Tag: mortgage insurance

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

Newsletter: June 2017

Posted on by dcadmin

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

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

Blog: A smarter way to buy a home

Posted on by dcadmin

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

What does this mean?

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

The 20 percent down myth

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

What is a conventional loan with MI?

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

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

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

Newsletter: April 2017

Posted on by Rhina Portillo

Here is a roundup of recent news in the housing finance industry. USMI’s Lindsey Johnson interviews USMI Board Chairman Patrick Sinks on the 60th anniversary of the private mortgage insurance (MI) industry. Additionally, a recent congressional bill aimed at promoting greater transparency at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs) was passed by the House of Representatives, President Trump announced his nomination for Deputy Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) released a new report on reform recommendations for the GSEs and housing finance system.

  • Private Mortgage Insurance Industry Turns 60. This week, USMI published a Q&A between USMI President and Executive Director Lindsey Johnson and USMI Chairman and Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. (MGIC) CEO Patrick Sinks. In their discussion, Johnson and Sinks discuss the past, present, and future of the MI industry, and how MI has helped people affordably become homeowners for 60 years.
  • House Bill Aims to Open GSE Records to FOIA. This week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1694, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017, by a unanimous vote. H.R. 1694, introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), would mandate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept and process Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the public, and release information to satisfy FOIA requests as long as they remain under federal conservatorship.
  • President Trump Announces Deputy Secretary of HUD Nomination. Today, President Trump announced the nomination of Pamela Patenaude to be Deputy Secretary of HUD. Patenaude is currently the President of the J. Ronald Terwilliger Foundation for America’s Families and previously served as Director of the Bipartisan Policy Center Housing Commission. USMI issued the following statement on Patenaude’s nomination:“Pam Patenaude is a strong choice to serve as Deputy Secretary for HUD. Throughout her career, she has been a proven leader on housing issues and will bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the agency. USMI looks forward to working with Pam on the important issues facing the housing finance industry.”
  • MBA Releases New Report on Reform Recommendations for GSEs and Housing Finance System. This week, MBA released a report outlining its recommendations to reform the GSEs and the housing finance system. The report covers many areas such as the value of loan-level credit enhancement and the benefit of private MI, as well as promotes greater use of front-end credit risk sharing including through private MI. The report also recognizes the important functions of private market participants and reinforces that there should be a bright line between the functions of private market participants in the primary market and those of secondary market participants. In a statement on the report,  USMI President Lindsey Johnson said:“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.”

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.

Newsletter: March 2017

Posted on by Rhina Portillo

Here is a roundup of recent news in the housing finance industry, including a blog post by USMI Chairman Patrick Sinks on the value of enhanced lending standards and practices, the release of a new column explaining low down payment mortgage options, a report on the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) exposure to risky loans, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) response to criticism over the GSEs’ entrance into financing single-family rental homes:

  • USMI Chairman Writes on Lending Standards. In a recent blog post by Patrick Sinks, the President and CEO of MGIC and Chairman of USMI, he argues that the federal government must balance important protections provided by new lending standards with reasonable consumer access to credit. Sinks also says that there must be uniform lending standards in the housing finance industry to promote consistency in the market. Sinks writes:“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… 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.”
  • New Column on Low Down Payment Mortgages. A new column has been released that gives consumers the “lowdown” on low down payment mortgages. The column explains the options available to potential homebuyers who can’t afford a 20 percent down payment, giving them the pros and cons of several mortgage loan options.
  • Riskier Borrowers Make Up Growing Share of Government-Backed FHA Loans. According to USA Today, riskier borrowers are making up a growing share of new mortgages backed by the FHA, which have been pushing up delinquencies and raising concerns about a spike in defaults that could harm the housing recovery.In addition, the Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released a report that found HUD failed to adequately oversee billions of dollars of risky FHA loans, thereby putting the FHA’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund at greater risk.
  • FHFA Director Mel Watt Defends Fannie Mae Deal with Blackstone. Politico Pro(subscription required) reported that FHFA Director Mel Watt is defending the $1 billion deal between Fannie Mae and private equity firm Blackstone to guarantee the company’s loans on 50,000 single-family rental units. Watt defended the deal in letters to the National Association of Realtors and House Democrats, each of whom have written letters to the FHFA expressing their opposition to the deal. According to Bloomberg News, Freddie Mac may also move toward backing loans that finance single-family rental (SFR) homes.

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.

Newsletter: March 2017

Posted on by Rhina Portillo

Here is a roundup of recent news in the housing finance industry, including the unveiling of USMI’s new logo to commemorate 60 years of making homeownership possible through private mortgage insurance and housing policy developments in Congress and in the executive branch.

  • The private mortgage insurance industry turns 60. USMI unveiled its new logo to commemorate 60 years of private mortgage insurance (MI) making homeownership possible for millions of Americans. Since 1957, private MI has served as a reliable and affordable method of expanding homeownership, while simultaneously protecting American taxpayers and the government from exposure to mortgage credit risk. Stay tuned for more activities!
  • USMI and others send letter to Congress on g-fees. Scotsman Guide reported on a letter sent by USMI and 13 other industry trade groups to Reps. Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) on a bill they introduced to ensure that guarantee fees (g-fees) charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”) are used solely to insure against the credit risk of home mortgages. In 2016, the mortgage finance industry successfully fought off a legislative proposal to use g-fees collected by the GSEs to fund highway projects. The letter reads: “G-fees are a critical risk management tool used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to protect against losses from loans that default. Increasing g-fees for other purposes imposes an unjustified burden on homeowners who would pay for any increase through higher monthly payments for the life of their loan. … whenever Congress has considered using g-fees to cover the cost of programs unrelated to housing, we’ve informed lawmakers that homeownership cannot, and must not, be used as the nation’s piggybank. By preventing g-fees from being scored as a funding offset, H.R. 916 gives lawmakers a vital tool to prevent homeowners from footing the bill for unrelated spending. We are grateful to you for introducing this bipartisan legislation and urge its consideration by the House.”
  • Carson confirmed as HUD Secretary. On March 2, Dr. Ben Carson was confirmed as the new Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). USMI released a statement congratulating Secretary Carson on his confirmation and welcoming the opportunity to work with the Secretary and his team to promote a stronger and more equitable mortgage finance system, as well as an expanded role for private capital.
  • Investopedia has good video explaining MI. USMI’s website features a new video courtesy of Investopedia to help people better understand what private MI is and how it helps people who cannot afford a 20 percent down payment to buy a home. To watch the video, click here.

Statement: Senate Confirmation of Ben Carson as HUD Secretary

Posted on by dcadmin

USMI-Header-750-New-Logo

USMI Statement on Senate Confirmation of Ben Carson as HUD Secretary

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

Posted on by dcadmin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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