on building more supply,” said Troy Ludtka, senior U.S. economist at SMBC Nikko Securities America.

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte posted on X Saturday that the Trump administration is working on directing government-owned housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to support 50-year home mortgages, calling the move ”a complete game changer.” President Donald Trump also posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, supporting the idea.

The proposal comes after Trump directed Pulte to leverage Fannie and Freddie to ramp up the country’s stalled housing production to bring down costs and address the estimated shortage of 4.7 million homes. But the new proposal is raising concerns about whether such a major change to the two giant mortgage financiers’ buying rules could destabilize a central strength of homeownership — the opportunity to build wealth over time.

In a series of follow-up posts over the weekend, Pulte wrote that “a 50 Year Mortgage is simply a potential weapon in a WIDE arsenal of solutions that we are developing right now. STAY TUNED!” He sounded off about other possible ideas like supporting portable mortgages, which can transfer to a new property, and assumable mortgages, which can be transferred to a property’s new buyer.

An FHFA spokesperson told POLITICO, “We continue to evaluate all options to address housing affordability, including studying how to make mortgages assumable or portable.”

And a White House spokesperson said in a statement, “President Trump is always exploring new ways to improve housing affordability for everyday Americans. Any official policy changes will be announced by the White House.”

Experts expect that extending the potential length of Fannie- and Freddie-supported home loans would require congressional support.

Fannie and Freddie don’t offer loans directly to potential homebuyers; instead, they purchase mortgages from lenders to package and sell on the secondary market. This frees up resources for lenders to issue new mortgages.

By purchasing 50-year mortgages, Fannie and Freddie could make the longer-term loans more appealing for lenders to offer. With a longer loan, monthly payments could come down, but it also comes at a cost to homebuyers.

“It would lead to buyers building equity in their homes more slowly. At the beginning of the mortgage, more of those payments tend to be interest… This is more of a stopgap band-aid to address affordability,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, head of US rates strategy at TD Securities.

Sharon Cornelissen, director of housing at the Consumer Federation of America, called the proposal “a distraction” and warned that although expanding the accessibility of 50-year mortgages could lower monthly payments, “the cost of that is that people won’t be able to build wealth through homeownership.”

And as first-time homebuyers get older, the 50-year mortgage appears less manageable, Cornelissen said. Last week, the National Association of Realtors shared findings that the median age of first-time homebuyers had risen to an all-time high of 40.

“So you’ll be 90,” Cornelissen said, adding that finishing payment on a 30-year mortgage is a “stabilizing force” for people going into retirement.

David Reiss, a Cornell Law School professor and real estate finance researcher, said a move toward 50-year mortgages would require homebuyers to rethink how they save for retirement.

“We often hear financial advice that you want to try to pay off your mortgage before the time that you retire,” Reiss said. “So that’s a problem.”

Why Does a Bank Sell Your Mortgage?

Posted on by

I was quoted in Marketplace’s story, Why Does a Bank Sell Your Mortgage? You can listen to it here. The transcript opens,

Right after Marc Hill bought his first home, a townhouse north of Chicago, in the summer of 2019, he got a letter telling him his mortgage had been sold. He didn’t think much of it after Googling around.

“I read that was kind of normal. And then it happened again. And then again. And I was like, ‘Well, what’s going on here?’” he said with a laugh.

Recently, less than five years after his purchase, the mortgage on Hill’s townhouse changed hands for the fourth time.

“Welcome to the 21st century housing market,” said David Reiss, a professor of real estate finance and housing policy at Brooklyn Law School. Today, upward of 70% of mortgages are sold into the secondary market.

“A lot of people have a sense that mortgages work like they did maybe in ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’” he said. “Where you walk into your bank and if they think you’re a good risk, they’re going to give you some mortgage, and that’s going to come from money that they have from deposits.”

Sometimes that is how it works. But for the most part, Reiss said, “instead of banks lending you money that they have in deposit, once the bank makes the mortgage they then sell it to investors.”

When the bank or lender that originated your mortgage sells it, they get back all the money they lent you right away, plus a chunk of the interest you’re expected to pay over the life of your mortgage. They also get some of your closing costs.

A Controversial Fix for America’s Housing Market

Posted on by

Sustainable Economies Law Center

Insider quoted me in A Controversial Fix for America’s Housing Market: More Foreclosures. It opens,

How many people should lose their homes to foreclosure?

In an ideal world, of course, there would be no foreclosures at all. Everyone who buys a home would get one that fits their income and needs, and people would have enough money to make their mortgage payments on time and in full. But in a housing market built on debt, foreclosures are a painful reality. People lose their jobs or fall behind on payments, and lenders repossess the home to recoup their losses.

Too many foreclosures is obviously a bad thing — losing a home is devastating both financially and emotionally — but it’s also a problem to have too few foreclosures. Low rates of foreclosure activity signal that housing lenders aren’t taking enough risk, locking out hopeful buyers who could have kept up with payments on their mortgage if only lenders gave them the chance.

Most residential loans are backed by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or the Federal Housing Administration. To try to find a happy medium of risk, the GSEs — government-sponsored enterprises — and FHA set a “credit box” to determine who gets a mortgage. The companies base these standards on factors including the borrower’s financial stability and the state of the housing market and economy. When the credit box gets tighter, fewer people get mortgages, and foreclosures generally go down. When it opens up, banks take more risks on people with lower credit scores or worse financial histories, increasing the possibility of foreclosures.

Finding the right size for the credit box is easier said than done. In the years leading up to the Great Recession, banks and private lenders handed out millions of risky loans to homebuyers who had no hope of repaying them. A tidal wave of foreclosures followed, plunging the US housing market — and the global economy — into chaos.

But some experts argue that in the years since the crash, the GSEs, lenders, and regulators overcorrected, shutting loads of potentially reliable buyers out of the housing market. Laurie Goodman, the founder of the Housing Finance Policy Center at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said there’s room today to “open the credit box” and relax lending standards without pushing the housing market into crisis. More foreclosures might come as a result, she said, but that would be “a worthwhile trade-off” if it gave more people the opportunity to build wealth through homeownership.

Opening the credit box isn’t a cure-all for housing, and given the weakening economy, more cautious experts argue that making it easier to get a mortgage is unnecessary or dangerous. But if lenders do it correctly, it could be a major step toward a healthier market. A more stable credit box over time could not only ensure future homebuyers aren’t locked out of getting the home of their dreams, but could also smooth out some of the market’s chaotic nature.

The ‘invisible victims’ of the housing market

In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the victims of the housing free-for-all were clear. An estimated 3.8 million homeowners lost their homes to foreclosure from 2007 to 2010, and plenty more also lost theirs in the following years. But the overly strict lending standards and tighter regulations that followed created a new class of victims: people who were unable to join the ranks of homeowners. David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, called these would-be homebuyers “invisible victims” — people who probably could have stayed current on their payments if they’d been approved for a loan but who didn’t get that opportunity.

Helping Your Kids Qualify for a Mortgage?

Posted on by
Mitchell Joyce https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

Mitchell Joyce https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/

The Wall Street Journal quoted me in Helping Your Kids Qualify for a Mortgage? What to Know Before Cosigning on the Dotted Line. It reads, in part,

With rising interest rates and slowing real-estate sales, homeownership remains out of reach for many would-be buyers. According to the National Association of Home Builders, in the second quarter of 2022, housing affordability fell to its lowest point since the 2007-09 recession.

The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index found that just 42.8% of new and existing homes sold between the beginning of April and the end of June were affordable to families earning the U.S. median income of $90,000. This is a sharp drop from the 56.9% of homes sold in the first quarter that were affordable to median-income earners.One option to improve affordability, especially for those who lack good credit: Have mom and dad cosign the mortgage. Many parents are willing to do so, according to data prepared for The Wall Street Journal by LendingTree Inc., an online loan marketplace, which reported that 57% of parents would be willing to cosign their child’s mortgage and 7% have done so in the past.

 *.     *.     *

There is a difference between cosigning and guaranteeing. According to David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in real estate, a parent acting as a co-borrower has the same responsibilities under the loan as their child. They are liable for the payments as they come due and can be sued by the lender for nonpayment if the loan becomes delinquent. But a parent acting as a guarantor has a different legal relationship with both the lender and the child. A parent guarantor would be responsible for the loan only if the child first defaults.

.

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. 

Shared Equity Financing

Posted on by

Financing by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images

Ernira Mehmetaj and I published The Promise and Perils of Shared Equity Financing in the ABA’s Probate and Property magazine. It opens,

It is the rare homeowner, or even lawyer, who thinks twice about why mortgages are part of so many real estate transactions.  Real estate is expensive, and few have the money to pay for a home all in cash.  As a result, people enter in transactions with mortgage lenders and are exposed to all of the risks that come along with that type of financing:  default, late fees, foreclosure.

If you stripped away all of our history and our current practices in financing home ownership with mortgages, you might ask how could people with limited assets acquire something as expensive as a home?  It turns out that there are all sorts of ways to slice and dice the rights and responsibilities of homeownership to offer households just the aspects they want and no more.

A new development, shared equity financing, will make us all think twice about mortgages.  Its sharing of the risks and rewards of a home purchase will be attractive to many, but it also has its own share of perils that are unique to it.