Tag: Fannie Mae

Statement: USMI Applauds the U.S. Senate Banking Committee’s Approval of Mark Calabria as the New Director of Federal Housing Finance Agency—Urges Quick Senate Floor Consideration

Posted on by dcadmin

WASHINGTON — Lindsey Johnson, President of U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI), today issued the following statement on the U.S. Senate Banking Committee’s confirmation of Dr. Mark Calabria as the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director: 

“USMI applauds the Senate Banking Committee’s approval of Dr. Mark Calabria to serve as the next FHFA Director. Dr. Calabria’s extensive public service and deep understanding of the mortgage finance system will serve the Agency, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”), market participants, and homebuyers well.

“Dr. Calabria has long been an advocate for greater taxpayer protection against mortgage credit risk, including the use of private mortgage insurance to guard taxpayers and the federal government from financial risk on low down payment lending. We are confident that Dr. Calabria will continue to recognize the importance of private mortgage insurance in the conventional mortgage market both in helping creditworthy low down payment borrowers qualify for home financing, while also protecting American taxpayers from undue mortgage credit risk. Over the last 60 years, private MI has helped more than 30 million individuals become homeowners. Right now, private mortgage insurance protection is the only source of private capital that is permanently dedicated to standing in a first-loss position in front of the GSEs and taxpayers on GSE-backed mortgages, through various credit cycles.

“USMI looks forward to working closely with Dr. Calabria to ensure that borrowers continue to have competitive options for low down payment mortgage finance credit in the conventional market and to protect taxpayers even further. USMI urges a quick Senate Floor vote and support for Dr. Calabria. For more than 60 years, private mortgage insurers have played a leading role in promoting affordable and sustainable homeownership and we look forward to building upon this important mission 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.

Report: Urban Institute Report Highlights Role Private Mortgage Insurers Have Played to Protect Taxpayers, Expand Access to Homeownership for 60 Years

Posted on by Rhina Portillo

For 60 years, private mortgage insurance (MI) has helped more than 25 million families become successful homeowners. To commemorate this milestone, the Urban Institute examined the industry’s history and the positive role MI has served for homebuyers and the mortgage finance system overall. Urban notes in its study, “[p]rivate mortgage insurers have played a crucial role over the past six decades enabling first-time homebuyers to gain access to high-[loan-to-value] conventional financing while reducing losses for the GSEs.” The report confirms that the presence of private mortgage insurance makes it easier for creditworthy borrowers with limited down payments to access conventional mortgage credit. This is the primary function of MI – to help borrowers qualify for home financing.

The report also focuses on the role MI plays to reduce taxpayers’ exposure to mortgage credit risk. MI insures the first-loss credit risk to the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, helping to reduce GSE losses, and therefore taxpayers’ losses, on defaulted mortgages. And historical experience and data show MI works. Urban found that GSE loans with MI consistently have lower loss severities than those without MI. In fact, for nearly 20 years, loans with MI have exhibited lower loss severity each origination year. The Urban analysis shows 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.”

Loss Severity for GSE Loans with and without PMI, by Origination Year Groupings

Sources: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Urban Institute.

Note: GSE = government-sponsored enterprise; PMI = private mortgage insurance. The GSE credit data are limited to 30-year fixed-rate, full documentation, fully amortizing mortgage loans. Adjustable-rate mortgages and Relief Refinance Mortgages are not included. Fannie Mae data include loans originated from the first quarter of 1999 (Q1 1999) to Q4 2015, with performance information on these loans through Q3 2016. Freddie Mac data include loans originated from Q1 1999 to Q3 2015, with performance information on these loans through Q1 2016.

 

This data, coupled with the more than $50 billion in claims our industry paid since the GSEs entered conservatorship—which represents over 97% of valid claims paid, underscores how MI provides significant first-loss protection for the government and taxpayers. By design, MI provides protection before the risk even reaches the GSEs’ balance sheets. As the government explores ways to further reduce mortgage credit risk while also ensuring Americans continue to have access to affordable home financing, the data shows private MI is an important solution.

The MI industry, like nearly all other industries in financial services, was tested like never before through the financial crisis. Urban’s report acknowledges the challenges the industry has overcome from the financial crisis and the opportunities ahead for the industry. Coming out of the crisis, the MI industry is even stronger with more robust underwriting standards, stronger capital positions, and improved risk management. Additionally, in the last two years, private mortgage insurers have materially increased their claims paying ability in both good and bad economic times due to new higher capital standards under the Private Mortgage Insurance Eligibility Requirements (PMIERs).

Urban notes that the industry “should be more resilient going forward” because of the important changes applied to the industry today – including the enhanced capital, operational, and risk standards ‒ and highlights the broad agreement among parties studying GSE reform for the need to reduce the government’s footprint and increase the role of private capital. These developments have helped strengthen the industry and new reforms can allow MI to take on an even greater role to continue protecting taxpayers and expanding access to homeownership for the next 60 years and beyond.

Report: Assessing Proposals to Reform America’s Housing Finance System

Posted on by Lindsey Johnson

Nearly a decade after the financial crisis, the housing finance system remains largely structurally unreformed. There have been several legislative pushes for comprehensive reform after American taxpayers provided $187 billion in bailout assistance to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”) and since both GSEs were placed into conservatorship in 2008, though all comprehensive reform efforts to date have failed to be enacted.

USMI firmly believes that reform is necessary to put our housing finance system on a more sustainable path so that creditworthy borrowers will have access to prudent and affordable mortgage credit in the future and so that taxpayers are better shielded from housing related credit risks. For more than 60 years, private mortgage insurance (MI) has played a critical role in providing access to mortgage credit and protecting taxpayers. The 115th Congress and the Trump Administration have a unique opportunity to address this last unfinished reform to truly put America’s housing finance system on a sustainable path. Recently, there have been a number of reform proposals from think tanks, trade associations, and others—each articulating a specific set of principles or visions for the structure of the new future housing finance system, and elements of the transition to a future state.

This paper, Assessing Proposals to Reform America’s Housing Finance System, seeks to analyze various proposals through the lens of USMI’s housing finance reform principles, with particular attention to the role of private capital to protect against taxpayer risk exposure in the proposed future systems. Several thoughtful legislative proposals for housing finance reform exist, but this paper is restricted to analysis of several of the white papers and reform proposals put forward by think tanks and trade associations. Simply returning to the pre-conservatorship status quo does nothing to strengthen the housing finance system, and USMI looks forward to working with industry and consumer groups, Congress, and the Administration to identify the best reforms to put America’s housing finance system on a sustainable path.

USMI appreciates the work the of authors and stakeholders who assembled these proposals, and we look forward to working with policymakers and other stakeholders to advance necessary reforms to enhance our housing finance system.

Download as PDF

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.

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.

Newsletter: February 2017

Posted on by Rhina Portillo

Here is a roundup of recent news in the housing finance industry, including USMI’s release of its 2017 policy priorities and housing finance reform principles, industry outreach to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) on GSE activities, and the recent news of increases in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage delinquencies:

  • USMI released housing finance reform principles that address ways the housing finance system can be put on a more sustainable path. These principles allow creditworthy borrowers to have access to affordable mortgage credit without exposing taxpayers and the government to housing related credit risks. These principles include:
    • Protecting taxpayers by allowing private capital to absorb all credit losses in front of any government guaranty
    • Promoting stability in a reformed housing finance system
    • Ensuring accessibility to mortgage finance for creditworthy borrowers and participation by lenders of all sizes and types
    • Fostering transparency through a consistent and coordinated approach to the federal governments’ housing policy among all agencies and entities
  • USMI released its public policy priorities for 2017, which are dedicated to fostering sustainable homeownership while significantly limiting credit risk to taxpayers and the government. These policy priorities include:
    • Enabling access to homeownership and affordable mortgage credit with MI
      • Setting and using GSE fees
      • Extending and preserving tax deductibility of MI
    • Reducing taxpayer risk with MI
      • Establishing coordinated housing policy
      • Establishing complementary roles for the Federal Housing Administration and MI
      • Strengthening the role of MI in comprehensive reform legislation
      • Expanding the use of “Deeper Cover” MI in GSE-risk sharing
  • In a joint letter, USMI and eight other financial trade groups wrote to FHFA Director Mel Watt and urged the agency to engage with industry stakeholders before moving forward with evaluating new or alternative credit score models used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for conventional mortgage loans. The joint letter reads:“As the Federal Housing Finance Agency (‘FHFA’) moves forward with evaluating new/alternative models, we request that FHFA engage more openly and broadly with industry through a public forum, provide relevant data and information from the Enterprises to help inform industry participants about the potential impact of new credit score models, and share your assessment of fair lending risks posed by contemplated changes. … Given the significant implications that the various options could have on borrowers and our industries, our associations urge FHFA to broaden the input from key industry participants to help reach the most suitable option to expand credit while promoting sustainable homeownership.”
  • The National Association of Realtors (NAR) sent a letter to FHFA Director Mel Watt regarding the recent news that Fannie Mae will obtain a billion dollars’ worth of loans to finance its purchase of single family homes that will be rented out in markets with limited supply. The letter states:“Rather than focusing on allowing well-qualified Americans to build wealth through affordable mortgages options, Fannie Mae is actively financing large institutions to compete with them. These investors do not expand the affordable housing stock. Rather, in this limited market they drive up the price of rents and remove affordable inventory from the hands of American homeowners. … At a time of a historically low homeownership rate, our nation needs the GSEs to bolster homeownership opportunities for millions of responsible, middle class American families, not funding special interest deals with Wall Street financial firms that take away those opportunities.”Several House Democrats also wrote a letter to Director Watt expressing their concerns over the deal, which they say chases profits at the expense of Fannie Mae’s primary mission of boosting U.S. homeownership.
  • The House Financial Services Committee issued a statement regarding the spike in delinquencies on mortgages backed by the FHA at the end of 2016. Mortgage delinquencies at the FHA jumped in the 4th quarter of 2016 for the first time since 2006, with the delinquency rate increasing to 9.02 percent. In the statement, Chairman Jeb Hensarling stated that the data “makes it clear that President Trump was absolutely right to undo the previous administration’s irresponsible action.”

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.

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.

Statement: New GSE Credit Insurance Pilot Program

Posted on by dcadmin

USMI-Header-750-New-Logo

For Immediate Release

September 27, 2016

Media Contact: Dan Knight

(202) 777-3547

dknight@clsstrategies.com

 

USMI Statement on New GSE Credit Insurance Pilot Program

WASHINGTON — Lindsey Johnson, President and Executive Director of U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI), said the following today upon the announcement from Freddie Mac about a new pilot program involving mortgage insurers:

“For the past four years, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been experimenting with a number of structures to shift risk away from the GSEs to the private markets. The program announced yesterday for an offering with affiliates of private mortgage insurers is the latest addition to this effort. While it is good to see the GSEs continue to explore ways to reduce the government’s mortgage credit risk exposure, this new offering is effectively a form of credit insurance that Freddie Mac stated builds on its Agency Credit Insurance Structure (ACIS), which is a back-end credit insurance program. While some mortgage insurers are exploring and may ultimately participate in this new credit insurance program, we believe it is important to note that this new structure should not be confused with the deep cover, true mortgage insurance front-end credit risk transfer proposal that we and others have been advocating for.

As the FHFA seeks comment through the RFI process on additional ways to do greater front-end risk sharing, USMI continues to believe that MI is one of the best, time-tested forms of credit risk protection for our nation’s mortgage finance system. We also believe that using more traditional deep cover MI would be a key component to a sound housing policy in the future. Specifically, our industry proposes expanding the current risk protection provided by MI, which today guards up to 35 percent of a loan’s value, as a means of front-end credit risk transfer. This will significantly protect taxpayers while also ensuring borrower access to low down payment mortgages. Having the GSEs increase that protection coverage would put more private capital at risk—precisely what taxpayers and the economy need. Such an entity-based program would make greater use of private capital, put the GSEs and taxpayers in a more remote loss position, allow lenders of all sizes and types to participate, and, importantly, help ensure access to affordable homeownership. As it has been for the past sixty years, private MI can be provided consistently through all economic cycles. We look forward to continuing that dialogue with FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, policymakers, and other stakeholders.”

### 

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.