Tag Archives: QRM

Benefit Ratios for Qualified Residential Mortgages

Posted on by

As I had noted previously,

the long awaited Proposed Rule that addresses the definition of Qualified Residential Mortgages has finally been released, with comments due by October 30th. The Proposed Rule’s preferred definition of a QRM is the same as a Qualified Mortgage. There is going to be a lot of comments on this proposed rule because it indicates that a QRM will not require a down payment. This is a far cry from the 20 percent down payment required by the previous proposed rule (the 20011 Proposed Rule).

The Proposed Rule notes that in “developing the definition of a QRM in the original proposal,” the six agencies [OCC, FRS, FDIC, FHFA, SEC and HUD] responsible for it “articulated several goals and principles.” (250)

First, the agencies stated that QRMs should be of very high credit quality, given that Congress exempted QRMs completely from the credit risk retention requirements.

Second, the agencies recognized that setting fixed underwriting rules to define a QRM could exclude many mortgages to creditworthy borrowers. In this regard, the agencies recognized that a trade-off exists between the lower implementation and regulatory costs of providing fixed and simple eligibility requirements and the lower probability of default attendant to requirements that incorporate detailed and compensating underwriting factors.

* * *

Fourth, the agencies sought to implement standards that would be transparent and verifiable to participants in the market.” (250)

After reviewing the comments to the 2011 Proposed Rule, the agencies concluded that “a QRM definition that aligns with the definition of a QM meets the statutory goals and directive of section 15G of the Exchange Act to limit credit risk, preserves access to affordable credit, and facilitates compliance.” (256)

I was somewhat disturbed, however, by the following passage. The agencies are

concerned about the prospect of imposing further constraints on mortgage credit availability at this time, especially as such constraints might disproportionately affect groups that have historically been disadvantaged in the mortgage market, such as lower-income, minority, or first-time homebuyers. (263)

While it is important to make residential credit broadly available, the agencies will be doing borrowers no favors if their loans are not sustainable and they end up in default or foreclosure. The agencies should come up with a metric that balances responsible underwriting with access to credit and apply that metric to the definition of a QRM.

Quercia et al. have developed one such metric, which they refer to as a “benefit ratio.” The benefit ratio compares “the percent reduction in the number of defaults to the percent reduction in the number of borrowers who would have access to QRM mortgages.” (20) A metric of this sort would go a long way to ensuring that there is transparency for homeowners as to the likelihood that they can not only get a mortgage but also pay it off and keep their homes.

If QRM = QM, then FICO+CLTV > DTI ?@#?!?

Posted on by

The long awaited Proposed Rule that addresses the definition of Qualified Residential Mortgages has finally been released, with comments due by October 30th. The Proposed Rule’s preferred definition of a QRM is the same as a Qualified Mortgage. There is going to be a lot of comments on this proposed rule because it indicates that a QRM will not require a down payment. This is a far cry from the 20 percent down payment required by the previous proposed rule (the 20011 Proposed Rule).

There is a lot to digest in the Proposed Rule. For today’s post, I will limit myself to a staff report from the SEC, Qualified Residential Mortgage: Background Data Analysis on Credit Risk Retention, that was issued a couple of days ago about the more restrictive definition of QRM contained in the 2011 Proposed Rule.  The report’s main findings included

  • Historical loans meeting the 2011 proposed QRM definition have significantly lower SDQ [serious delinquency] rates than historical loans meeting the QM definition, but applying this definition results in significantly lower loan volume than QM.
  • FICO and combined loan-to-value (CLTV) are strong determinants of historical loan performance, while the effect of debt-to-income (DTI) is much lower.
  • Adding FICO or CLTV restrictions to the QM definition reduces SDQ rates faster than the loss of loan volume: max ratios achieved at 760 FICO and 55% CLTV. (2)

Certainly, some readers’ eyes have glazed over by now, but this is important stuff and it embodies an important debate about underwriting.  Is it better to have an easy to understand heuristic like a down payment requirement? Or is it better to have a sophisticated approach to underwriting which looks at the layering of risks like credit score, loan to value ratio, debt to income ratio and other factors?

The first approach is hard to game by homeowners, lenders and politicians seeking to be “pro-homeowner.” But it can result in less than the optimal amount of credit being made available to potential homeowners because it may exclude those homeowners who do not present an unreasonable risk of default but who do not have the resources to put together a significant down payment.

The second approach is easier to game by lenders looking to increase market share and politicians who put pressure on regulated financial institutions to expand access to credit. But it can come closer to providing the optimal amount of credit, balancing the risk of default against the opportunity to become a homeowner.

It would be interesting if the final definition of QRM were able to encompass both of these approaches somehow, so that we can see how they perform against each other.

Regulating the Distribution of Home Equity

Posted on by

Ian Ayres and Joshua Mitts have posted Three Proposals for Regulating the Distribution of Home Equity which brings welcomed attention to the systemic risk implications of consumer protection regimes.  In particular, they argue that the proposed Qualfied Residential Mortgage “rules do not effectively address the systemic consequences of mortgage terms which in aggregate can exacerbate market volatility.” (4) They also argue that the new and proposed regulations governing residential mortgages are too static and that they have too many bright line rules that could needlessly reduce variation and innovation for mortgage products.

The authors apply cap and trade to the residential mortgage market in a novel way — one that is is worthy of exploration.  They propose that the government sell mortgage lenders licenses to originate a range of low downpayment mortgages, with the total number capped so as not to pose a systemic risk to the mortgage market.

This is not to say that the paper is flawless.  I find the modeling of the mortgage market overly simplistic.  For instance, its discussion of circuit breaker gaps (an empty range “of equity levels  that can absorb small decreases in prices by keeping homeowners above the range in positive equity”) assumes that LTV ratios at origination will somehow be carried over even when a mortgage is seasoned. (14) That would not be the case.

Its proposal to require that debt-to-income ratios be increased from the 5 years in the proposed regulation to the life of the loan does not seem to take into account the fact that it would kill just about the entire market for ARMs. (32) Given that many ARM products (5/1s ,7/1s, 10/1s) are legitimate and important products, this proposal seems off. (32)

Finally, there is something a bit “turtles all the way down” about the cap and trade proposal. (see 34) The proposal does not let us know how regulators would come up with the optimal (from a systemic risk perspective) distribution of licenses.  Until we know how to answer that question, it will be hard to determine the value of this proposal.

 

Misleading CoreLogic Report on Qualified Mortgage Rules

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal reported (behind its paywall) uncritically on a recently released CoreLogic report about the supposed impact of the new Qualified Mortgage rules issued last month by the CFPB on the mortgage market.  The report is very flawed.

The report states that “the issuance of final Dodd-Frank related regulations now underway represent a watershed moment that will impact the size of mortgage market [sic] and performance for many years to come.” (3) In particular, it argues that the new CFPB Qualified Mortgage and Qualified Residential Mortgage rules “remove 60  percent of loans.” (4)

The methodology here is superficially sophisticated, employing a

waterfall approach . . . where loans that do not qualify for QM were sequentially removed.  The loan features that do not meet the QM requirements include loans with back-end [Debt To Income] above 43 percent, negative amortizations, interest only, balloons, low or no documentation, and loans with more than a 30 year term. (3)

The report thus implies that the QM regulations will reduce the number of mortgages originated by nearly two thirds.  But the report ignores the obvious dynamics that one would find in a well-functioning market.  Once certain products are banned  (let’s say interest only mortgages), borrowers will have at least three options.  First, they can take the path implied by CoreLogic and exit the mortgage market thereby becoming one of the supposedly 60 percent of loans that are “removed” from the market.  Or, they can seek a mortgage product that complies with the new rules (perhaps an ARM) that will allow them to buy the home of their choice.  Or, they can choose to buy a cheaper house with a mortgage that complies with the rules and is affordable to them.  It is very likely that many borrowers will go with the second or third option, resulting in a different but not severely diminished mortgage market.

Yes, the new rules will change the types of mortgages that are available.  Yes, loans will be more conservatively underwritten to ensure that they are sustainable.  Yes, home prices will need to find a new equilibrium.  But no, CoreLogic, the new rules will not destroy the mortgage market.