News Filter: Blog

Blog: Mortgage Insurance is an Enduring Piece of Housing Finance Reform

Posted on by Lindsey Johnson

By Lindsey Johnson

While discussing 2018 housing finance reform recently, specifically private mortgage insurance’s role in helping homebuyers and protecting lenders and the GSEs in the mortgage finance system, I was reminded of one of the most significant reasons MI is uniquely valuable: it is compatible with nearly every form of mortgage credit execution. While there are pilot projects underway at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac experimenting with other forms of credit risk transfer (“CRT”), private mortgage insurance is the original form of CRT. MI is credit enhancement for borrowers with a low-down payment, and it has been a sustainable component of America’s housing finance system for more than 60 years.

Proposals and recommendations to reform the GSEs are being floated by government agencies and lawmakers, financial experts, academics, think tanks, and housing organizations. While these proposals seek the same goal of achieving much needed reform, there are many different ideas for what reform should achieve.

For more than six decades, private mortgage insurance has played a critical role in helping first time buyers—especially those without a large down payment—achieve affordable home financing while also protecting lenders (and the government and taxpayers when these mortgages are securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). MI should continue to provide this important function in the housing system of tomorrow.

But more than being compatible, the timing of mortgage insurance matters too. When we talk about “loan level” or “front-end” or “at origination” credit enhancement we are specifically referring to how MI is part of a low-down payment mortgage from day one. When a homebuyer sits down at the settlement table to sign paperwork and get their keys, the mortgage is insured. Just like you are required to have auto insurance before you drive your car, the protection on these mortgages is present before the homebuyer moves in. Mortgage insurance is part of a low-down payment conventional mortgage if the loan is held on a bank’s portfolio for a period of time or whether it is pooled with others and securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac—the protection on the individual loan remains present. And it’s a good thing, too, considering private mortgage insurers paid over $50 billion in claims through the down turn – losses the government and taxpayers didn’t have to bear. This is important because, while it is a positive step for the GSEs to experiment with other forms of CRT in the system, these new alternatives are not the same and shouldn’t be considered interchangeable.

Many of the benefits of MI come from the fact that it attaches to the loan at the time the loan is originated, something that should occur in any future system for the reasons discussed below.

What are the unique benefits of MI?

  • Loan-level insurance is a form of credit enhancement that most aligns with borrowers, servicers, and investors to not only put borrowers into homes, but also to keep them there. MI is unique because it actively manages credit risk, reducing risk on individual low-down payment loans while affording lenders flexibility for secondary market execution, whether through the GSEs, Federal Home Loan Bank System, private securitization, or to hold loans on portfolio. Being part of the loan from the time it is originated allows mortgage insurers to provide a second set of eyes when it comes to underwriting, helping to ensure the buyer can afford the mortgage. MIs have decades of experience and expertise in pricing and managing mortgage credit risk to balance affordability and risk sensitivity—something unique to MI that is not available through most other forms of credit enhancement. Because MIs are in the first-loss position (meaning they are the first to pay losses in a default after the borrower’s down payment)—MIs have the incentive to use strong underwriting, which strengthens the mortgage finance system.  Also, unlike other CRT structures, because MI is done at the individual loan level, MIs have a strong incentive to help borrowers achieve a workout to stay in their home rather than to default.
  • MI is compatible with different housing finance systems. MI protection travels with a home loan wherever it goes, including being added to a lender’s balance sheet, sold to an investor, or placed into a securitization pool. As a result, unlike with other CRT pilot programs, MI does not rely on the GSEs or other government or quasi-government entities to hold and distribute credit risk. Private MI is fully compatible with the broadly shared goal of a housing finance system with multiple funding sources and substantial private capital—a feature that distinguishes MI from other forms of credit enhancement.
  • Private MI can transition smoothly across the housing finance system. While the other CRT pilots were built to operate only within the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac construct, the MI industry has historically adapted as the mortgage finance system evolved—from the dominance of Savings & Loan associations to the growth of the GSEs and independent mortgage bankers. The MI industry has the continued ability to evolve and serve any new system that is created with virtually no disruption to the origination and servicing of mortgage loans.

Understanding that our options for a reformed housing finance system is not constrained to a single model, and that a permanent source of private capital can be available under these different constructs, allows policymakers and stakeholders to examine the best system for addressing the concerns/flaws that exist today and how to make a more effective and efficient system in the future. Since 1957, the MI industry has helped more than 25 million families become homeowners while protecting the taxpayers and the federal government from mortgage credit risk. MI will continue to promote homeownership and taxpayer protection in a new housing finance system.

Blog: Do the math: Homebuying now may save a lot

Posted on by dcadmin

It is a common misconception that a 20 percent down payment is required to buy a home. Advice to wait and save a large down payment is often based on the theory that the cost of mortgage insurance (MI), which is required when you buy with a smaller down payment, should be avoided. This may not be the best advice and is, in fact, not in line with market trends, considering 60 percent of homebuyers buy with a down payment of 6 percent or less, according to the National Association of Realtors.

Yes, you can qualify for a conventional mortgage with a down payment as small as 3 percent of the purchase price. It is also true that you can reduce your monthly mortgage payment by paying for discount points at closing, but that can be 5 or 10 percent of the purchase price — not 20. And because every buyer’s situation is unique, it’s important to do the math. In today’s market, it could take a family earning the national median income up to 20 years to save 20 percent, according to calculations by U.S. Mortgage Insurers using a methodology developed by the Center for Responsible Lending; a lot can change during that time, in the family’s personal finances and in overall mortgage market trends.

How can buying now save you money later?

Consider you want to purchase a $235,000 home. A 5 percent down payment is $11,750 versus $47,000 in cash for 20 percent down. With a 740 credit score at today’s MI rates, your monthly MI payment would be about $110, which is added to your monthly mortgage payment until MI cancels. MI typically cancels after five years; therefore, you will only have this added cost for a short period of time versus waiting an average of 20 years to save for 20 percent.

With home price appreciation, today’s $235,000 home will likely cost more in the years ahead and this will also have an impact on the necessary down payment and length of time required to save for it. There are other variables in the equation too, such as interest rates. As federal rates rise, so too can the costs associated with financing a mortgage. The savings a borrower might calculate today could be altogether negated by waiting even a few more years. Another factor is that rents are on the rise across the nation, leading to a reduced capacity for many would-be homebuyers to save for larger down payments.

If you decide to buy today with a low down payment mortgage option, it is true that MI is an added cost on top of mortgage principal and interest, but keep in mind that it is temporary and goes away. Again, it typically lasts about five years. Private MI can be cancelled once a homeowner builds approximately 20 percent equity in the home through payments or appreciation and automatically terminates for most borrowers once he or she reaches 22 percent equity. And when MI is cancelled, the monthly bill goes down. Importantly, the insurance premiums on an FHA mortgage — the 100 percent taxpayer-backed government version of mortgage insurance — cannot be cancelled for the vast majority of borrowers with FHA mortgages.

So, do the math and let the numbers guide you. There are many online mortgage calculators that can help. Check out lowdownpaymentfacts.org to learn more.

Blog: How to lower your monthly mortgage payment

Posted on by Rhina Portillo

Owning your own home comes with many advantages, including escaping rising rents and the personal and financial stability associated with homeownership. Fortunately, millions of Americans, with less than 20 percent down, have been able to buy a home sooner thanks to mortgage insurance (MI). If you don’t put down 20 percent of the mortgage cost, you will likely be required to purchase MI, which enables low-down-payment borrowers to qualify for home financing from lenders.

While homeownership has many benefits and continues to be part of the American Dream, it is not without costs. Several surveys have found that the majority of first-time homebuyers — over 80 percent according to one study — put less than 20 percent down. For these borrowers, there is usually the added expense of MI, which may give some of these borrowers pause.

But there is good news: the monthly private mortgage insurance premiums do not last forever on most conventional loans. And when private MI (PMI) cancels, homeowners will have more cash in their pockets each month — money that is available for home improvements or other goals. It is important to understand, however, that not all MI is the same, and not all MI can be canceled.

There are numerous low-down-payment mortgage options available that include MI. The two most common are: (1) home loans backed 100 percent by the government through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) that include both an upfront and annual mortgage insurance premium (MIP); and (2) conventional loans, which are typically backed at least in part by private sources of capital, such as private MI. The key difference is that one form can be canceled (PMI) while the other (FHA) typically cannot be canceled.

An FHA loan can be obtained with a down payment as low as 3.5 percent. However, be aware that you will typically have to pay a mortgage insurance premium (MIP) of 1.75 percent of the total loan amount at closing or have it financed into the mortgage. In addition to your regular monthly mortgage payments on your FHA loan, you will also pay a fixed monthly MIP fee for the life of the loan. This means you could pay hundreds of dollars extra every month — thousands over the life of the loan — until you pay off the entirety of the loan.

If you obtain a conventional loan with PMI, you can put as little as 3 percent down. Like an FHA loan, PMI fees are generally factored into your monthly mortgage payment. However, PMI can often be canceled once you have established 20 percent equity in the home and/or the principal balance of the mortgage is scheduled to reach 78 percent of the home’s original value. This means that the rest of your mortgage payments will not include any extra fees, so that your payments go down in time, saving you money each month. What you save in the long run can then be put toward expenses like home renovations, which can further increase your home’s value.

MI is a good thing because it bridges the divide between a low down payment and mortgage approval. But not all MI is created equal. If you want to buy a home but still save in the long run, PMI might be the right option for you. Check out lowdownpaymentfacts.org to learn more.

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.

Blog: Private Mortgage Insurance at 60 Years — Lindsey Johnson interviews USMI Board Chairman Pat Sinks

Posted on by Lindsey Johnson

By Lindsey Johnson

What was the driving force in 1957 that led to the inception of private mortgage insurance (MI)?

While the late 1950s was a time of great economic prosperity, the devastating effects of the Great Depression and World War II still impacted how financial institutions viewed risk. These institutions were leery of issuing mortgages with less than 20 or 25 percent down, unless the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured them. However, the red tape, expense, and regulations involved in working with the FHA made it impractical for many banks to lend and served as a barrier to homeownership for many low- to moderate-income borrowers. As a result of the precarious mortgage lending situation, a real estate attorney based in Milwaukee, WI named Max Karl sought a way to allow banks to more efficiently serve borrowers with low down payment loan options by insuring home loans with private MI. To do this, Karl founded Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (MGIC) and the rest is history.

Since 1957, how has private MI helped support homeownership?

Having mortgage insurance makes originating high loan-to-value (LTV) loans safer for the financial institutions we serve, allowing them to reduce their risk and lend to credit-worthy borrowers who bring less than 20 percent down to the table. This allows borrowers to become homeowners sooner than would otherwise be possible. It also allows homeowners to build the kind of long-term wealth that comes with having equity in a home.

Why should borrowers consider private MI?

I encourage borrowers to thoroughly explore all home loan options when buying a home; being well informed is the key to making the best choice based on one’s individual needs. That said, private MI offers an affordable and sustainable low down payment path to homeownership. What’s more, unlike some other low down payment programs, private MI automatically cancels once a homeowner reaches 78 percent equity in his or her home (or 80 percent equity upon request) and meets investor and/or Homeowner Protection Act requirements. This benefit of private MI can save homeowners thousands of dollars over the life of their loan.

How does private MI fit into the mortgage finance system?

Simply put, private MI helps reduce risk in the mortgage financing system by putting private capital in front of taxpayers and the federal government. Private MI does this by meeting a requirement established by Congress that low down payment loans sold to the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (the GSEs) have extra credit protection.

If the borrower defaults on their loan and there isn’t enough equity in the home to cover what is owed on the mortgage, private MI is there to offset the loss. With the GSEs in conservatorship and the government effectively guaranteeing the loans assumed on the GSEs’ balance sheets, taxpayers face direct exposure to mortgage credit losses experienced by the GSEs. When private MI is in place, private capital – not taxpayers – cover the first losses on a default up to certain coverage limits.

To give you an idea of what that means in real dollars, the private MI industry has paid more than $50 billion in claims for losses to the GSEs since they entered conservatorship during the 2008 financial crisis

What’s changed in the private MI industry over the past 60 years?

I like to say “this isn’t our father’s MI.” The private MI industry has been through a lot in its 60-year history. Most recently, we learned some valuable lessons during the Great Recession. Prior to that, the industry had never experienced a coast-to-coast collapse in the housing market. It’s true there have been times of great economic hardship during the industry’s history, but nothing as widespread as this most recent economic downturn.

While the private MI industry’s commitment to helping expand homeownership in an affordable, sustainable way remains steadfast, it has incorporated the lessons learned from the Great Recession into how it operates today. This includes the industry’s capital standards and how it views, evaluates, and prices for risk.

These lessons have made the private MI industry a stronger partner with its customers and it is in a great position for the future.

Speaking of the future, what do you see for private MI going forward?

The private MI industry is in the midst of a once in a generation opportunity to positively reform the country’s housing finance system. To do it right, there must be a comprehensive approach to evaluate what the proper role is for the GSEs, FHA, and private capital.

Private mortgage insurers are ready, willing, and able to take on a larger role in housing finance. The industry’s transparent, risk-adjusted capital requirements set it apart from other forms of credit enhancement, and that stability – coupled with 60 years of experience insuring high LTV-residential mortgages – puts it in a unique position to support the expansion of homeownership.

As our county’s leaders continue to explore housing finance reform, it only makes sense for them to consider how they can leverage the private MI industry’s inclusive and scalable business model.

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.

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.”

Blog: An affordable way to qualify for a home loan without that big down payment

Posted on by Rhina Portillo

For many Americans, the biggest hurdle in buying a home is the 20 percent down payment they think is required for mortgage approval. According to a recent survey by the National Association of Realtors, 34 percent of respondents believe they need more than 20 percent.

Meanwhile, low down payment mortgages account for a significant amount of home buying annually.

Families with down payments as low as 3 or 5 percent have been able to purchase a home thanks to private mortgage insurance (MI) for 60 years. Since 1957, MI has helped 25 million families become homeowners. In the past year alone, MI helped more than 795,000 homeowners purchase or refinance a mortgage. Nearly half were first time homebuyers and more than 40 percent had incomes below $75,000.

How MI works

Mortgage insurance is simple. In addition to the other parts of mortgage underwriting process — such as verifying employment and determining the borrower’s ability to afford the monthly payment — lenders traditionally required 20 percent down to ensure the borrower had some of their own money committed before the bank would provide a loan. This is where MI enters, bridging the down payment divide to qualify borrowers for mortgage financing.

Benefits of MI

  • It helps you buy a home, sooner. For the average firefighter or school teacher, it could take 20 years to save the typical down payment. Private mortgage insurers help borrowers qualify with as little as 3 percent down.
  • It’s temporary, leading to lower monthly payments. MI can be cancelled once you build 20 percent equity, either through payments or home price appreciation — typically in the first five to seven years. This is not the case for FHA loans, the federal government’s form of MI. The majority of which require MI for the life of the loan.
  • It provides several flexible payment options. Your lender can offer several options for MI payment; the most common is paid monthly along with your mortgage.
  • It’s tax-deductible. Subject to income limits, MI premiums are tax deductible — similar to interest paid on a mortgage. In 2014, 4 million taxpayers benefited from this deduction with the average being $1,402.

MI is a stable, cost effective way to obtain low down payment mortgages, and offers distinct benefits to borrowers. It’s been a cornerstone of the U.S. housing market for decades, providing millions the opportunity to own homes despite financial barriers. Ask your lender for low down payment options using MI.

Blog: Time to Be Transparent about Fannie and Freddie Upfront Risk Fees

Posted on by Lindsey Johnson

Data show homeownership has become out of reach for many and that reducing or eliminating upfront fees is overdue.

By Lindsey Johnson

Eight years after the global financial crisis, the U.S. housing market still lags the recovery of the overall economy—and the homeownership rate is at a 50-year low.[1] While the new administration will have many housing related issues to address in the first few years, access to credit should not be overlooked. I was reminded of this and inspired to write this blog after reading a front page story in The Wall Street Journal on December 4 titled “Credit Restrictions Cost Home Buyers ‘Deal of a Lifetime.’”[2]

Following the financial crisis, policymakers aimed to eliminate the riskiest mortgage products on the market and shore up the financials of those institutions that make up the housing industry. And, while we cannot turn our eyes away from safety and sound mortgage lending nor can we ever allow any of the riskier types of mortgages to return that led to the financial crisis, the pendulum has swung too far in some areas. To truly address concerns about consumers’ access to mortgage finance, a number of areas of government policy need to be discussed including: 1) the GSEs’ guaranty fees (“g-fees”) policy that was adopted after the financial crisis; 2) GSE Loan Level Pricing Adjustment (LLPA) fees that were added to g-fees during the crisis; 3) private mortgage insurers’ new Private Mortgage Insurer Eligibility Requirements (PMIERs) that were established by the GSEs; and 4) the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) pricing and underwriting practices. We will explore many of these topics in future writings, but will focus on one specific aspect here—LLPAs.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge g-fees, which are the fees borrowers pay to have their mortgage backed by the Federal government through the GSEs. In 2008, the GSEs added LLPAs to further shield the GSEs against the risk of defaults. These crisis-era fees were levied on homebuyers in addition to other fees and costs for managing their risk, based largely on two factors—credit score and the size of their down payment—and most borrowers do not even know about these additional fees. The current president of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) put it best in an American Banker column when he stated “homebuyers are paying a steep price at the closing table in the form of unnecessary fees that, for some, put homeownership out of reach.”[3] Without being transparent about these so-called upfront risk fees, LLPAs will continue to exacerbate a serious concern over the efforts to re-balance these fees in a post-crisis environment.

Low-down payment programs are designed for families who need the help, but the impact of LLPAs on the cost of Fannie or Freddie-backed low-down payment mortgages has been chilling. The Wall Street Journal reports that, “Fannie and Freddie increased fees for riskier borrowers, widening the gap between mortgage rates available to borrowers with good and weak credit.”

This is indeed true. The Treasury Department noted in a recent report, the “credit score of the typical new mortgage borrower is nearly 40 points higher than the typical borrower in the early 2000s.” The “average credit score for those obtaining a loan backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…in conservatorship is nearly 750”—near perfect credit. And the “loan-to-value” is 80%, which means average down payments are roughly 20% of the home purchase price. These facts are “especially sobering given the fact that more than 40% of all FICO scores nationally fall below 700.”[4] I would argue that these trends mean there are many creditworthy families of all socioeconomic backgrounds deserving of conventional mortgages who are simply unable to buy their first home!

Costs of LLPA Fees on Homebuyers and Taxpayers

LLPAs impose significant costs on homebuyers and disproportionately harm first-time homebuyers and those without large down payments. If a homebuyer puts down 5% on a $200,000 home, and the borrower has a 660 FICO score and is applying for a $190,000 mortgage, then the upfront LLPA is 2.25% on this loan. The borrower will pay for this by either bringing $4,275 additional funds to closing (190,000* 2.25%) or accepting a 0.50%-0.55% higher interest rate. That higher interest rate translates to an additional $50 per month on your mortgage payment. Over 5 years that is more than $3,000 in additional interest and over the life of the loan the borrower pays more than $18,000 in additional interest.

USMI was one of 25 organizations that wrote to FHFA Director Mel Watt in June about the need to eliminate or reduce these arbitrary crisis-era fees. Fortunately, since the financial crisis, defaults have gone down for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that new underwriting rules have dramatically improved the quality of the GSE portfolio of new home loans, meaning there is a whole lot less risk on the GSEs’ books as these mortgages are performing well. Yet while the cumulative default rate has decreased from 13.7% to almost zero, GSE g-fees, which include LLPAs, have nearly tripled since the mortgage crisis. Therefore, these arbitrary fees are being imposed on borrowers, even though lending is safer and the fact that private mortgage insurance already mitigates the risk the borrower may not repay their loan. Essentially, LLPAs are double charging the borrower for the same risk. The data simply does not justify these fees anymore.

FHFA Responds…

Director Watt’s August 1 response to the 25 groups who called for FHFA and the GSEs to reduce or eliminate these LLPA fees was that “although positive developments in the mortgage market continue to occur, we believe the current g-fees and LLPAs continue to strike the risk balance.”[5] However, speaking at the MBA’s Annual Convention & Expo in October, Director Watt acknowledged that the post-2008 recovery in the housing market has been “disappointingly uneven” in many areas of the country. Not only has the recovery been slower for urban and low-income communities, but these same communities continue to have the hardest time achieving homeownership today.

NAR said in the American Banker column that the GSEs are “charging homeowners for far more risk than they [the GSEs] took on, driving tremendous profit.” The GSEs have paid more than $200 billion to the U.S. Treasury in recent years; given the GSEs are under conservatorship and are mandated to go to zero capital by 2018, the GSEs should continue to focus on providing access to credit for a broad range of borrowers.

The GSEs have a mission to “promote homeownership, especially access to affordable housing.”[6] It is time to eliminate or reduce these unnecessary fees and bring down costs for homebuyers, considering most low-down payment mortgages already come with private mortgage insurance protection—risk that Fannie and Freddie do not have to bear. Private MI has covered first loss mortgage credit risk ahead of American taxpayers for 60 years and mortgage insurers are ready to do more.

[1] Census Bureau

[2] http://www.wsj.com/articles/credit-restrictions-cost-home-buyers-deal-of-a-lifetime-1480874593

[3] http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/fees-meant-to-shield-gses-from-risk-are-hurting-homebuyers-1091054-1.html

[4] Antonio Weiss and Karen Dynan, Housing Finance Reform: Access and Affordability in Focus https://medium.com/@USTreasury/housing-finance-reform-access-and-affordability-in-focus-d559541a4cdc#.gu5ifppus

[5] Mel Watt, FHFA Letter to Stakeholders on LLPAs

[6] Chairman Ben Bernanke, ICBA Conference Speech: GSE Portfolios, Systemic Risk, and Affordable Housing https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20070306a.htm

Blog: 2017: An Opportunity to Coordinate America’s Housing Policy

Posted on by Lindsey Johnson

By Lindsey Johnson

While the housing finance system in the United States has developed into an ad hoc set of entities and programs, so has the regulatory system around it with more than seven[i] federal agencies playing a role in the formation of policy and regulation of activities for housing finance. Despite the expansive reach of the federal government in the housing finance system and the exhaustive list of government agencies regulating it, safety and soundness gaps exist, access to credit remains tight, and potential homeowners continue to fall through the cracks. Housing policy has become political in addition to being complex and has therefore created an environment where meaningful reforms are rarely achieved. However, the outcome of the historic 2016 election means that one party will control all three branches of government starting in 2017, which presents a unique opportunity to examine the underpinnings of the housing finance system and establish a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to housing policy, rather than just tinkering around the edges of the mortgage finance industry.

Here are three overarching housing considerations and recommendations for the new Congress and Administration:

  1. There is a need for more coordinated, comprehensive, and transparent federal housing policy.
  2. All attempts to reform the housing finance system should fix the parts of the system that were and are broken, while enhancing the parts of the system that work. Part of the solution to fix what is broken is to identify and address areas of inconsistency and redundancy.
  3. Private capital should play a much greater role in the housing finance system. There should be a regulatory body that sets safety and reliability rules for market players on an equitable basis. Further private capital, not government and taxpayers support, should be encouraged to provide access to credit and protect against credit risk where possible in the housing finance system.

Since major housing policy tends to be reactionary and seldom comprehensive, inconsistencies and overlaps have developed resulting in dramatic shifts between the completely private market (PLS market), the semi-government backed market (conventional market via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), and the fully government-backed Ginnie Mae market (FHA, VA, and USDA). One such area of inconsistency is in low downpayment lending, which is increasing as a proportion of the overall residential mortgage market. Currently, a single borrower is subject to different requirements and pays different premium rates for insurance or a guarantee on a low downpayment loan under private mortgage insurance (MI), the FHA, the USDA’s Rural Housing Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or state Housing Finance Agency programs—even though the borrower’s risk profile remains the same.

A coordinated policy would inform how low downpayment lending in the U.S. is carried out. For example, it is common in other types of insurance such as crop, flood and terrorism insurance, to limit government programs to higher risk borrowers or to condition access to supplemental capacity by requiring some demonstration of the need for that capacity. The FHA’s current loan limits do not provide a level playing field nor is there a direct preference for a private capital alternative.  Instead, any preference is done indirectly through premium rate setting and competition, which results in an unstable policy environment. The resulting outcome is dramatic fluctuations between these mortgage finance markets, which at times is most evident between the private mortgage insurance market and the 100% government-backed mortgage insurance market at FHA. While it may seem normal to have some fluctuations during different housing cycles, the recent market fluctuations have most often been the result of competition for market share between the two. This is neither conducive for the most efficient and effective mortgage finance market nor does it ensure that borrowers are being best served. Furthermore, there are redundancies and significant overlap between several government agencies such as FHA and the Rural Housing Service (RHS), where on repeated occasions the GAO[ii] and others have suggested consolidating the agencies or at least specific areas of intersection between them.

Of course a true comprehensive, coordinated housing policy will require reform of the GSEs—or as previously stated, fixing the parts of the housing finance system that were and are broken while enhancing the parts of the system that work. Although housing finance reform may not be the first focus of the new Congress and Administration, significant steps could be taken in the near-term to encourage greater reliance of private capital and market discipline in the housing finance system by establishing clarity about the roles of the different agencies in facilitating homeownership and by providing much greater transparency at both FHA and the GSEs about how these agencies price credit risk. Again, this difference between agencies is particularly sharp in the case of FHA and the conventional lending space with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which use private capital, such as private MI, to insure against a portion of first-loss on high LTV loans. However, in this case, a single borrower either pays a premium rate determined on an average basis (FHA) or a risk-based one (private MI), with the risk-based premium driven by “asset requirements” established by the government-guaranteed GSEs but not by the government-guaranteed FHA. So while there continues to be bipartisan support for reducing the government’s footprint and reducing taxpayers’ exposure to mortgage credit risk, the current market’s inconsistencies are considerable roadblocks to achieving that goal.

There are a number of different proposals for reforming the housing finance system, but most essential going forward is that Congress fixes one of the greatest flaws of the previous and current system, namely that government-backed entities – whether completely government controlled such as FHA or quasi-government such as the GSEs – should not set rules for and then compete on an unlevel playing field with the private market. These entities should perform explicit functions that foster greater participation by the private market, should promote a race-to-the top and not a race-to-the-bottom, and should be highly regulated. They should also be completely transparent in the credit risk they guarantee and how they price that credit risk. Transparency about how government prices credit risk would facilitate the greatest level of liquidity in these markets, and for credit risk transfer would foster an understanding of how these transactions are priced and the best execution for each. Finally, providing greater transparency will help end a structure where only a few agencies control the housing finance system because of their ownership of proprietary data, systems, and pricing. In conservatorship, the GSEs have an explicit guarantee on their Mortgage Backed Securities from the federal government. Therefore, until comprehensive housing finance reform is realized, critical steps could be taken now to improve transparency and foster greater understanding by market participants that will ultimately better inform borrowers. More transparent pricing will benefit lenders, investors, and most of all consumers and taxpayers.

As stated by former FHFA Director Ed DeMarco, housing finance reform “remains the great unfinished business from the Great Recession.” The complexity and political nature of the issues surrounding housing finance reform make it a daunting task to be sure, but the new Administration and Congress have a unique opportunity to make the housing finance system more coordinated, transparent, and disciplined to work for taxpayers and borrowers.

[i] Federal agencies involved with housing finance policy and regulation include FHFA, HUD, VA, USDA, Treasury, NCUA, and CFPB

[ii] U.S. Government Accountability Office, HOME MORTGAGE GUARANTEES: Issues to Consider in Evaluating Opportunities to Consolidate Two Overlapping Single-Family Programs (September 29, 2016).  See http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680151.pdf.

Blog: CFPB Issues Bulletin Regarding the Cancelability of MI

Posted on by dcadmin

In case you missed it, this week the CFPB issued guidance to mortgage loan servicers confirming the requirements on the cancelability of private mortgage insurance (MI) when the borrower pays down the loan to specified levels. This is one of the advantages of private MI over loans insured by government programs like FHA that must be paid for the entire life of the loan, cannot be cancelled, and thus add significant additional costs to the borrower. Loans with private MI offer borrowers an option that is not only highly competitive in terms of pricing, but also cancelable, thus providing substantial savings to borrowers.

For more information on the differences between PMI and FHA MI visit – https://www.usmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/FINAL-FHA-Factsheet1.pdf