Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”) entered conservatorship in 2008, federal policymakers and industry professionals have debated their future role in the housing finance system, as well as what reforms are appropriate and necessary to put the GSEs on stable footing for the long term.

Twelve years later, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is taking steps to release the GSEs from conservatorship. To that end, FHFA has proposed an Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework (ERCF) intended to prevent future failures by requiring the GSEs to hold much more capital. In fact, the re-proposed ERCF would require the GSEs to hold about 10 times their current capital levels ($243 billion versus $28 billion, respectively, as of Q2 2020) and roughly five times their projected losses under the most severe economic downturn.

Importantly, the proposed framework supposes that the GSEs will return to their pre-conservatorship status in the housing finance system—quasi-government companies—with congressional charters, missions, and mandates, yet private companies with profit objectives. FHFA’s re-proposed capital framework is intended to help the GSEs avoid taxpayer bailouts by building and maintaining large enough capital reserves to withstand future downturns.

USMI agrees that a robust and appropriately tailored capital standard for the GSEs is necessary and should strike the right balance to ensure consumers maintain access to affordable mortgage credit while also protecting taxpayers. The best way to achieve these objectives is to have a standard that reflects the business models of the GSEs, whose primary business is a guaranty business, and that is akin to an insurance framework. Further, the capital framework should be objectively risk-based, and the quantity and quality of capital requirements should be completely transparent and analytically justified.

In its comment letter to FHFA on its 2020 proposed rule, USMI identified key issues with the re-proposed ERCF and provided recommendations for ensuring greater balance between the two aforementioned objectives. (An executive summary of USMI’s observations and recommendations is available here).  While actions taken during conservatorship have strengthened the GSEs, it is clear that additional reforms are necessary to improve the GSEs’ operations in advance of their exit from conservatorship. USMI strongly urges FHFA to turn its attention to critical reforms that incentivize the prudent management of mortgage credit risk and ensure access to affordable and sustainable mortgages for home-ready consumers.

INCREASE, NOT DECREASE THE USE OF PRIVATE CAPITAL

Proposed Capital Rule Disincentivizes Critical Loss Protection and Beneficial Risk Transfer

While we support strong GSE balance sheets to best serve borrowers and protect taxpayers from mortgage credit risk, certain elements of the re-proposed rule would promote risk consolidation at the GSEs and disincentivize the distribution of risk.  The ERCF should incentivize the increased transfer of mortgage credit risk to private capital where possible. Unfortunately, as many stated in their comment letters to the proposed ERCF, the reduced capital benefit for private mortgage insurance (MI), punitive treatment of credit risk transfers (CRT), and proposed floors on mortgage exposures would likely reduce the GSEs’ ability or willingness to transfer risk to other sources of private capital.

Until Congress enacts comprehensive housing finance reform and/or gives FHFA the authority to charter additional GSEs, it is imperative that the concentration of mortgage credit risk at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be transferred to highly regulated counterparties to appropriately underwrite, actively manage and hold capital against.  One way FHFA can accomplish this objective is to provide the appropriate capital benefit to the GSEs for transferring risk—based on an historical analysis of the capital credit that should be given to any such counterparty or risk transfer. To ensure that credit risk is transferred to strong counterparties, FHFA—rather than the GSEs—should establish and update robust operational and capital requirements for GSE counterparties, as necessary. Transparent and objective standards will promote a level playing field and ensure that private market participants can perform an important role in de-risking the GSEs.  Private MI and the GSEs’ CRT programs are important tools to bring private capital into the housing finance system and any final rule on GSE capital requirements should recognize their risk-reducing benefits.

However, it seems that in addressing some of the structural weaknesses of CRT, the proverbial “baby was thrown out with the bathwater” by the current proposed rule. Instead, to fully assess the weaknesses and determine the appropriate capital relief that the GSEs should receive for different forms of CRT, FHFA should publish a transparent model that capital markets executions and reinsurance transactions can be modeled against.  This will ensure that weaknesses are properly addressed but will also maintain integrity and increase transparency and consistency in FHFA and the private market’s assessment of and capital benefit for CRT and will better ensure a viable CRT market going forward.

Balance Capital Requirements with Access to Sustainable Mortgage Finance Credit

Importantly, the re-proposed rule, if implemented in its current form, could push homeownership out of reach for many Americans –particularly minority and first-time homebuyers –or it could leave many borrowers with the lone option of obtaining a mortgage backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). According to the Urban Institute[1] and the GSEs themselves,[2] the capital proposal would result in higher costs for borrowers and less mortgage credit availability, as higher capital requirements would necessitate higher profits to support the capital.  For the GSEs, this will mean higher Guarantee Fees (G-Fees), raising the cost of homeownership for millions, with a disproportionate negative impact on lower wealth and traditionally underserved borrowers.  In light of these increased costs, many of these borrowers, would migrate to the FHA market.

The proposed ERCF has a number of overly conservative elements, as well as numerous examples of non-risk aspects.  Instead, FHFA should reduce or eliminate non-risk based elements and establish the capital rule around an insurance framework, given the GSEs’ core guaranty business is to ensure the adequate capital for the risks taken by the GSEs, but not an arbitrarily high level of capital that puts homeownership out of reach for many American families.

THE NEXT STEPS FOR STRENGTHENING THE HOUSING FINANCE SYSTEM

FHFA’s work on a post-conservatorship capital framework is a welcome development. However, it is important to recognize that capital alone is not comprehensive GSE reform

In order to put the housing finance system on a more sustainable path and to best serve consumers and taxpayers, it is imperative that FHFA implement reforms beyond increasing capital before the GSEs exit conservatorship. In September, FHFA released its “Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2021-2024,”outlining goals to fulfill its statutory duties as both regulator and conservator of the GSEs. While a primary goal of the plan is to take actions to support the GSEs’ recapitalization and exit from conservatorship, FHFA invited comments on the “mile markers,” or additional reforms or thresholds to be met by the GSEs and/or FHFA prior to the GSEs’ exit from conservatorship.  

It is imperative that FHFA take steps to further reduce the GSEs’ risk exposure, level the playing field, and increase transparency around the GSEs’ pricing and business operations. As recommended in USMI’s comment letter on the Strategic Plan to FHFA, the agency should take the following actions to strengthen the housing finance system prior to the GSEs’ release from conservatorship:

---

[1] The Urban Institute estimates that mortgage rates would increase 15-20 bps while in conservatorship and 30-35 bps if they are released. J. Parrott, B. Ryan, and M. Zandi, “FHFA’s Capital Rule Is A Step Backward” (July 2020). Available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/102595/fhfa-capital-rule-is-a-step-backward_0.pdf.

[2] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s comments to the FHFA on the proposed Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework noted that the capital requirements could increase guarantee fees by 20 bps and 15-35 bps, respectively. Available at https://www.fhfa.gov//SupervisionRegulation/Rules/Pages/Comment-Detail.aspx?CommentId=15605 and https://www.fhfa.gov//SupervisionRegulation/Rules/Pages/Comment-Detail.aspx?CommentId=15606.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why moving the safe harbor threshold to 200 bps matters:

• Lenders don’t lend above the safe harbor line in the conventional market.The distinction between safe harbor and rebuttable presumption matters. Market data makes it clear that many lenders avoid making rebuttable presumption QM loans to avoid any risk of legal liability. This is evidenced by the fact that less than five percent of all the conventional market financing in 2019 was done above the safe harbor line. For all intents and purposes, the safe harbor line effectively defines the conventional market and changes to how the Bureau defines QM safe harbor will impact who the conventional market will serve going forward.

• Current recommended threshold disproportionately impacts Black and Latinx borrowers who are twice as likely as White borrowers to have conventional low down payment purchase loans outside a safe harbor of 150 bps. Under the proposed rule, many of the borrowers who are above the 150 bps threshold will be left only with the option of a FHA loan, which means they have vastly different competitive choices in terms of product offerings and loan terms—as demonstrated by the fact that there were approximately 3,200 HMDA reporting lenders for conventional purchase loans versus only about 1,200 for FHA purchase loans. This arbitrary line affects these borrowers’ credit options and leaves them with significantly fewer competitive options in the marketplace.[3]

• Creates an unlevel playing field. While the percentage of the conventional market above 150 bps is small on a percentage basis, this is not to suggest that there are not good quality loans above this threshold being done. FHA is five times more likely to have loans above the 150 bps simply because FHA calculates the APOR cap and APR calculation differently. HUD defines safe harbor as 115 bps plus the mortgage insurance premium, which is closer to FHA having a safe harbor threshold of approximately 200 bps, or even higher. Due to the discrepancies for how this threshold is calculated between the conventional and FHA markets, leaving the safe harbor threshold for conventional loans at 150 bps will arbitrarily distort the market and shift borrowers to FHA. This will give these borrowers fewer choices and shift borrowers from a market backed by private capital to the 100 percent taxpayer-backed market.

The Solution:

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

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

---

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

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

[3] 2019 HMDA Data.

[4] 2019 HMDA Data.

Buying a home is one of life’s biggest financial milestones, but people often think it’s out of reach because of the costs involved, including the myth that you have to put 20% down. The fact is, you don’t necessarily need to deplete all of your savings to qualify for a mortgage and you can purchase a home sooner than many people believe.

You aren’t alone in thinking you can’t afford a home right now. According to a recent report, 49% of non-homeowners stated that not having enough money for a down payment and closing costs was a major obstacle to purchasing a home. But when you look at the data, many aspiring homebuyers can afford to buy a home with less than 20%. In fact, another recent survey found that among first-time homebuyers who obtained a mortgage, approximately 80% had down payments of less than 20%.

There are several low down payment mortgage options available to you, such as conventional loans with private mortgage insurance (MI) or government-backed loans like those insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

For example, a qualified borrower can get a conventional loan with private MI for as little as 3% down. If he or she waited to save for a 20% down payment, it could take up to 20 years to save that amount, plus closing costs, for a $262,250 house — the national median sales price in 2018 according to the National Association of REALTORS®.  That wait time is trimmed down to seven years when buying a home with a 5% down, where the loan is sustainably backed by private MI.  Purchasing a home with less down using private MI can also help ensure you continue to have prudent savings, and can free up funds that you can use for other important home purchases – such as renovations, appliances, and furniture.

There are other mortgage options available to you as well, such as government-backed FHA loans that allow you to put down as little as 3.5%. However, unlike private MI, which can be canceled once you reach 20% equity in your home, the mortgage insurance premiums attached to FHA loans typically can’t be canceled and remain throughout the life of the loan.

It’s important to know what home loan option is best for you, and you should speak with a mortgage lender to help inform your decision. The bottom line, however, is that there are affordable low down payment home loan options out there, which could mean the difference between getting into your home sooner, allowing you to build wealth through home equity, or waiting for years while renting. By taking advantage of home loans backed by private MI, you can spend less time worrying about a down payment and more time enjoying your new home.

Getting into your new home with private MI and keeping more of your hard-earned money in the bank can be a very smart way to invest in your future. Check out www.LowDownPaymentFacts.com to learn more.

It is a common misconception that a 20 percent down payment is required to buy a home. Advice to wait and save a large down payment is often based on the theory that the cost of mortgage insurance (MI), which is required when you buy with a smaller down payment, should be avoided. This may not be the best advice and is, in fact, not in line with market trends, considering the median down payment for first-time homebuyers is 7 percent, according to the National Association of Realtors.

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

How can buying now save you money later?

Consider you want to purchase a $255,000 home. A 5 percent down payment is $12,750 versus $51,000 in cash for 20 percent down. With a 740 credit score at today’s MI rates, your monthly MI payment would be about $110, which is added to your monthly mortgage payment until MI cancels. MI typically cancels after five years; therefore, you will only have this added cost for a short period of time versus waiting an average of 20 years to save for 20 percent.

With home price appreciation, today’s $255,000 home will likely cost more in the years ahead and this will also have an impact on the necessary down payment and length of time required to save for it. There are other variables in the equation too, such as interest rates. As federal rates rise from their historic lows, so too will the costs associated with financing a mortgage. The savings a borrower might calculate today could be altogether negated by waiting even a few more years. Another factor is that rents are on the rise across the nation, leading to a reduced capacity for many would-be homebuyers to save for larger down payments.

If you decide to buy today with a low down payment mortgage that has private MI, keep in mind that the monthly MI payments are temporary and go away, lowering the monthly payment over time. Again, private MI typically lasts about five years as it can be cancelled once a homeowner builds approximately 20 percent equity in the home through payments or appreciation and automatically terminates for most borrowers once he or she reaches 22 percent equity. Importantly, the insurance premiums on an FHA mortgage — a 100 percent taxpayer-backed government version of mortgage insurance — cannot be cancelled for the vast majority of borrowers.

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

Buying a home is a major financial commitment. It’s exciting, but can also be confusing and overwhelming. Choosing the best mortgage that fits your needs is an important first step and first-time homebuyers in particular should research the many options and know the right questions to ask. Here are some questions to ask a lender that will help you make an informed mortgage decision:

* How much can I afford? A home affordability calculator can help you get an idea of what you may be able to afford and keep your monthly payments within your budget. In addition to recurring expenses like car payments, student loans, credit cards and disposable income, be sure to consider other monthly expenses related to the new home, like association fees, homeowners’ insurance, utilities and property taxes. Further, some types of mortgages have firm eligibility cutoffs related to the ratio between a buyer’s total debt amounts and their monthly income.

* How much do I need for a down payment? It’s a common misconception that a 20 percent down payment is required to buy a home. Let’s face it, a 20 percent down payment is a lot of money, and often the largest obstacle for homeownership, especially for first-time buyers. You can qualify for a conventional mortgage with as little as 3 percent down. Conventional mortgages originated with a low down payment, which is defined as less than 20 percent, require private mortgage insurance (MI) until approximately 20 percent equity is established through either monthly payments or home price appreciation. When mortgage insurance cancels, your monthly mortgage bill is reduced. It is important to know that not all forms of MI are created equal — private mortgage insurance is temporary and cancelable but the overwhelming majority of mortgages backed by the government’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) contain insurance that cannot be canceled.

* What is the interest rate and is it fixed? Most first-time homebuyers go with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, which locks you into an interest rate with steady, predictable payments. Different lenders may offer different rates, so make sure to contact several lenders to ensure you’re getting the best option available in the market. A rate lock protects you from rising interest rates while the loan is being processed and lasts for a specific amount of time. In addition, make sure you know whether the rate is fixed or “adjustable.” Adjustable rate mortgages, commonly referred to as “ARMs,” result in periodic adjustments in the interest rate based on the lender’s cost of credit, and can be detrimental to homeowners in rising interest rate environments. Finally, ask if you are paying for “points” to reduce the interest rate. It’s an added upfront cost paid at closing, but it results in a lower rate for the life of the loan.

* Does my credit score matter? Yes, generally stronger credit scores (FICO 720 and above) come with better interest rates, but fortunately there are mortgage options for those with imperfect credit scores too. When you apply for a mortgage, your credit record is used to help determine your approval and mortgage terms, but it is not the only thing lenders consider. A lender will also look at your debt-to-income (DTI) ratio, cash reserves and other factors to help gauge your overall creditworthiness.

* Should I get pre-approved for a mortgage? Yes. Pre-approval means you receive a conditional commitment from a lender up to a specific loan amount. In a seller’s market with tight housing supply, being pre-approved demonstrates that you are a serious buyer with access to mortgage financing. To become pre-approved, you’ll provide your lender with information on your income, assets, debts and credit history to analyze your financial profile and determine your creditworthiness and amount you can borrow to purchase a home.

Make sure to know your options and choose the one that works for you. Check out lowdownpaymentfacts.org to learn more.

By Lindsey Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

What are the unique benefits of MI?

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

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