Home > Mortgages > A Low-Down-Payment Mortgage Isn’t What We Need Right Now

Comments 0 Comments
Advertiser Disclosure


The financial services industry is on the verge of an awesome hat trick with regard to residential mortgages.

For the uninitiated, hat trick is sports-speak for three goals that are scored by the same player in a single game. In this instance, the trick revolves around three rather significant concessions the Federal Housing Finance Agency—the regulatory body for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—appears to be ready to make.

The first has to do with minimum down-payment requirements.

Soon after the economic collapse that many rightly attribute to recklessly-relaxed underwriting standards that led to the bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the FHFA tightened up its lending criteria for residential mortgage loans. But as the housing market continues to sputter and lenders are reluctant to work with purchasers who are unable to meet their own underwriting requirements, the regulators blinked.

In a series of steps, the FHFA has eased up on the 20% down payment requirement to as little as 3% for qualifying first-time buyers; the same consumers who also happen to be especially vulnerable to low-down-payment schemes.

But that doesn’t seem to bother the financial services industry—not when 95% of the loans it originates are sold to Fannie and Freddie, and thus guaranteed by the government.

So if the feds want to see the housing market recover and the lenders want to curtail what they view as excessive regulatory interference, then a good way to get what the industry wants would be to hold the line on tough underwriting standards until the feds cry uncle.

Good Debts vs. Bad Debts

The second concession has to do with the so-called representations and warranties the lenders are required to make as it pertains to ensuring the quality of the loans they sell to Fannie and Freddie—that the loans were properly underwritten, the value of the real estate is true and correct, and so forth.

The government has already recovered all its bailout money, thanks to Fannie’s and Freddie’s earnings now that the enterprises have become the lenders of record for residential mortgages. And also because the feds forced lenders to repurchase contracts that were misrepresented for one reason or another.

The industry has had more than enough of that, thank you very much—yet another reason why credit approvals may be hard to come by.

Once again, the FHFA appears to have caved, given the announcement that it plans to “revise and clarify” its framework for assuring the quality of the contracts it accepts. Specifically, the regulatory body will permit Fannie and Freddie to accept loans that may have experienced “some” delinquency within its first three years, where before that would have made the contracts ineligible for purchase. More important, the FHFA also plans to set a threshold for the number of misrepresented loans that would force the originating lenders to repurchase them, as well as to establish a means for determining whether those lapses are indeed significant enough for that to occur.

In other words, a handful of moderate dollar-value frauds with a small “f” would be OK.

Clearly, the smart strategy here would be to limit approvals on these deals until the feds come to their senses.

Who’s Minding the Store?

The last final concession has to do with the extent to which the feds plan to rely on the financial services industry to police its own compliance. Sure, Fannie and Freddie will review the reports the lenders submit to them, but they will only spot-check representative samples of the files it receives; only then would it act if the errors breach the aforementioned thresholds.

What does all of this mean for homebuyers? Let the good times roll!—at least until the next crisis. But for those who view home ownership as something other than a trip to the casino, it would be wise to take two things into thoughtful consideration.

The first is that housing—whether owned or rented—satisfies our fundamental need for shelter. I would therefore argue that home ownership is more a consumption than an investment good, and should therefore be evaluated more in terms of affordability than for its potential to yield a financial return. Of course it’s possible to hit the cycles at just the right times by buying low and selling high, but over the extended period the hope should be that a home’s value—residential improvements taken into account—will do no worse than to track the rate of inflation.

The second is related to the first. In a rising market that’s being actively supported by easy credit, gauging affordability can be subjective—like stepping on a bathroom scale in just the right way to shave a few pounds. In this case, financial engineering is the culprit. Lower down payments will translate into higher loan balances, and higher loan balances can be made more affordable by manipulating repayment terms and interest rates.

At the moment, 30-year mortgages continue to be the norm. But 40-year loans (and longer) are creeping into the market. That’s because the longer the repayment duration, the lower the monthly payment. But at the same time, the longer the duration, the higher the cost, as interest is charged against a more slowly declining principal balance.

If you can’t make the payments work within the confines of a 30-year term, it’s time to consider more money down or a less expensive property.

As for interest rates, despite the fact that we continue to be at or near an historical bottom for fixed-rate loans, adjustable-rate mortgages are making a comeback. That may be fine in a stable rate environment over an extended period, but it can be fatal to household budgets in a rising market.

Here too, if you can’t make the payments work on a conventional (fixed-rate, 30-year) mortgage, perhaps you should reconsider your plan. And if for whatever reason a conventional mortgage isn’t available, it would be wise to test the ability of your budget to withstand a worst-case scenario adjustment.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

More on Mortgages & Homebuying:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team