Month: August 2020

Blog: CFPB Should Increase Safe Harbor Threshold to Mitigate Borrower Impact

Posted on by dcadmin

One of the main drivers of the 2008 financial crisis was lending to borrowers with inadequate ability to repay their mortgage loans. In response, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and established an ability-to-repay/qualified mortgage (ATR/QM) standard. Dodd-Frank went beyond previous federal regulations and consumer protections, including the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) that had previously defined a class of higher priced mortgage loans (HPMLs).

Going beyond HPML to address some of the underwriting concerns in the marketplace, Dodd-Frank created specific mortgage product restrictions and required the CFPB to promulgate a rule defining Qualified Mortgage based on specific underwriting criteria. As promulgated in the 2013 final rule, QM and safe harbor were measuring two separate things so different standards made a certain amount of sense. The QM standard was based on product and underwriting requirements, while safe harbor was based on loan pricing specifically assessing whether the loan was a HPML.

The CFPB is now seeking to update the regulation. In late June, the Bureau issued Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the general QM definition under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the GSE Patch. The CFPB proposes to change the current QM standard in favor of a pricing threshold based on the difference between the loan’s annual percentage rate (APR) and the average prime offer rate (APOR) for a comparable transaction. The proposed rule would define a QM as a mortgage loan which is priced not more than 200 basis points (bps) above the APOR.

Unlike the 2013 final rule, the QM standard and safe harbor are measured using the same price metric under the new proposed rule. Having two different pricing thresholds to determine QM and safe harbor loan status creates an unlevel playing field that will arbitrarily shift borrowers to mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and leave consumers with less access to mortgage finance credit—all based on an arbitrary line.[1]

While USMI will comment on other aspects of the proposed rule, we think that one of the most significant issues within the proposal is the safe harbor pricing threshold. Based on our analysis of mortgage originations, loan performance, market dynamics, and the need to ensure consumer access to affordable mortgage finance, we recommend that this threshold should be pegged to the same threshold as the QM status, which the NPR suggests should be 200 bps. USMI made this recommendation to the CFPB in a September 2019 comment letter in response the CFPB’s Advance NPRM.

In the 2020 proposed rule, the Bureau justifies recommending QM status be based on a pricing threshold to 200 bps using early delinquency data as an indicator of determining a borrower’s ATR, stating in the NPRM:

“…the Bureau tentatively concludes that this threshold would strike an appropriate balance between ensuring that loans receiving QM status may be presumed to comply with the ATR provisions and ensuring that access to responsible, affordable mortgage credit remains available to consumers.”[2]

Should the CFPB move forward to replace the current QM definition with one based on a pricing threshold, then the Bureau can and should increase the spread that is used to delineate safe harbor loans from 150 to 200 bps over APOR to be consistent with the threshold that the Bureau recommends for QM status in its NPRM.

Why moving the safe harbor threshold to 200 bps matters:

  • Lenders don’t lend above the safe harbor line in the conventional market.The distinction between safe harbor and rebuttable presumption matters. Market data makes it clear that many lenders avoid making rebuttable presumption QM loans to avoid any risk of legal liability. This is evidenced by the fact that less than five percent of all the conventional market financing in 2019 was done above the safe harbor line. For all intents and purposes, the safe harbor line effectively defines the conventional market and changes to how the Bureau defines QM safe harbor will impact who the conventional market will serve going forward.
  • Current recommended threshold disproportionately impacts Black and Latinx borrowers who are twice as likely as White borrowers to have conventional low down payment purchase loans outside a safe harbor of 150 bps. Under the proposed rule, many of the borrowers who are above the 150 bps threshold will be left only with the option of a FHA loan, which means they have vastly different competitive choices in terms of product offerings and loan terms—as demonstrated by the fact that there were approximately 3,200 HMDA reporting lenders for conventional purchase loans versus only about 1,200 for FHA purchase loans. This arbitrary line affects these borrowers’ credit options and leaves them with significantly fewer competitive options in the marketplace.[3]
  • Creates an unlevel playing field. While the percentage of the conventional market above 150 bps is small on a percentage basis, this is not to suggest that there are not good quality loans above this threshold being done. FHA is five times more likely to have loans above the 150 bps simply because FHA calculates the APOR cap and APR calculation differently. HUD defines safe harbor as 115 bps plus the mortgage insurance premium, which is closer to FHA having a safe harbor threshold of approximately 200 bps, or even higher. Due to the discrepancies for how this threshold is calculated between the conventional and FHA markets, leaving the safe harbor threshold for conventional loans at 150 bps will arbitrarily distort the market and shift borrowers to FHA. This will give these borrowers fewer choices and shift borrowers from a market backed by private capital to the 100 percent taxpayer-backed market.

The Solution:

The solution is to increase the safe harbor pricing threshold to 200 bps to be consistent with the proposed QM pricing threshold. This will result not only in a more level playing field, but most importantly, by changing the threshold, the impact to borrowers can be mitigated. The volume of loans that would otherwise be left out of the conventional safe harbor market is reduced by almost 60 percent for the high-LTV market and reduced by over 50 percent for the entire conventional market.[4]

Increasing the safe harbor threshold to 200 bps above APOR will best ensure that we strike an appropriate balance between prudent underwriting, credit risk management, and consumers’ access to sustainable and affordable mortgage credit.

[1] 85 Fed. Reg. 41716 (July 10, 2020).

[2] 85 Fed. Reg. 41735 (July 10, 2020). Underlying and emphasis added.

[3] 2019 HMDA Data.

[4] 2019 HMDA Data.

Newsletter: August 2020

Posted on by dcadmin

While this summer has posed new and unexpected challenges, policymakers and U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) and our members continue to work hard to make sure the U.S. housing system remains strong as we face unprecedented economic and health challenges resulting from COVID-19. Below are topics we have been following:

USMI Member Company COVID-19 Response
CFPB Kraninger’s Semi-Annual Hearings
USMI Submits Comment Letter to CFPB on GSE Patch Extension
SCOTUS to Hear Arguments on FHFA’s structure
Dana Wade Confirmed as FHA Commissioner 
USMI President in Mortgage Professional America 

  • USMI Member Company COVID-19 Response. USMI updated its COVID-19 resource webpage with its members’ response fact sheet, highlighting many of the important actions that USMI members have taken to support homeowners, servicers, and lenders across the country during the pandemic. Because of the critical role USMI members play in the housing finance system, the mortgage insurance (MI) industry is committed to supporting the federal government’s robust mortgage relief initiatives, including the nationwide forbearance programs implemented by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). The fact sheet outlines areas of common ground between USMI members and how they have focused their efforts on helping borrowers remain in their homes by supporting their lender customers during these challenging times. 
  • CFPB Kraninger’s Semi-Annual Hearings. On July 29 and 30, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Kathleen Kraninger testified before the Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee, respectively. Both hearings focused on the Bureau’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and on its ongoing rulemakings and supervision activities. In her written testimony submitted to the Senate Banking Committee, Director Kraninger provided an update on the CFPB’s proposed changes to the GSE provision (GSE Patch) of the Bureau’s Ability-to-Repay (ATR)/Qualified Mortgage (QM) Rule, which is set to expire in January 2021. The CFPB is still considering removing the QM loan definition’s 43 percent debt-to-income (DTI) ratio and replacing it with a pricing threshold.

    During the Senate Banking hearing, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) asked Director Kraninger why the QM standard and safe harbor thresholds would be different and stated, “I think we should do all that we can for credit worthy borrowers to become homeowners when it makes sense. By harmonizing the QM and the safe harbor, it might make it easier for financial institutions to not go to the default position of the safe harbor that’s 50 (basis) points lower.” In addition, during the House Financial Services Committee hearing, members from both parties expressed interest in the CFPB’s rulemaking on the General QM definition and its effect on prudent underwriting and consumers’ access to credit. Representatives Bill Foster (D-IL) and French Hill (R-AR) emphasized that any new QM standard should retain robust underwriting standards to ensure ATR and promote sustainable homeownership. Further, Representatives Hill and Steve Stivers (R-OH) noted that there should be a single pricing standard for QM and Safe Harbor since, unlike the 2013 ATR/QM Rule, pricing would be used to measure both under the proposed rule.
  • USMI Submits Comment Letter to CFPB on GSE Patch Extension. On August 10, USMI submitted a comment letter to the CFPB in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) regarding the extension of the sunset date for the Temporary GSE QM definition, or the “GSE Patch,” under the Qualified Mortgage Definition under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z), which is currently set to expire on January 10, 2021. USMI recommended to Director Kraninger that the CFPB should “set the sunset date for the GSE Patch to be at least six months after the effective date of the finalized General QM definition rule.” Doing so would allow all industry stakeholders sufficient time to fully understand and implement the new rule and afford industry participants an appropriate amount of time to develop, test, and implement new models to facilitate a smooth transition to the new general QM framework. Moreover, as the financial services industry grapples with implications of COVID-19 and works to support market participants, consumers, and the economy, USMI believes a six-month overlap period would promote an orderly implementation of the new General QM definition while offering continued assistance to homeowners across the county.

    In June 2020, the CFPB issued a NPR on the General QM definition under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the GSE Patch. The Bureau’s NPR proposes to change the current QM standard in favor of a pricing threshold; specifically, the difference between the loan’s Annual Percentage Rate (APR) and the Average Prime Offer Rate (APOR) for a comparable transaction at 200 basis points (bps) above APOR. The Bureau justifies this threshold using early delinquency data as an indicator of determining consumers’ ATR.

    In a September 2019 comment letter to the CFPB, USMI emphasized that, should the Bureau move forward to replace the QM definition with one based on a pricing threshold, it can and should increase the spread that is used to delineate Safe Harbor loans. The previous 2013 ATR/QM Rule created two legal presumptions for QM loans: “Safe Harbor” and “Rebuttal Presumption.” These presumptions have, in turn, created a norm by which lenders will not typically lend above the Safe Harbor line and avoid making Rebuttable Presumption loans as to avoid risk to legal responsibility. This standard has disproportionality impacted Black and Hispanic homebuyers, who were twice as likely as White borrowers to have low down payment conventional purchase loans outside of the Safe Harbor. Under the proposed rule, many of the borrowers who are above the 150 bps threshold will be left only with the option of a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan, which means they have vastly different competitive choices in terms of product offerings and loan terms. Further, due to the discrepancies for how this threshold is calculated between the conventional and FHA markets, leaving the Safe Harbor threshold at 150 bps will arbitrarily distort the market and shift borrowers to FHA. 


    Based on this, USMI and other industry members recommend that the Bureau increase the Safe Harbor threshold to 200 bps above APOR to be consistent with the proposed QM APOR threshold that the Bureau recommended in its June 2020 NPR.
  • SCOTUS to Hear Arguments on FHFA’s structure.  On July 9, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear Collins v. Mnuchin upon its return in October. The suit questions the constitutionality of the FHFA’s single-director structure. Currently, the FHFA director is appointed to serve a five-year term and can only be removed “for-cause;” he or she cannot be fired at-will by the president. This follows the Court striking down the CFPB’s single-director structure in a 5-4 ruling in Seila Law v. CFPB in June, declaring it unconstitutional and severable from the other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

    In a statement, the FHFA said it did not believe the Court’s ruling applied to the FHFA. “The Seila Law decision does not directly affect the constitutionality of FHFA, including the for-cause removal provision.” It continued, “FHFA looks forward to the U.S. Supreme Court taking up the Collins case and clarifying these important issues.”
  • Dana Wade Confirmed as FHA Commissioner. On July 28, the Senate confirmed Dana Wade in a 57-40 bipartisan vote as commissioner of the FHA. USMI issued a statement praising Wade’s confirmation. USMI President Lindsey Johnson said, “Commissioner Wade has shown commitment to keeping FHA’s core mission of providing affordable housing opportunities to moderate and low-income households, who need the agency’s 100 percent taxpayer-backed loans the most. We are confident that Commissioner Wade will continue to carry out this mission as she understands the important role the agency plays in our housing financial system.” Mortgage Professional America included USMI’s statement in its coverage of Wade’s confirmation.
  • USMI President in Mortgage Professional America. Mortgage Professional America published USMI President Lindsey Johnson’s op-ed titled, “Low Down Payments Backed by Mortgage Insurance More Important Than Ever.” Using data from USMI’s 2020 “MI in Your State” report, Johnson explains why low down payment lending will be even more critical for future homeowners as the country endures and recovers from the current COVID-19 pandemic. The report found that it could take the average American homebuyer over 20 years to save for a 20 percent down payment. With private MI, the wait time could drop to just 7 years with a 5 percent down payment. Low down payments with private MI enable more well-qualified borrowers to become homeowners while keeping more cash on hand, a critical aspect during these trying times. Private MI also assumes the first layer of protection against mortgage credit risk protecting the federal government, and thus, American taxpayers. She concludes stating, “right now, more than ever, we are even more aware of the benefits of owning a home—from building wealth to creating stability to the importance of having a safe place to call your own.”

Op-Ed: Low Down Payments Backed by Mortgage Insurance More Important Than Ever

Posted on by dcadmin
By: Lindsey Johnson

Today, the place you call home matters more than ever. Unfortunately, many Americans continue to believe homeownership is out of reach because they think a 20 percent down payment is needed to qualify for a mortgage.

A recent report by the private mortgage insurance (MI) industry finds that it could take a family earning the national median income over 20 years to save for a 20 percent down payment. But the wait decreases by 67 percent when a five percent down payment is the goal. Fortunately, millions of homebuyers each year qualify for home financing with low down payments.

Given the current economic environment due to COVID-19 and the desire of many people to keep more cash on-hand, low down payment loans are more important than ever. Low down payment mortgages with private mortgage insurance have proven to be a time-tested means for Americans to access affordable homeownership sooner while still providing credit risk protection and stability to the U.S. housing system. It is no wonder why more than 33 million homeowners have used this type of home financing and why its use is on the rise.

The report finds that in 2019, the number of low down payment loans backed by private MI increased 22.9 percent. Over 1.3 million home loans were purchased or refinanced with private MI, up from just over 1 million in 2018. Nearly 60 percent of the borrowers of these loans were first-time homebuyers and 40 percent had annual incomes of less than $75,000.

Why have millions turned to this type home financing?

Let us first take a closer look at a borrower who earns the national median income of $63,179. To save 20 percent, plus closing costs, for a $274,600 home, the median sales price for a single-family home last year, they would need to bring more than $63,000 in cash to the table. It could take up to 21 years to save up this amount based on the national savings rate dedicated towards a mortgage. But if this borrower qualifies using private MI on a five percent down payment mortgage, their wait time drops to just seven years. This type of home financing offers Americans a chance to secure home financing much sooner than previously believed.

Why is 20% the “magic number”?

Data demonstrates that borrowers who make larger down payments are less likely to default on their mortgages than borrowers with lower down payments. Therefore, lenders traditionally require a 20 percent down payment to offer mortgage financing to a borrower. This is where mortgage insurance steps in, providing credit enhancement for the borrower with a lower down payment, and insuring the loan for the lender in the event the borrower stops making their payments. Once the borrower builds 20 percent equity in their mortgage, the insurance can be cancelled, thus lowering the monthly payment. Private MI also helps Americans buy a home without necessarily breaking the bank.

Private mortgage insurance is offered on so-called conventional loans that are backed by the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When there is private MI on a loan, the risk protection provided to lenders for making a low down payment mortgage possible is extended to the GSEs too. In the event of a default, the private mortgage insurance stands to cover losses first, meaning private MI also protects taxpayers.

Supporting the American Dream

As the report demonstrates, private mortgage insurers’ role in the low down payment market significantly increased over the last five years. Between 2015 and 2019, private mortgage insurers’ market share in the low down payment lending sector increased from 34.8 percent of the insured market in 2015 to 44.7 percent in 2019, helping millions of Americans qualify for home financing.

Private MI offers a reliable path to the American dream of owning a home. Since 1957, private MI has helped more than 33 million Americans become homeowners while protecting taxpayers. And right now, more than ever, we are even more aware of the benefits of owning a home—from building wealth to creating stability to the importance of having a safe place to call your own.

Lindsey Johnson is the president of the U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI), the association representing the nation’s leading private mortgage insurance companies.

###

Mortgage Professional America originally published USMI President Lindsey Johnson’s opinion piece, “Low down payments backed by mortgage insurance more important than ever” on August 10, 2020. 

Letter: GSE Patch Extension

Posted on by dcadmin

The Honorable Kathleen Kraninger
Director
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1700 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20052

Re: Qualified Mortgage Definition Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z): Extension of Sunset Date, Docket No. CFPB-2020-0021

Dear Director Kraninger:

U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) represents America’s leading providers of private mortgage insurance (MI). Our members are dedicated to a housing finance system backed by private capital that enables access to prudent and sustainable mortgage finance for borrowers while also protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs) and the American taxpayer. The MI industry has more than six decades of expertise in underwriting and actively managing mortgage credit risk, and our member companies are uniquely qualified to provide insights on federal policies concerning underwriting standards for the conventional mortgage market, especially given our experience balancing prudent underwriting with access to affordable mortgage credit.

USMI appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (Bureau) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) regarding the Extension of the Sunset Date for the Temporary GSE Qualified Mortgage (QM) definition. This is an important rulemaking that will work in tandem with the Bureau’s proposed rule to amend the General QM definition and USMI fully supports a smooth transition to a well-calibrated QM definition that promotes prudent underwriting and facilitates access to affordable conventional mortgages for creditworthy consumers. USMI and other housing finance stakeholders recognize that changes to the General QM definition will broadly inform underwriting standards and policies across the mortgage market and will have a significant impact on the number and profile of borrowers served by the conventional mortgage market.

Background

The Bureau’s 2013 Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule) created a Temporary GSE QM category for mortgages that: (1) comply with statutory product restrictions, including a points and fees limit; and (2) and are eligible for purchase or guarantee by the GSEs. This QM category became known as the “GSE Patch” and was scheduled to expire the earlier of: (1) the GSEs exiting conservatorship; or (2) or January 10, 2021. The Bureau believed this sunset date would create “an adequate period for economic, market, and regulatory conditions to stabilize” and a “reasonable transition period to the General QM definition.”

For nearly seven years, the GSE Patch has served its intended purpose of maintaining credit availability in the conventional mortgage market. According to data from the Bureau and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), approximately 957,000 mortgages – or 16 percent of all closed-end first-lien residential mortgage originations – in 2018 fell outside the General QM loan definition but received QM status due to the GSE Patch. These borrowers only had access to financing in the conventional market due to the existence of the GSE Patch.

Expiration of the GSE Patch & Implementation of the New General QM Definition

The NPR would modify the sunset date for the GSE Patch such that its expiration would be the earlier of: (1) the GSEs exiting conservatorship; or (2) the effective date of the General QM final rule. The Bureau has indicated that it “does not intend to issue a final rule amending the General QM loan definition early enough for it to take effect before April 1, 2021” based on the proposed “six-month interval between Federal Register publication of a final rule and the rule’s effective date.”

Recommendation

Consistent with the fact that the GSE Patch was created as a temporary QM category, USMI has strongly supported moving to a QM definition that can be applied consistently throughout the mortgage market. The GSE Patch has played a critical role in maintaining access to mortgage credit and it is paramount that the Bureau provide a smooth transition from its expiration to the new General QM definition. USMI recommends that the Bureau set the sunset date for the GSE Patch to be at least six months after the effective date of the finalized General QM definition rule.

In order to maximize the balance between access to credit, consumer protections, and sustainable homeownership, it is critical that housing industry stakeholders have sufficient time to fully understand and implement a new General QM standard. Depending on the complexity of the finalized revisions to the General QM definition, the significance of the penalties for a violation of the amended ATR/QM Rule, and the large number of mortgage industry participants (lenders, brokers, MIs, warehouse lenders, etc.) that will need to update their operations and systems, USMI recommends a six-month overlap period to mitigate issues associated with implementing a new General QM standard. During the six-month period, mortgage lenders should be permitted to use either the GSE Patch or the new General QM definition, such that a loan meeting either standard would qualify as a QM. This would afford industry participants an appropriate amount of time to develop, test, and implement new models and business operations/processes and facilitate a smooth transition to the new General QM framework. Further, a six-month overlap period would reduce compliance issues that could arise with a singular date that ends the GSE Patch and makes the new General QM definition effective. Specifically, the overlap period would fix the regulatory gap caused by using the mortgage consummation date for the GSE Patch and the loan application date for the proposed General QM definition.

Further, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, mortgage market participants, consumers, and the economy as a whole are grappling with an unprecedent level of uncertainty. Following the enactment of the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (CARES Act), industry is working hard to support homeowners directly and indirectly affected by COVID-19, especially through the implementation of broad nationwide mortgage relief for homeowners with mortgages backed by the GSEs. Due to the extensive scope of the pandemic and the financial services industry’s appropriate focus on responding to the economic and health fallout from COVID-19, USMI believes that a six-month overlap period would promote an orderly implementation period for the new General QM framework while continuing to assist homeowners throughout the country.

***********************

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Extension of the Sunset Date for the GSE Patch and your consideration of our recommendation. USMI and our member companies appreciate the Bureau’s thorough review of this very important issue and we look forward to a continued dialogue as the Bureau proceeds with finalizing and transitioning to a new General QM definition.

Sincerely,

Lindsey D. Johnson
President
U.S. Mortgage Insurers

View the letter as a PDF here.