Author: dcadmin

Testimony: Chairman Patrick Sinks Before Congress on Mortgage Insurance and Sustainable Housing

Posted on by dcadmin

Sinks Highlights Importance of Private Mortgage Insurance In Helping Borrowers Qualify for Low Down Payment Mortgages While Protecting Government Against Risk

WASHINGTON — U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) Chairman and Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC) CEO Patrick Sinks today testified on behalf of USMI in front of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance in a hearing entitled “Sustainable Housing Finance: Private Sector Perspectives on Housing Finance Reform, Part IV.”

In his testimony, Sinks highlighted the long and successful role that private mortgage insurance (MI) has played in the housing finance system to help homebuyers responsibly purchase homes with affordable low down payments – all while protecting U.S. taxpayers and the federal government from undue mortgage credit risk. Sinks also discussed the MI industry’s performance through the Great Recession and the key improvements made by the industry that make it more resilient going forward.

“Over the last 60 years, private MI has helped more than 25 million families attain homeownership in a prudent and affordable manner. MI reduces taxpayer risk exposure by transferring a substantial portion of mortgage credit risk to companies backed by private capital. Mortgage insurers covered more than $50 billion in claims since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entered conservatorship resulting in substantial savings to taxpayers,” said Sinks.

In addition to the important role the MI industry plays in the housing finance system, Sinks proposed specific principles for housing finance reform and lessons that should be applied to all market participants, as well as recommendations to increase the role of private capital in the housing finance system to further protect taxpayers and the government.

Acknowledging that there should be a diverse set of participants in the future to assume and protect against all mortgage credit risk ahead of an explicit government guaranty, Sinks noted that, “We believe much more can be done to reduce the risk to the federal government and make taxpayer risk exposure even more remote without jeopardizing the ability for creditworthy borrowers to continue to buy a home with mortgage financing. This includes a greater reliance on the mortgage insurance model where private capital stands in front of the government and taxpayers.”

In an August 2017 report, the Urban Institute found that GSE loans with MI consistently have lower loss severities than those without MI. In fact, the report shows that for nearly 20 years, loans with MI have exhibited lower loss severity each origination year. The Urban analysis states that “for 30-year fixed rate, full documentation, fully amortizing mortgages, the loss severity of loans with PMI is 40 percent lower than [loans] without.”

USMI President and Executive Director Lindsey Johnson echoed Sinks’ Congressional testimony today: “Private MI has been an invaluable piece of the housing finance system for a long time, decades longer than any other low down payment model being tested. Fortunately, our industry is strong and ready to shoulder an even greater responsibility in the system moving forward. Underscoring the strength of MI, the industry paid more than $50 billion in claims since the financial crisis and has implemented new higher robust capital standards. We appreciate Congress’ work to address long overdue reforms to the housing finance system and USMI members look forward to continuing and enhancing the credit risk protection MI provides to shield taxpayers from mortgage credit risk and to promote homeownership across the country.”

###

U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) is dedicated to a housing finance system backed by private capital that enables access to housing finance for borrowers while protecting taxpayers. Mortgage insurance offers an effective way to make mortgage credit available to more people. USMI is ready to help build the future of homeownership. Learn more at www.usmi.org.

Newsletter: November 2017

Posted on by dcadmin

As the Thanksgiving holiday nears, there has been a cornucopia of news in housing finance. Here is a roundup of recent news to ensure you stay up-to-date on the latest happenings. In a yearly ritual like the Macy’s Day Parade, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) released its annual report to Congress highlighting the health of its Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF). In the days leading up to the release of the report, the Heritage Foundation wrote a blog post in opposition to terminating the FHA’s life of loan policy in collecting mortgage insurance premiums (MIP), which a number of groups have sought in recent months. Tax reform has gobbled up much of the news over the past few weeks, and this week the House of Representatives passed its tax reform bill. Finally, just like the abundant feasts of Thanksgiving, the House Financial Services Committee’s (HFSC) Housing and Insurance Subcommittee held Part III of its “Sustainable Housing Finance: Private Sector Perspectives on Housing Finance Reform” hearing series).

  • FHA Releases 2017 Annual Report to Congress. The FHA released its annual report to Congress on the health of its MMIF for 2017 – an important measurement of the FHA’s fiscal strength in the housing finance market. According to the report, the MMIF stands at 2.09 percent, down from 2.35 percent last year and just slightly above the statutory requirement of 2 percent. The report also found that the FHA insures more than $1.2 trillion in mortgage credit risk – an increase from its 2016 annual report. DSNews reported that U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson is ensuring the public that HUD is working to better the fiscal health of the FHA. Secretary Carson said, “The fiscal health of FHA demands our constant attention and vigilance to ensure we can continue providing sustainable homeownership opportunities to working families without exposing taxpayers to excessive risk. Our duty is clear—we must make certain FHA remains financially viable so future generations can build wealth and climb the economic ladder of success.” In a statement on the FHA’s annual report to Congress, USMI President and Executive Director Lindsey Johnson said: “The FHA has taken important steps in recent years to improve its financial stability after requiring a $1.7 billion government bailout in 2013 when the agency did not have the necessary capital to cover losses, though more needs to be done. With more than $1.2 trillion in mortgage credit risk, the FHA must enhance its financial strength to continue to serve the borrowers who need it the most… Now is the time for the FHA to refocus on its core mission, scaling back from the oversized role it played during the recession so that it can return to serving low-to-moderate income individuals who need the FHA’s 100-percent government backed loans the most.”
  • House of Representatives Passes Tax Reform Legislation. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted 227 to 205 to pass R. 1, the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” Among many other provisions included in the tax plan, the bill reduces the mortgage interest deduction from $1 million to $500,000 and caps the deduction for property taxes at $10,000. The U.S. Senate will soon vote on its own tax proposal and, if it passes, will go to conference with the House to negotiate a final bill through reconciliation. To read more about USMI’s views on the House’s tax reform bill, please click here.
  • Housing and Insurance Subcommittee Holds Housing Finance Reform Hearing—Part III. A HFSC subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the Milken Institute, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Moody’s Analytics, Cardiff Consulting Services, and the Urban Institute for housing finance reform. Importantly, former Ginnie Mae President and current Milken Institute Senior Fellow Ted Tozer called for a balanced deployment of government and private capital in support of a fairer and more efficient housing finance system, and also called for the overall reduction of the government footprint as more private capital re-enters the system at different points in the primary and secondary mortgage markets. Tozer’s remarks echo what other housing experts have said about private capital in the housing finance system, which reduces mortgage credit risk to U.S. taxpayers and the federal government.
  • Heritage Foundation Opposes Terminating FHA Life of Loan Premium Coverage. In a recent article, Heritage Foundation scholars John Ligon and Norbert Michel spoke out against terminating FHA MIP, saying that “these changes would be unfair to federal taxpayers that subsidize the cost of the Federal Housing Administration’s insurance program.” The authors specifically mention a recent bill introduced in the House of Representatives that would eliminate the FHA’s current life of loan policy. The authors also urged neither Congress nor the FHA to make any policy changes that would weaken the agency’s ability to cover insurance losses. USMI also opposes reducing FHA’s premium or cancelling FHA’s premiums collected for the life of the loan, because the 100-percent government-backed FHA will continue to hold the same amount of mortgage credit risk while collecting less in insurance premiums, thereby putting taxpayers and the federal government at increased risk. In fact, according to the findings in the FHA’s 2017 annual report to Congress, if the FHA had reduced insurance premiums as planned in January, the MMIF would be at 1.76 percent and undercapitalized. 

Statement: House Tax Reform Legislation

Posted on by dcadmin

WASHINGTON — U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) President and Executive Director Lindsey Johnson issued the following statement on H.R. 1, the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” the comprehensive tax bill released by the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee yesterday:

“USMI is encouraged by efforts in Congress to simplify the current tax code for everyday Americans and to promote economic growth. Comprehensive tax reform holds the promise of allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, modernize the tax code to help working families and spur economic growth.

“The House Republican proposal represents an important start towards putting the American tax system on a more simple and sustainable path, but USMI is concerned that the current draft excludes the premiums paid by borrowers for mortgage insurance as part of the definition of ‘mortgage interest.’ Since 2007, the deductibility of mortgage insurance premiums has provided helpful tax relief for millions of middle class homeowners with low and moderate incomes. IRS data from 2015 show the mortgage insurance deduction was claimed on 4.1 million tax returns that year—the vast majority of those returns had incomes ranging between $30,000 and $100,000. This is clear evidence that this specific tax deduction should be preserved because it helps make homeownership more affordable for Americans who value and need this help the most. So long as mortgage interest remains tax deductible, as is the case in the House legislation, so too should mortgage insurance.

“We understand comprehensive tax reform is as challenging of an undertaking as it is important—and we know there are difficult choices that have to be made throughout the process. USMI supports many of the stated objectives of tax reform, but is concerned that current and prospective low- and moderate-income homebuyers will lose an important deduction that they have come to build into the cost of their mortgage. Therefore, USMI will continue to work with House and Senate leadership to ensure the final tax reform package includes this important provision aimed at helping bring down borrowing costs for responsible taxpayers who need it most.”

###

U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) is dedicated to a housing finance system backed by private capital that enables access to housing finance for borrowers while protecting taxpayers. Mortgage insurance offers an effective way to make mortgage credit available to more people. USMI is ready to help build the future of homeownership. Learn more at www.usmi.org.

Newsletter: June 2017

Posted on by dcadmin

Here is a roundup of recent news in the housing finance industry. The Trump administration released its 2018 federal budget proposal for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Mel Watt and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testified before the U.S. Senate on potential GSE reform, USMI and numerous other housing industry groups voiced their support for the nomination of Pam Patenaude to serve as Deputy Secretary of HUD, and several third party groups released white papers on access to affordable mortgage credit and housing finance reform.

  • Trump Administration Releases 2018 Federal Budget Proposal for HUD. The Trump administration released its 2018 federal budget proposal for HUD, which includes $6.2 billion – or 13.2 percent – in cuts to the agency. The cuts would be implemented through rental assistance reforms, the elimination of funding for certain programs, and through the streamlining of internal operations. The budget includes $160 million for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to improve risk management and program support processes, and would also provide $30 million towards modernizing the FHA’s system and updating its programming language.
  • FHFA Director Watt Calls for GSE Reform. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, FHFA Director Mel Watt called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”) to be taken out of government conservatorship as soon as possible. Watt warned of future potential GSE draws on the line of credit at Treasury as the GSEs currently have a very limited capital buffer and are scheduled to go to zero capital in 2018. Watt expressly noted that Congress should be responsible for achieving housing finance reform, not the FHFA.
  • Treasury Secretary Mnuchin Testifies in Senate. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs where he too was questioned on the topic of housing finance reform. Mnuchin said that GSE reform would be a priority in the second half of the year for the Trump administration and noted that he and the administration would work with Congress on reform efforts. Notably, Mnuchin stated that he expects the GSEs to continue to pay dividends to the Treasury Department despite statements made the previous week by FHFA Director Watt, who said he might allow the GSEs to retain profits in order to build capital buffers against potential future losses.
  • Housing Industry Groups Support Pam Patenaude’s Nomination to HUD. Numerous housing industry associations expressed their support for the Trump administration’s nomination of Pam Patenaude as Deputy Secretary of HUD, including Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), National Association of Realtors (NAR), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), and National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), among others. In a letter provided to Senate Banking Committee members last week, USMI similarly voiced its support for Patenaude’s nomination. USMI’s Chairman Patrick Sinks, President and CEO of MGIC, said of the nomination:“USMI encourages members of the Senate Banking Committee to approve Mrs. Patenaude’s nomination and to move it expeditiously to the Senate floor… Mrs. Patenaude understands the housing finance system and the need for a coordinated, consistent and transparent approach to federal housing policy across government channels. Her leadership on these important issues will ensure that Americans have greater access to mortgage finance credit for borrowers, while at the same time, increasing private capital in mortgage finance and reducing taxpayer risk exposure.”
  • New GSE Reform Proposals Released by Third Party Groups. In the last week, several organizations interested in GSE matters released white papers on housing finance reform for policymakers and industry stakeholders to consider. These groups include the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Milken Institute, and Moelis & Co. LLC.

Blog: A smarter way to buy a home

Posted on by dcadmin

Are you considering buying a home? With mortgage rates on the slow and steady incline, there may be no better time for a home purchase than now. Mortgage interest rates will likely continue to go up for the foreseeable future, according to recent data from the housing finance company Freddie Mac. Many housing experts and industry observers agree.

What does this mean?

If you are thinking about buying a home, it means don’t wait any longer. The overall cost of buying a home in the future will only increase compared to buying a home of the same value today. Furthermore, rising interest rates impact housing inventory, as sellers might not be as interested in moving if it means paying a higher rate on a new mortgage. As a result, the dream home you see today might not be available next year.

The 20 percent down myth

If you’ve put off buying your next home to save for the full 20 percent there is good news: you don’t need it. If you were unaware of this, you’re not alone. A recent survey found that among first-time homebuyers who obtained a mortgage, 80 percent made a down payment of less than 20 percent. While there are several low down payment mortgage options available, only one has a 60-year history of being a steadfast, smart way to get into a home: a conventional loan with private mortgage insurance (MI).

What is a conventional loan with MI?

A conventional loan is a mortgage from a lender that is not completely backed by the federal government. For qualified borrowers with a low down payment, private MI is required and typically paid monthly along with the mortgage payment. You can obtain this type of loan with as little as 3 percent down, though buying with a 5 percent down payment will result in a lower monthly payment.

There are other types of low down payment options that also include MI, such as the government-insured loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Unlike the premiums charged by FHA loans, private MI premiums can be cancelled once 20 percent equity in home value is reached, and with private MI there are no upfront costs added onto a borrower’s initial down payment like there are with an FHA loan. This means your monthly bill decreases and you have extra money to spend on your family, vacations, retirement and any other needs.

Don’t sit on the sidelines and miss out on your dream home. To learn more about mortgage insurance compared to other low down payment options, visit LowDownPaymentFacts.org.

Statement: Mortgage Bankers Association Report on Reform Recommendations for the GSEs and the Housing Finance System

Posted on by dcadmin

USMI Logo 60th Anniversary

Screen Shot 2017-04-20 at 1.20.41 PM

USMI Statement on Mortgage Bankers Association Report on Reform Recommendations for the GSEs and the Housing Finance System

WASHINGTON — Lindsey Johnson, President and Executive Director of the U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI), today issued the following statement on the Mortgage Bankers Association report on reform recommendations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs) and the housing finance system:

“Today the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) released a thoughtful report that outlines its recommendations to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs) and the housing finance system. The report covers many areas and USMI is particularly pleased that MBA recognizes the value of loan-level credit enhancement and the benefit of private mortgage insurance (MI). Importantly the report promotes greater use of front-end credit risk sharing, including through private mortgage insurance. The report also recognizes the important functions of private market participants such as lenders, private mortgage insurers and others, and reinforces that there should be a bright line between the functions of these private market participants in the primary market, and those of secondary market participants.  Housing finance is the last, and possibly the greatest, unfinished reform needed from the financial crisis. USMI is pleased to see MBA and other industry, trade and consumer groups provide ideas and proposals for how to reform the housing finance system and we look forward to continuing to work with MBA and others to promote reforms to the housing finance system to put more private capital in front of taxpayer risk and to create a more sustainable housing finance system that works for market participants, taxpayers and consumers.

“For 60 years, MI has provided effective credit risk protection for our nation’s mortgage finance system. This time-tested form of private capital should be the preferred method of absorbing credit loss in front of any government guaranty, helping to minimize taxpayer risk while ensuring mortgage credit remains accessible.”

###

U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) is dedicated to a housing finance system backed by private capital that enables access to housing finance for borrowers while protecting taxpayers. Mortgage insurance offers an effective way to make mortgage credit available to more people. USMI is ready to help build the future of homeownership. Learn more at www.usmi.org.

Blog: Balancing Important Protections Provided by Improved Underwriting Standards with Reasonable Consumer Access to Credit

Posted on by dcadmin

by Patrick Sinks, President and CEO, MGIC and Chairman of USMI

Since the 2008 financial crisis, certain safeguards were put in place that resulted in more stringent underwriting standards for lenders and borrowers. As a mortgage insurer, lenders are my customers. For borrowers who don’t put 20% down – which is not a requirement – and are viewed by lenders as higher credit risk, mortgage insurers reduce or eliminate losses by providing protection to the lender in the event of a foreclosure. In doing so, mortgage insurance (MI) allows qualified homebuyers with low down payments (borrowers can put as little as 3% down with mortgage insurance) to qualify for mortgages because of the guarantee mortgage insurers provide to the system. If a borrower ends up suffering a foreclosure, we are in the so-called “first loss” position, and pay claims to the affected lender.

Today, there is a discussion in Washington about reforming some of the more far-reaching and costly regulations associated with the Dodd-Frank Act, including the Qualified Mortgage (“QM”) rule. To be sure, as a mortgage insurer, we have witnessed the difficulty within the mortgage lending sector to understand, implement, and comply with all the new rules and regulations, all the while ensuring mortgage credit remains available. Safe and prudent lending standards must remain intact throughout the system to avoid another housing crisis, though we must also ensure affordable mortgages don’t become out of reach for creditworthy buyers. There is a balance that must be struck. Three years after the QM rule was adopted, it is highly appropriate for industry and policymakers to ensure that there remains a balance between prudent lending and access to credit.

What the QM Rule Does

The QM rule for conventional mortgages, which was promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), went into effect in January 2014 to protect borrowers, lenders, and the U.S. financial system, from risky lending practices that contributed to the housing crisis and its ripple effects throughout the economy.

Also known as the “ability to repay” rule, QM takes into account a borrower’s risk and financial situation, prohibits the use of some of the riskiest types of mortgage from the pre-2008 era, and provides legal protections for lenders if they meet strict underwriting standards.

Because of these features, qualified mortgages sold into mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government-sponsored entities, or “GSEs”), are designed as safer investments with less risk exposure to the federal government, and therefore create less risk to taxpayers. During the financial crisis, prior to the QM rule’s existence, the GSEs took a combined $187 billion taxpayer bailout when riskier mortgage loans that the GSEs guaranteed devalued, creating catastrophic losses.

How Does the Current QM Rule Work?

To prevent government and taxpayer exposure to such housing credit risk, the QM rule requires strong underwriting standards that take into account a borrower’s financial profile, such as credit score, as well as establishes requirements for processes that lenders must follow when originating a mortgage. According to the CFPB, the general requirements needed for making a qualified mortgage include:

  • Good-faith determination of a borrower’s “ability to repay” his or her mortgage
  • No excessive upfront fees
  • Elimination of certain loan features, including “interest-only” payment periods, negative amortization, balloon payments, and loan terms longer than 30 years
  • Legal protections for lenders

Why Lending Standards are Critical

The safeguards that came into the marketplace for borrowers, lenders, investors, and ultimately taxpayers with the implementation of the QM standard have been helpful in improving the credit quality of the housing market in the United States. Since the QM rule went into effect, the default rate on loans held by the GSEs has dramatically declined. For example, for mortgages originated at the height of the housing crisis in 2007, the cumulative default rate on loans held by Fannie Mae totaled 14.4%, while for Freddie Mac it was 8.3%. Following the enactment of the CFPB’s QM rule in January 2014, the cumulative default rates for the loans backed by the GSEs have fallen to nearly zero in 2015 and 2016. As noted before, while there have been improvements to credit quality, legitimate concerns are being raised by many stakeholders about whether mortgage credit has become too restricted. The average FICO credit score of a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac low down payment borrower is over 750, which by all accounts is considered excellent credit. These questions on the access to credit underscore the need to review underwriting standards to ensure they do not overly restrict credit to creditworthy borrowers leaving the question of whether the pendulum has swung too far.

Uniform Lending Standards are Important

While consistency and uniformity are important to nearly all industries, there is a great need for uniform lending standards and rules in the housing finance industry. Currently, the CFPB and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have QM rules that are not uniform, which leads to gross inconsistencies in the housing finance industry. For example, the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) upfront mortgage insurance premium is excluded from the QM rule’s cap on points and fees, while the private MI upfront premium is included. This inconsistency effectively precludes the financing of MI premiums into the loan amount, leading to higher monthly payments for borrowers. If the QM rules are changed, it should be to align underwriting standards for GSE-backed loans and loans backed by the FHA, which are 100% government-guaranteed. The same standards should be applied to both the GSEs and FHA, given they effectively serve the same low down payment borrowers.

Keep Prudent Lending Standards Intact

Mortgage insurers are required by law to build contingency reserves, meaning that in addition to the capital our companies are required to hold against the risk we insure, a portion of every premium dollar received is reserved specifically for emergencies on a countercyclical basis. In 2015, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) implemented even stronger capital requirements called Private Mortgage Insurance Eligibility Requirements (PMIERs), which nearly doubled the amount of capital required for MIs to be approved to insure loans acquired by the GSEs. PMIERs, regulators affirm, reduce Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s risk exposure. The same can be said of the QM rule.

The MI industry fully appreciates the impact of the QM rule, and what it takes for lenders to conduct business within the boundaries of the rule, while working to provide access to mortgage credit to homebuyers. Lenders and others in the mortgage finance business are not the only ones impacted by new standards. New rules mean consumers could face different or tightened credit, making it longer to qualify for a mortgage. For some borrowers, new rules mean enhanced lending standards.

The QM rule has and will continue to be a solid foundation for responsible underwriting and borrowing in our housing system. As new housing policy or reforms to existing policies are considered, it is important that the foundations of the QM rule remain intact while also balancing the need to ensure creditworthy borrowers aren’t unnecessarily or unintentionally left on the sidelines.

Blog: The Lowdown on Low Down Payment Mortgages

Posted on by dcadmin

LowDownPaymentColumnPhoto

You would like to buy, but you can’t manage that 20 percent down payment. Does this sound familiar?

The down payment is the biggest impediment to buying a home according to surveys, but in reality many individuals can qualify for a mortgage with as little as 3 percent down.

It is important to compare loans and do the math. Consider your closing costs (the cash you need in-hand), the monthly mortgage payment, and if that payment will go down or up in a few years. Paying a few more dollars each month in the beginning can sometimes save borrowers money in the long term.

For this exercise, we compare a $234,900 home purchase (the national median home price as of December 2016), with a 5 percent down payment and a 720 FICO score. And because calculators and loan terms vary, consider these costs as examples only. A mortgage professional can provide you with specific estimates.

Conventional Loan with PMI

A conventional loan is a traditional mortgage from a lender that is not insured by a government agency. With a 5 percent down payment, the borrower finances the remaining 95 percent over 30 years with a 4 percent interest rate. Private mortgage insurance (PMI) is required because of the low down payment and is $78 of the monthly bill, making the total monthly mortgage payment $1,143.

Pros: A borrower can get a conventional loan with PMI with as little as 3 percent down. PMI can be cancelled once 20 percent equity in the home value is reached, which means your monthly bill decreases.

Cons: For some borrowers, a 5 percent versus 3 percent down payment may be a better deal as costs may be lower.  However, for many prospective homebuyers looking to lock in low interest rates, build equity and home appreciation faster, an option to get into a home with the lower down payment may be better.

A Combo Loan (aka Piggyback Mortgage)

A piggyback involves two separate loans simultaneously. In this scenario, the first “primary” mortgage covers 80 percent of the loan with a 30-year fixed interest rate of 4 percent; the second loan is for 15 percent with 10-year fixed interest rate of 5 percent; and the remaining 5 percent is the down payment. The total monthly mortgage payment would be $1,271.

Pros: The borrower will not pay PMI.

Cons: It may be a more expensive as the borrower will pay closing costs on two loans. And unlike PMI, the piggyback loan doesn’t cancel, but will be paid off over the term of the mortgage. The second loan often comes with higher interest rates too.

FHA Loans

FHA loans are mortgages insured by the government through the Federal Housing Administration. The limits for FHA loans typically are lower than conventional mortgages.  However, FHA mortgage insurance cannot be cancelled and must be paid for the life of the loan. FHA has other specific requirements, like the condition of the home. In this scenario, the mortgage is set at 95 percent of the home’s value with a 30 year fixed interest rate of 3.75 percent. The total monthly mortgage payment would be $1,199.08.

Pros: A borrower can get a FHA loan with as little as 3.5 percent down and a FICO score as low as 600 may qualify.

Cons: FHA mortgage insurance cannot be canceled, so your monthly bill won’t be reduced the way it is with a conventional loan with PMI. Also, FHA loans are subject to an upfront fee of 1.75 percent that is financed over the life of the loan.

No matter what you choose, do the math and compare so you can make an informed decision. If the conventional option sounds appealing, LowDownPaymentFacts.com provides more information.

Statement: Senate Confirmation of Ben Carson as HUD Secretary

Posted on by dcadmin

USMI-Header-750-New-Logo

USMI Statement on Senate Confirmation of Ben Carson as HUD Secretary

WASHINGTON — Lindsey Johnson, President and Executive Director of the U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI), today issued the following statement on the United States Senate confirmation of Ben Carson as Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):

“USMI congratulates Secretary Carson on his Senate confirmation to lead the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a critical federal agency that is a component of the more than $10 trillion U.S. single-family outstanding mortgage debt market. We look forward to collaborating with Secretary Carson and HUD on a comprehensive and coordinated housing policy to promote a stronger and more equitable mortgage finance system that serves American taxpayers, homebuyers and lenders.

“The U.S. mortgage insurance industry welcomes Secretary Carson’s statements that more private capital needs to be brought into the mortgage market and USMI members stand ready to do more, building on the industry’s 60-year history as an effective and time-tested source of credit loss protection. Private MI shields the government and taxpayers from mortgage-related risks in the U.S. housing market that is available during both good and bad housing market cycles.

“In the past six decades, private capital in the form of MI has helped more than 25 million families get into homes; in 2016 alone, MI helped nearly 830,000 families purchase or refinance homes – nearly 50 percent of whom were first-time homebuyers. We look forward to working with Secretary Carson and his team to continue serving American families while also reducing risk to taxpayers and the government.”

###

U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) is dedicated to a housing finance system backed by private capital that enables access to housing finance for borrowers while protecting taxpayers. Mortgage insurance offers an effective way to make mortgage credit available to more people. USMI is ready to help build the future of homeownership. Learn more at www.usmi.org.

Blog: What HUD’s Suspension of FHA MIP Rate Cut Really Means

Posted on by dcadmin

On Friday, January 20, 2017, the new Administration’s U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) suspended a January 9 announcement by the outgoing Obama Administration’s HUD and its Federal Housing Administration (FHA) regarding a planned reduction in FHA mortgage insurance premiums (MIP) for borrowers. (Note: the FHA is a 100% government-backed mortgage insurance program that, just like private mortgage insurance, guarantees mortgage lenders against default risk particularly for home loans originated with low down payments.)

The FHA MIP reduction was to take effect on January 27. Given the haste of this announcement, the incoming Trump Administration at HUD suspended this decision as to provide incoming officials sufficient time to better understand the potential impact—good and bad—such a reduction would have on the market.

There have been a number of reports and opinions shared on the recent suspension—and not all of them accurate. Below are additional facts and information on the decision to suspend the not-yet implemented premium reduction.  We hope you find it helpful. Please don’t hesitate to let us know if you have any follow up questions. Feel free to email us at media@usmi.org.

1. HUD’s decision does not raise the cost of homeownership in any way. The proposed FHA MIP reduction was announced by outgoing Obama HUD officials on January 9 and was scheduled to take effect on January 27. This proposed 25 basis points (bps) reduction has been suspended and, therefore, means there is no change to FHA premiums for new mortgage originations or refinances FHA mortgages. Since FHA premiums remain the same, the costs of an FHA-backed mortgage do not increase at all.

While some have been quick to criticize HUD’s recent action with politically-charged rhetoric, this is not a political or partisan issue. As noted in a January 24 Washington Post editorial, “the Obama administration itself increased this [FHA] fee four times between 2010 and 2013” before lowering the fee by 50 bps in 2015. The Washington Post goes on to say, “given recent financial instability—both at FHA and in housing generally—the new administration was perfectly justified in undoing it.”

2. With or without an FHA-insured option, there is wide availability today of low down payment mortgages backed by private mortgage insurance. Homebuyers have options; this includes low down payment mortgages with private mortgage insurance (MI). Unlike FHA-backed mortgages, the risk contained in loans guaranteed by private MI is not 100% exposed to the government and taxpayers. Private mortgage insurers put their own capital ahead of taxpayers to back mortgages that help homebuyers qualify for mortgage financing despite a low down payment or imperfect credit.

3. When comparing apples to apples, a low down payment mortgage backed by private MI is a better deal for homebuyers compared to FHA. First, cash for a down payment can be less for a private MI conventional mortgage compared to an FHA loan. Second, private MI can be cancelled thus lowering the monthly bill while FHA premiums generally must be paid for the full life of the mortgage.

In contrast to FHA insurance, private MI can be cancelled once borrowers have established 20% equity (through payments or home price appreciation). Ninety percent of borrowers cancel their private mortgage insurance within the first 60 months (five years). Why pay FHA insurance for another 25 years on a 30-year mortgage if it’s not necessary? The savings over time are significant.

The minimum down payment for FHA is 3.5% while a conventional private MI-backed mortgage can be originated with as little as 3% down. On a $234,900 home purchase (national median in December 2016), with a 4.25% interest rate for conventional and 4% for FHA, the FHA loan requires $1,175 more for down payment than the private MI loan. This goes to show that even with a higher interest rate the conventional loan still may be a better deal.

4. Experts (see below) point out that the FHA was stretched to the brink for nearly a decade, through the financial crisis, ultimately requiring a $1.7 billion taxpayer bailout. These experts argue that the capital levels required of FHA to shield taxpayers against losses, which is a thin 2% to begin with and has been underwater for several years, should not be thinned-out so quickly after it’s been restored back to health.

  • Housing policy experts at the Urban Institute debunk some of the quick claims about the negative impact of this HUD action. In a new blog they state: “A close look at the planned price reduction, however, reveals that the impact on the market would have been small and retaining the current price to help shore up FHA funds for a rainy day is a more prudent choice.” They also caution that the new lending volume at FHA would not come from unserved borrowers or homebuyers left on the sidelines, but instead borrowers already served by the low down payment conventional market.
  • On the opposite side of the political spectrum, scholars at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) agree with Urban Institute on the forestalled FHA premium reduction. AEI scholars note that the last time FHA cut fees in 2015 it did not result in serving a new, previously unserved universe of homebuyers. AEI found, “almost half of these buyers— attracted by FHA’s lower monthly payments—were poached from other government agencies, mainly Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. We also estimate that another third of the 180,000 buyers would have entered the market regardless of the lower premium, because an improving economy was raising incomes and lowering unemployment across the nation.”

5. Given privately insured mortgages are widely available and therefore homebuyers have options beyond FHA, the government program does not need to potentially increase risks to the American taxpayers. Below is a statement by Lindsey Johnson, USMI President and Executive director.

“HUD’s action allows the incoming Administration appropriate time to begin its work and to determine if an FHA mortgage insurance premium reduction is needed, and how it might expose taxpayers to undue risk. Given the wide availability of MI-backed low down payment mortgages and the fact that private MI is a better deal for borrowers over FHA since it can be cancelled, which in turn lowers monthly payments while FHA insurance must be paid for the life of the loan, there is no need for FHA to undercut the private market. While the FHA serves an important role in the housing market, it has expanded its footprint dramatically since the financial crisis and should instead remain focused on its core mission of serving underserved borrowers. USMI has and will continue to work with policymakers and housing officials to establish a more coordinated housing policy that will ensure broad access to low down payment lending while reducing the government’s footprint in housing and protecting taxpayers.”

Statement: FHA Mortgage Insurance Premium Reduction

Posted on by dcadmin

WASHINGTON —The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced today it will reduce its mortgage insurance premiums (MIPs) by 25 basis points. In November 2016, a HUD official stated there would be no additional MIPs cuts following its annual report to Congress on the financial status of its Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF), which showed it had finally reached its required capital levels after nearly a decade of severe stress. The following statement can be attributed to Lindsey Johnson, USMI President and Executive Director:

“While the MMIF is making needed improvements to its financial health, now is the time to establish a more coordinated housing policy to ensure broad access to low down payment lending while reducing the government’s footprint in housing and protecting taxpayers. Arbitrary reductions to the FHA’s MIP is bad policy because it pulls borrowers who would otherwise be served by the conventional Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac market, which is backed by private mortgage insurance for first losses versus the taxpayer. Taxpayers are currently exposed to $1.3 trillion in mortgage risk outstanding at FHA. As a result, and unless Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make commensurate fee adjustments to reflect the FHA decision, the government will likely assume increased amounts of mortgage credit risk.

“We agree with views of past FHA commissioners who contend private capital should play a leading role in guaranteeing low down payment mortgage credit risk so the government and taxpayer don’t have to. Given the wide availability of MI-backed mortgages, the FHA does not need to undercut private capital. USMI continues to believe that FHA serves a very important role, but it has expanded its footprint dramatically since the financial crisis and should instead remain focused on its core mission of serving underserved borrowers. FHA and the GSEs should be much more coordinated to promote broad sustainable homeownership.

“The last time FHA reduced its premiums in 2015, the move resulted in a high volume of FHA loan refinancing versus new mortgage origination, in essence maintaining the same borrowers and home loans while collecting less in insurance premiums. In other words, the same FHA mortgage credit risk but with less protection. This will result in a less financially resilient FHA and increased risk for taxpayers.”

For the consumer, private MI offers distinct advantages over FHA mortgage insurance. For instance, unlike FHA, private MI can be cancelled once approximately 20 percent equity is achieved either through payment or home price appreciation. This step immediately lowers the monthly mortgage for the homeowner.

Private mortgage insurers, who put their own capital at risk to mitigate mortgage credit risk, provided over $50 billion in credit risk protection since the financial crisis to the GSEs and did not take any taxpayer bailout. The market has been strengthened since the financial crisis as all MIs have all implemented significant new capital requirements, or the Private Mortgage Insurer Eligibility Requirements (PMIERs), which are stress-tested financial and capital requirements established by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, enhancing MI’s ability to assume mortgage credit risk in the future.

###

U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) is dedicated to a housing finance system backed by private capital that enables access to housing finance for borrowers while protecting taxpayers. Mortgage insurance offers an effective way to make mortgage credit available to more people. USMI is ready to help build the future of homeownership. Learn more at www.usmi.org.

Newsletter: November 2016

Posted on by dcadmin

USMI-Header-750-New-Logo

 

Here is a roundup of a number of recent events surrounding the opportunities for comprehensive reform of the housing finance industry following the 2016 election, the health of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, and the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) after conservatorship:

  • Opportunities for Housing Reform in New Administration. In an op-ed in National Mortgage News, Clifford Rossi highlights the opportunities for a comprehensive overhaul of the housing finance system following the historic 2016 election. Rossi notes that the new administration and Congress bring momentum and hope for comprehensive housing reforms and long-lasting changes in the secondary mortgage market, including reforming the GSEs and FHA. He cites “dramatically reducing the federal footprint in housing finance” and the implementation of a coordinated federal housing policy as key criteria for reform.
  • FHA Releases 2016 Annual Report. The FHA released its 2016 annual report to Congress highlighting the health of its Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) for Fiscal Year 2016. In its response to the report, USMI stated:“Consistent with improvement in the overall mortgage credit market, we welcome the news that FHA’s single-family forward program and the home equity conversion mortgage (HECM) program are combined above the statutory required 2 percent capital ratio. Now that FHA’s single-family fund has climbed its way back, this moment presents an opportunity for the new Administration and lawmakers to consider a coordinated housing policy to ensure broad access to low down payment lending while reducing the government’s footprint in housing and protecting taxpayers.” 

    “The MI industry and FHA should serve complementary roles to promote broad and sustainable homeownership. To accomplish this, FHA needs to not only become more financially resilient, in line with the rest of the financial system, but also remain focused on its core mission of serving underserved communities. USMI stands ready to work with the new Administration and Congress to enhance a mortgage finance system that meets the needs of low down payment borrowers while protecting taxpayers.”

  • GAO Report on the Future of the GSEs after Conservatorship. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) goals for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conservatorships and the implication of FHFA’s actions for the future of the GSEs and the broader secondary market. The report urges Congress to consider legislation to establish objectives for the future federal role in housing finance and a transition plan to reform the housing finance system that enables the enterprises to exit conservatorship. This report is in response to an April 2016 letter from Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) requesting reports from GAO and the Congressional Budget Office on FHFA and the GSEs.
  • MBA, NAHB, NAR Send Letter to Congress. The Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Home Builders and National Association of Realtors wrote a joint letter to Congress urging it to quickly act to renew a tax extenders package that includes provisions to provide certainty to the residential real estate market. The letter specifically calls for the extension of the mortgage debt forgiveness income exclusion and the mortgage insurance premium deduction. The deduction became effective in 2007 and is set to expire in 2016 unless Congress extends or makes it permanent. Tax savings associated with the mortgage insurance deduction can be a decisive factor for many prospective borrowers. In 2014, 4.2 million taxpayers benefited from deductions for mortgage insurance, with an average deduction of $1,403. The total amount of deductions claimed in 2014 was nearly $6 billion.