Defining a Safe Mortgage: Has It Gone Too Far?

How the “qualified residential mortgage” could change home buying as we know it

June 17, 2011 RSS Feed Print

A little-known regulation sparked by the 2008 housing meltdown has the potential to fundamentally change the landscape of the housing and mortgage markets, further tightening the stranglehold on credit availability and deepening the housing market downturn.

Known as the qualified residential mortgage (QRM), this draft rule currently being debated by regulators could require prospective homebuyers to have at least a 20 percent down payment and face more stringent debt-to-income ratio standards to qualify for mortgages with the best interest rates. Opponents call the draft rule too narrow and say the tough requirements could severely restrict credit access to a broad swath of prospective homebuyers, effectively shrinking the pool of potential buyers needed to soak up the excess supply of homes in the struggling U.S. housing market.

[See 50 Best Funds for the Everyday Investor.]

"Real estate is 20 percent of the GDP, and you would do tremendous harm to real estate in this country," says Jim Gillespie, CEO of Coldwell Banker Real Estate. "To me, the percent down isn't nearly as important as [the borrower's] job, what their income is, what their assets are, and what their liabilities are. [Regulators] need to be a lot more realistic because you're going to harm middle-income Americans, and you're going to really harm first-time homebuyers."

The QRM rules and other regulations outlined in the controversial Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation are designed to better align the cost and risk for loan originators and compel higher lending standards by requiring lenders to keep at least 5 percent of the risk of loans issued on their books—"skin in the game," as it's called—even if they repackage and sell the loan. That requirement is waived, however, for loans meeting QRM standards.

Contributing to the real-estate meltdown were financial institutions that made mortgage loans and promptly sold them to Wall Street investment banks or government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, effectively shirking any credit or default risk. Because of high demand in the market for "safe" securities yielding more than U.S. treasuries and also lax regulation, lenders had little incentive to ensure the creditworthiness of borrowers. (As we now know, many borrowers couldn't pay their mortgages, which set off a chain reaction that brought the global financial system to its knees.)

[In Pictures: 6 Numbers Every Investor Should Follow.]

But as lawmakers and regulators sort through the wreckage of the housing bubble and attempt to come up with preventative measures against a repeat event, some experts say they're going too far in trying to define a safe mortgage. "The definition of a qualified residential mortgage (QRM) is likely to make borrowing both more difficult and more expensive for consumers," said Cameron Findlay, LendingTree Chief Economist, in a statement. "The proposed rule would mandate a 20 percent down payment; a standard that is sure to be a barrier. All in all it adds up to a more challenging environment for borrowers in the coming year."

Only 20 percent of the loans originated between 1997 and 2009 would qualify for QRM status today, according to research by Standard and Poor's, and only 30 percent of first-time homebuyers put down more than 10 percent in 2010, Findlay says. That would potentially leave the other 70 to 80 percent of borrowers to face steeper down-payment requirements and higher interest rates—as much as 3 percent above current rates, according to a JPMorgan estimate. There's also concern that lenders, deterred by the 5 percent risk-retention rule, may focus only on issuing QRM loans, further restricting the availability of credit for prospective homebuyers and driving down demand for homes. That's not good news for a housing market swollen with vacant homes, foreclosures, and distressed properties.

[See Do We Need Fannie and Freddie?]

With the housing market still struggling, the stakes are high when it comes to housing-finance regulations. A motley crew of regulators and policymakers tasked with fixing the housing market recently extended the comment period for the proposed risk-retention and QRM rule to August 1, giving them more time to hash out the intricacies of the proposals. "There's a huge debate going on right now over exactly what is a 'qualified residential mortgage," says James Angel, associate professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. "If they make the definition so narrow that nothing qualifies, then nobody can get a mortgage. If they make it too broad and you get a lot of junky stuff pushed through, then we have the same problems that led to the meltdown."

Despite concern about the potential long-term impacts of QRM, some experts say the short-term effects will be limited. That's because loans originated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the government-sponsored mortgage giants that back more than 90 percent of home loans today—are exempt. Also, the Federal Housing Administration, which aids lower-income borrowers and first-time homebuyers, will likely remain in place.

[See Should You Consider Investing in Real Estate?]

Although some see the projected 80 percent of borrowers who won't qualify for QRM loans as a hindrance to the housing-market recovery, others argue that QRM standards could trigger the rebirth of the nearly non-existent private-label mortgage market. If a narrow QRM definition prevails, that leaves a sizable market share for private lenders to go after. "The Fed has said, 'Don't look at the QRM market—it's 20 percent of the market. You can make QRM loans, but we'd rather you focused on the 80 percent of the market that needs to be served privately," says Keith Gumbinger, vice president of mortgage information website HSH.com. "Find ways to go serve those guys profitably."

But in this odd economic recovery improvement will be gradual, meaning a revival of the mortgage market could still be many years away. "That's where the crux of the argument is," Gumbinger says. "Is it an enhancement of the marketplace? Does it foster a willingness of the part of lender to go after these non-QRM private mortgage originations? Or does it completely shut down the marketplace for non-QRMs [with] lenders only focus[ing] on making [loans] that qualify."

While experts don't expect to see a finale for the housing market drama for quite some time, most agree that efforts like QRM and risk-retention rules for lenders are a step in the right direction. Americans can only hope for a happy ending.

Twitter: @mmhandley

Tags:
mortgages,
housing,
housing market

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Reading your comments, I agree with both. I, too, had the 20% restrictions and capitalized on my real estate investments... I was one of the fortunate few who bought and sold at the right time.

I sell real estate; I am a Broker since 1989. I remember telling a lender in 1991 "if you would make people put a reasonable amount down, you wouldn't see the defaults. Buyers need to have a part in the risk; real estate is not liquid."

I still think that. But I also see that since 1990, wages have not increased that much, and home prices have (even in this market, compared to 1990). The cost of living HAS increased. With higher home prices and all other cost higher, it is much more difficult to save the money for a down payment.

I think there is a more moderate equation that could be formulated for QRM - a meeting in the middle.

Terri of CA 9:07PM July 12, 2011

It is nice that Meg thinks this plan makes sense (especially considering that she would not be where she is today if QRM has existed in 1980). But 20% of a home in 1980 is nothing compared to 20% prices. Not many 1st time homebuyers will be able to come up with this kind of cash. (and it is a good thing for Meg, that there was NO QRM regulations when she SOLD her 1st home in 1985 - if there had been, the number of qualified buyers to purchase, at double what she paid - would have been severly reduced! And I bet good old Meg did not worry about the qualifications of her next buyer when she sold her house in 2005, at the height of the housing bubble!) Meg seems a bit self-rightous in her comments about how they "planned" so well, that they could retire early - but it was the MARKET that made her a nice retirement package - not brains. QRM will reduce the number of qualified buyers, which will reduce homes values and cause the market to stagnant even more. Good old rule of supply and demand - if there is no demand (i.e. no buyers who qualify) then values drop until you reach a point where there is a demand. So Meg - you would probably not be so well off as you are today, had there been QRM. FYI - home loans < 20% down have been around for last 50+ years. In 1976, if you had good credit - there were conv loans with as little as 5% down; FHA loans with 2.5% down and VA loans w/0 down. So - Meg - if you had good credit, your 20% down was a choice - not a requirement. Read the stats - down payment is NOT what caused this issue. Statisically, the best performing loans over the last 20 yr (including the last 5 yrs) have been VA loans w/no money down. The really tragic side to all of this - there WERE federal regualtions in place to prevent what took place, but they were not enforced or they were pushed aside. As an example - 1996/97 the Clinton Admin decided that it was everyones RIGHT to own a home and pushed banks/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac & FHA to lower their standards so that home mortgages were within everyone's reach - even if those buyers demonstrated bad credit (similar to grading on a curve - if everyone is at the bottom - then lower the bottom!) Then greed took over, when the number of "eligible" buyers increased by 20%+ (lowering the standards, caused an increase in the number of eligible buyers, which increased the demand for housing; which pushed home values up - again supply & demand). Instead of one or two possible buyers - sellers were seeing as many as 8 to 10 buyers - which drove the price up! Reasonable lending is important and the regulations to make sure that happens have been in place for 35+ years - but what good is a regulation if the regulators don't enforce them or alter them in their effort to give everyone the "American Dream of Homeownership"? We need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just go back to the way we did business before 1995. And Meg - just be glad you bought & sold when you did!

JMALON of MD 5:35PM June 19, 2011

When we bought our first house in 1980, we had to prove that we 1) were credit worthy, 2) had 20% down payment (not financed) or gifted, 3) our mortgage payment was less than 28% of our income.

Do you know what happened? We qualified for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage at 11.5%. We bought a smaller home because we didn't want to be struggling for every penny. Over the 5 years we lived there, we upgraded the kitchen, put on a new roof, replaced the heating system, and sold it for nearly twice what we paid for it.

Then, we used that profit + more savings & bought a bigger house. We lived there 20 years, but had a 15-year bi-monthly mortage, again at 11.5%. We were able to refinance when the rates went DOWN to 9%, again with a 15-year bi-weekly mortgage. We paid it off early.

When we retired, we sold that house and moved to a smaller, semi-custom house, PAYING CASH for that house, and still having a profit left to live on.

This is what happens when you live within or below your means. You get to retire early and enjoy life.

meg of AZ 1:11PM June 19, 2011

U.S. News Rankings & Research

U.S. News delivers quality analysis and clear objective rankings to help you make informed financial decisions.

advertisement

Follow U.S. News Money

Latest Video

advertisement