Tag Archives: Qualified Mortgage

Effect of Qualified Mortgages on Credit Availability: Little to None

Posted on by

The Congressional Research Service has issued a somewhat opaque report, The Ability-to-Repay Rule: Possible Effects of the Qualified Mortgage Definition on Credit Availability and Other Selected Issues, that summarizes the Ability-to-Repay Rule.  More importantly, it offers a bit of an evaluation of the impact of the new regulatory regime for mortgages on the availability of credit.

According to the CFPB, “close to 100% of the 2011 mortgage market would have been in compliance with the” Ability-to-Repay Rule. (9) The CFPB thus believes that the rule will “have a minimal effect on access to credit.”  (9) The report reviews two alternative estimates, one by CoreLogic and another by Amherst Securities, that offer a less optimistic forecast.

CoreLogic uses 2010 data for its analysis. The CRS appears to agree with me that the CoreLogic report is misleading, but it does report that CoreLogic believes that nearly half of all mortgages will not meet the Qualified Mortgage rules once temporary compliance options for the rule expire.  I do not credit the CoreLogic report and would discount its findings for the reasons that I have given previously and for the additional reasons contained in the CRS report.

Amherst takes a look at jumbo mortgages in 2012 and finds that a significant portion of them would not comply with the rule. I have not seen the Amherst report, so I can only respond to what I read about it in the CRS report.  The bottom line appears that about eight percent of jumbos are likely not to comply with the rule.  Given that jumbos make up about 10% of the mortgage market (at least according to CoreLogic), we are talking about one percent of the total residential mortgage market.  Many of those non-complying mortgages do not comply because of limitations on debt-to-income ratio.  Thus, it would appear that the affected borrowers could get mortgages for smaller amounts that would comply with the rule.

I think it is safe to say that based on what we know now, the rule will have an extremely modest effect on credit availability.

Reiss on Qualified Mortgage Rule

Posted on by

TheStreet.com quoted me in a story, New Mortgage Lending Rule Intended to Protect Borrowers May Hurt Self-Employed.  It reads in part,

“Lenders are incentivized to originate qualified mortgages, because doing so makes it easier to defend against borrower lawsuits,” says David Reiss, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School. “In return, lenders must ensure that the terms of the mortgage conform with certain requirements that protect borrowers from abusive terms.”

Qualified mortgage loans cannot have interest-only periods, negative amortization, exceed 30 years, and cannot have balloon payments at the end of the term, with exceptions in rural or underserved areas. Further, qualified mortgage loans cannot exceed 43% of the borrower’s monthly pretax income, and borrowers must provide proof of income or assets.

“Determining whether self-employed individuals are able to make the loan payments presents particular challenges,” says Reiss. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had originally proposed that self-employed individuals provide heavy documentation of their income, and for the lender to make sophisticated judgments about that income.”

In response to comments, the CFPB, in its proposal, subsequently reduced income documentation requirements and the level of lender income analysis required, Reiss says, but adds that “applicants must still demonstrate that their income is stable or increasing.”

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.