The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Statement of
Sheila C. Bair, Chairman,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
On
Using FHA for Housing Stabilization
and
Homeownership Retention
before the
Committee on Financial Services,
U.S. House of Representatives
2128 Rayburn House Office Building
April 9, 2008
Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus and members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) regarding proposals to address turmoil in the mortgage markets and
stem unnecessary foreclosures. These problems are having serious and growing
consequences for our economy. Unfortunately, they defy easy resolution.
The problems facing the U.S. markets are attributable to a complex set of interrelated
causes. These include weakened lending standards, inadequate consumer protections,
regulatory arbitrage, and speculative activity -- as well as deficient surveillance by rating
agencies and inadequate due diligence by originators and investors. No single solution
or "silver bullet" can address the adverse effects of these deficiencies. Resolving these
issues will require a number of approaches emphasizing different solutions for the
different segments of the market. Over the past year, the FDIC has sought to work
closely with mortgage lenders, the securitization industry, servicers, consumer groups,
other regulators and Congress to identify and correct existing barriers to solving current
problems in the markets while establishing controls to guard against their reappearance
in the future.
Specifically, the FDIC has aggressively advocated systematic, voluntary loan
modifications to address the pervasive problem of unaffordable loans stemming from
weak underwriting, particularly in the subprime market. While voluntary loan
modifications have shown significant progress, at this point, it must be acknowledged
that the pace has not been sufficient to achieve the scale necessary to contain broader
harm to communities and our economy.
While unaffordable resets on subprime hybrid adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) have
been addressed through the Treasury-led American Securitization Forum (ASF)
framework, pre-reset delinquencies and defaults have been higher than expected,
primarily due to a significant deterioration in underwriting in 2006 and early 2007. In
addition, unaffordable resets in the Alt-A1 market have begun in earnest, and will
continue to rise into 2009. Because of the individualized characteristics of these loans,
they do not lend themselves as easily to systematic solutions. Further creativity in
regulatory and legislative efforts is necessary to resolve potential large scale problems
in this segment.
Beyond the benefits to borrowers and lenders, minimizing foreclosure will be important
to the broader effort to stabilize global financial markets and the U.S. economy.
Foreclosure is often a very lengthy, costly and destructive process that puts downward
pressure on the price of nearby homes. While lower home prices may be necessary to
restore U.S. housing markets to equilibrium, there is a very real risk in this situation that
relying too frequently on foreclosure will only perpetuate the cycle of financial distress,
risk aversion and declining home prices that we have seen in recent months. As
financial market turmoil begins to have a measurable adverse effect on U.S. economic
performance, it is becoming clear that foreclosure mitigation must be part of the wider
effort to restore stability to our financial markets and strength to our economy.
My testimony will provide a brief update of current mortgage conditions and a
description of some key principles I believe are important in evaluating solutions to the
problems in the mortgage markets. I also will discuss Chairman Frank's proposal to
make greater use of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) as a tool to improve
stability in the mortgage markets. In addition, I will discuss some suggestions regarding
additional approaches Congress might want to consider as it moves forward.
Current Mortgage Conditions
A combination of increasing mortgage delinquencies, tightening underwriting standards,
decreasing credit availability and falling home prices is straining the nation's economy
and financial system.
Mortgage delinquency and foreclosure rates continue to rise. The problems are most
severe among subprime mortgages, and especially subprime ARMs. According to the
Mortgage Bankers' Association's National Delinquency Survey, over 20 percent of
subprime ARMs were seriously delinquent in the fourth quarter of 2007, and over 14
percent of all subprime mortgages were seriously delinquent.2 Data available on
privately securitized subprime loans also show that loans originated in 2005 or later
have become seriously delinquent much more quickly than loans originated in prior
years. More than 20 percent of these loans originated in 2005 and 2006 are seriously
delinquent, while more than 13 percent of those originated in 2007 are in similar
trouble.3
Although problems are most evident among subprime mortgages, credit quality is
deteriorating among other types of mortgages as well. Over three percent of Alt-A loans
privately securitized in 2006 were seriously delinquent after one year of seasoning, up
from less than one percent for loans securitized in 2005. Preliminary data indicate that
the serious delinquency rate for loans securitized in 2007 may eventually be higher than
for the 2006 vintage.4 The fourth quarter MBA survey indicated that the percentage of
prime mortgages that were seriously delinquent was 1.67 percent, the highest in the
ten-year history of the data series.5 As with subprime, problems in prime mortgages are
more pronounced among ARMs, with 4.22 percent of prime ARMs seriously delinquent.
One result of this credit distress has been a sharp contraction in the availability of credit
to mortgage borrowers. Total U.S. mortgage debt originated in the fourth quarter of
2007 was $450 billion, down 38 percent from the fourth quarter of 2006.6 Origination
volumes have fallen even more for subprime mortgages (down 90 percent in the fourth
quarter compared to prior year) and Alt-A loans (down 73 percent). The most important
cause of the decline in nonprime originations has been an inability to find buyers for
mortgage-backed securities (MBS) backed by these loans. Total issuance of subprime
MBS fell by 89 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007 compared to the prior year, while
issuance of Alt-A MBS fell 86 percent.7
Housing market distress both contributes to and derives from these problems in the
mortgage markets. An increase in foreclosed properties is contributing to a surge of
homes for sale at the same time that the credit needed to purchase homes is becoming
less available. Sales of existing homes peaked in mid-2005 and have fallen by more
than 30 percent since then.8 The number of vacant homes listed for sale at the end of
last year was just under 2.2 million units, up 39 percent during the past two years.9 As
2007 progressed, weak sales and vacant homes were increasingly reflected in U.S.
home prices which fell at a rate not seen in at least 60 years. According to the latest
data available from Standard and Poors/Case-Shiller, home prices fell 5.4 percent in the
fourth quarter of 2007 and were down 8.9 percent from a year earlier -- the largest
declines in the 20-year history of that series. The Case-Shiller indices also show that
prices in some metropolitan areas fell by 15 to 20 percent during the twelve months
ending January 2008. Steep home price declines are an important new dynamic that is
driving up foreclosure rates. Falling home prices reduce homeowner equity, which then
makes it more difficult to refinance or sell a home, leading to lower sales and higher
delinquencies.
The rising trend of foreclosures imposes costs not only on borrowers and lenders, but
also on outside parties. Foreclosure has been shown to diminish the market value of
other nearby properties. Foreclosures may result in vacant homes that create an
appearance of market distress and may invite crime. Distressed sales of foreclosed
homes result in low "comparable values" in a neighborhood, reducing the appraised
values of nearby homes. In addition, the direct costs of foreclosure include legal fees,
brokers' fees, property management fees, and other holding costs that are avoided in
workout scenarios. These costs can amount to up to 40 percent or more of the market
value of the property.10
Policy Responses
For the past year, the FDIC, other regulators, the mortgage industry, consumer groups
and Congress have been aggressively engaged in seeking solutions to the problems in
the mortgage markets. Several actions, such as issuing guidance regarding problematic
loan products and rulemaking to establish national lending standards, have been
focused on preventing future abuses in the mortgage industry. Other proposals have
sought to address the existing problems in the mortgage markets that are threatening
many borrowers with foreclosure.
With regard to preventing practices in the future that contributed to the current issues in
the mortgage markets, strong final rules by the Federal Reserve Board under the Home
Owners Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) that impose basic principles of sound
underwriting on both bank and non-bank mortgage originators are essential. An
important complement to these substantive rule provisions would be the creation by
Congress of a federal entity to buttress the efforts of the states to better license and
police mortgage originators. This Committee adopted a set of strong licensing
provisions as part of H.R. 3915 last year. Similarly, the Treasury Department has
proposed creating a Mortgage Origination Commission that, working with state
authorities, would develop minimum national licensing qualifications for all mortgage
market originators. Although these two approaches differ in some details, their best
elements could be merged into a single proposal that would address this urgent issue
and command widespread support.
I would emphasize that there is a particular urgency for Congress to act on legislation to
establish national licensing standards for non-bank mortgage participants. As interest
rates have declined, advertisements are once again promising low "teaser" rates, nodocumentation and no-money-down loans, as well as using the term "fixed" in
potentially misleading ways to describe the interest rate on variable-rate mortgage
loans. Banks are not allowed to market, originate, or fund loans with such weak
underwriting, but no such restrictions apply to non-bank mortgage participants
nationally. Combined with strong final FRB HOEPA rules, passage of legislation by the
end of the year creating a Commission to license and police mortgage originators would
help prevent these practices from again misleading borrowers and adding more
problems to the mortgage markets.
In addition to preventing harmful lending practices in the future, the FDIC and our fellow
regulators are working to prevent unnecessary foreclosures now. These efforts were
initially focused on subprime borrowers who occupied their homes and were current on
their payments, but were facing future unaffordable interest rate resets. Focusing
initially on this group of borrowers made sense because of the immediacy of the risks
these borrowers were facing and the potential to reach large numbers of borrowers
through systematic approaches. Voluntary systematic loan modifications offered the
best option for rapidly addressing the problems of a large number of borrowers.
Before loan modifications could be considered a viable alternative, however, a number
of legal, tax and accounting issues needed to be addressed. The FDIC and many others
in the government and the private sector laid the necessary groundwork to proceed by
removing or clarifying possible barriers and permitting loan modifications to move
forward.
The Treasury Department was instrumental in the formation of the ASF framework to
provide a systematic approach for restructuring subprime ARM loans for owneroccupied properties where the borrowers are current on their payments but cannot
afford the payments following the reset of their interest rates. Restructuring these loans
into sustainable loans assists in halting housing price declines prompted by rising
foreclosures and vacancies. To date however, this approach has not been fully utilized.
Another option available to as many as 240,000 borrowers is the FHA's FHASecure
program, which provides low-cost refinancing options to good borrowers who were
steered into high-cost loans with low introductory rates. Both the ASF framework and
the FHASecure program, however, apply to distressed borrowers confronting
unaffordable resets. In many cases, loan modifications to alleviate resets may not be
enough to ensure loan affordability. In addition, the current FHASecure program
guarantees loans with extremely high loan-to-value ratios, creating additional
government exposure as home prices decline. As we note later in this testimony, a
positive feature of Chairman Frank's proposal is the creation of a 15 percent cushion
against current appraised value for loans to qualify under his proposal.
Loan modifications were never intended to serve as the sole solution to the problems in
the mortgage markets. The intention was that a systematic approach to loan
modifications would address some broad categories of borrower problems while freeing
up resources to address more difficult cases. In fact, some lenders and servicers have
begun to consider additional approaches. For example, consideration is being given to
strategies that would forgive a portion of the principal balance to bring payments to a
level that borrowers can realistically afford to repay, while at the same time yielding net
present values greater than the anticipated net recoveries that would result from
foreclosure. I would hasten to add, however, that we do not advocate principal
reductions except when necessary to achieve an affordable payment for the borrower.
Recent changes to the tax code now allow for mortgage debt to be forgiven without any
tax liability on the part of the borrower.
Principles for Solutions to the Mortgage Crisis
In the absence of adequate initiatives to assist distressed borrowers and restore
secondary market liquidity, we are very concerned that a continuing cycle of default,
foreclosure, home price declines, and uncertainty will occur, leading to further losses
and impairing the performance of the U.S. economy. Avoiding this result will require
creative approaches to addressing the problems in the industry that recognize the
interests of all involved parties. With the wide range of potential options available, it is
helpful to establish certain principles as guideposts to assist in the evaluation of ideas
and to ensure they achieve the desired outcome. The FDIC believes that programs for
resolving the residential mortgage crisis should be guided by the following fundamental
principles.
The proposals should result in solutions that are sustainable over the long
term. Solutions need to result in long-term, sustainable mortgage payments that
borrowers can afford to pay. Failure to do so heightens the probability that
borrowers will not be able to perform under the new terms, causing them to
default on the modified loan and lose their home. Making the mortgage
sustainable for an individual borrower might require a reduction in interest rates
and/or principal sufficient to ensure affordability.
The proposals should provide as much fairness as possible and require
shared sacrifice on the part of participants. Any proposal that addresses the
current problems in the mortgage markets is going to raise issues of fairness,
especially on the part of borrowers who have remained timely on their mortgage
payments. However, properly structured proposals will provide benefits beyond
the immediate participants by preventing large numbers of foreclosures that
would have a broader negative impact on communities and homeowners.
Market participants who benefited most in recent years from many of the practices that
have caused the current market problems, should bear a significant portion of the cost
of resolving these issues. Otherwise, the result will exacerbate moral hazard and
encourage irresponsible lending in the future. By the same token, borrowers who can
afford to continue making their payments should do so. Qualifying standards should
prevent borrowers who can afford their payments from taking inappropriate advantage
of program benefits and should ensure that financial relief is provided to those
homeowners who truly need it.
The proposals should leverage existing market mechanisms to provide
appropriate incentives and avoid delay. Programs should provide a systematic
and streamlined process for reaching as many qualified homeowners as fast as
possible. Failure to work with struggling borrowers on a timely basis will
contribute to escalating losses for investors, homeowners, and communities. In
addition, existing government and market structures, entities, and programs
should be used to the extent possible. This eliminates the "start up" time lost
when creating new programs and takes advantage of existing expertise.
The proposals should attempt to limit the government's liability for future
losses. Lastly, it is essential that intervention minimize government and,
ultimately, taxpayer exposure to losses. "Bailout programs" undermine the
market discipline that is imposed when lenders, investors, speculators, and
borrowers are held accountable for the risks they take. Government refinancing
programs, in particular, pose the danger of adverse selection because, once the
loan is refinanced out of the securitization pool, the investors bear no further risk
of default. Thus, even among a universe of troubled loans, there may be
economic incentives to leave to the government those mortgages least likely to
perform, and retain those of higher credit quality.
FHA Housing Stabilization & Homeownership Retention Discussion Draft
Chairman Frank recently proposed a new program under the FHA to provide a voluntary
mechanism to refinance troubled loans into long-term, sustainable loans. Overall, the
Frank FHA proposal ("Discussion Draft") includes many positive features and addresses
many of the FDIC's fundamental principles. Essentially, the proposal creates a
mechanism where borrowers can obtain affordable, FHA insured loans from new
lenders that are accepted as full payment of the existing mortgages by the investors.
Traditionally, FHA provided a mechanism to permit low- and moderate-income
consumers to obtain traditional, 30 year fixed rate mortgage financing to purchase
homes. Low- and moderate-income lending provides the strongest public policy basis
for government support of housing. In recent years, however, FHA products lost market
share to private label securitizations. Traditional FHA lending was replaced, especially
in subprime markets, by products of dubious design and quality that have contributed
substantially to our current problems. Using FHA as the vehicle to refinance some
portion of these troubled loans will return FHA to its traditional role of meeting the needs
of low-and moderate-income borrowers and stabilizing housing markets.
The Discussion Draft would require that existing mortgage holders agree to accept the
proceeds of the FHA insured loans as payment in full of all indebtedness and release all
liens. Lenders and investors who stood to profit from these mortgages would absorb
substantial losses, as they effectively would settle for 85 percent of the property's
current appraised value in full satisfaction of the debt. While this settlement amount
represents a substantial reduction for the lenders or investors, the proceeds in all
likelihood would still be greater than what could be realized from foreclosure, and would
protect the seller against the threat of even greater losses if properties continue to
decline in value.
The Discussion Draft also would require that the new insured loans must be properly
underwritten and should substantially reduce the existing senior mortgage debt. These
requirements would help to ensure that the new loan is sustainable over the life of the
loan. The new debt service payments must bear a fixed rate of interest for the entire
term of the mortgage and can permit a total debt-to-income (DTI) ratio of up to 40
percent, based on the borrowers' documented and verified income. However, borrowers
who have made six months of timely payments that equaled or exceeded the new FHA
loan payment amount also would be eligible for higher debt levels. While these
underwriting standards will expand the number of eligible borrowers, the FDIC notes
that, absent mitigating circumstances, DTI ratios exceeding 50 percent increase the
likelihood of future delinquencies or defaults.
Under the Discussion Draft, only owner-occupied residential mortgage loans originated
on or after January 1, 2005 and before July 1, 2007 are eligible for consideration.
Borrowers must certify that they did not intentionally default on their existing
mortgage(s). In addition, borrowers' payments on all existing mortgages must exceed
40 percent of their income as of March 1, 2008. These screening parameters provide
reasonable borrower qualification criteria for participation in the program and should
ensure that it is targeted to borrowers most in need of assistance.
The proposal strives to protect taxpayers from losses by ensuring that borrowers have a
reasonable ability to repay the loan. Despite this safeguard, some mortgages will
inevitably default anyway and the FHA will be exposed to credit losses. The proposal
minimizes government and, ultimately, taxpayer exposure by insuring against losses
through the Special Risk Insurance Fund, which would pay claims against these
guaranteed loans. These claims payable through the Special Risk Insurance Fund
would be funded by:
Imposing a single premium payment of 5 percent of the amount of the original insured
principal obligation of the mortgage;
Assessing the borrower a 1.5 percent annual premium payment; and
Charging an exit premium based on a sliding scale, but a minimum of 3 percent.
These premiums should create a significant reserve against losses on loans guaranteed
through the new program. However, it currently is unknown whether the premiums will
provide sufficient resources to fund all claims that arise from the insured loans. Losses
that exceed the funds available in the reserve would have to be covered by taxpayers.
These premiums also should help prevent unjust enrichment to both borrowers and
lenders or investors. The required exit premium will keep borrowers from profiting from
an abrupt increase in housing prices if they sell their home or refinance their mortgage
within five years of receiving the new loan. Likewise, the initial single premium payment
will reduce the net proceeds that could be received by lenders or investors.
Finally, the Discussion Draft approach would make effective use of existing
governmental and market structures. By modeling the proposal on existing FHA
programs, the time and expense of creating the program are significantly reduced. The
proposal also envisions packaging loans into mortgage backed securities guaranteed by
the Government National Mortgage Association.
In general, the Discussion Draft addresses many of the principles the FDIC considers
necessary for an effective program. It converts current problematic mortgages into loans
that should be sustainable over the long-term and convertible into securities. It also
requires that investors accept significant discounts and prevents borrowers from being
unjustly enriched if home prices appreciate. The proposal uses existing government and
market structures which should permit the program to be implemented quickly. In
addition, the proposal attempts to provide a financial cushion in the program to help
insulate the FHA and taxpayers from losses.
Concerns
Although the Discussion Draft includes a number of positive elements, some difficult
issues remain. A major difficulty in refinancing proposals for many troubled mortgages is
the significant percentage of them that are subject to second liens. Resolving this issue
is essential to ensuring the effectiveness of any proposal. It is not clear what incentives
and processes might be necessary to obtain the agreement and participation of parties
holding these second liens.
Another concern relates to the FHA's ability to contend with the potential volume of
borrowers seeking participation in the program. The FDIC estimated late last year that
almost 1.3 million hybrid loans were scheduled to reset in 2008 with an additional
422,000 hybrid loans scheduled to reset in 2009.11 The FHA endorsed (insured) over
half a million single family mortgages for insurance nationwide in fiscal years 2006 and
2007.12 Even though the proposal provides measures to enhance the FHA's capacity,
the agency's resources will be significantly stretched to deal with the possible influx of
applications.
A third concern pertains to the possibility of creating the unintended consequence of
promoting adverse selection, even within a universe of troubled loans. Lenders and
investors might retain loans to higher quality borrowers and submit only those
mortgages where the borrowers owe substantially more than the property is worth
and/or have demonstrated little ability and/or willingness to repay. While such loans are
intended to be considered under the program, a disproportionate concentration of the
lowest credit quality will obviously impact FHA loan performance and losses.
A final issue relates to the lack of financial incentive for servicers to modify loans. The
governing contract documents, the pooling and servicing agreements (PSAs), generally
do not provide any compensation for servicer costs associated with loan modifications.
Yet the success of this proposal in achieving scale restructurings to facilitate FHA
refinancing will rely heavily on servicers devoting significant resources to writing down
the loans.
To address adverse selection as well as the lack of servicer incentives, we suggest that
Congress consider requiring the investor to initially settle for 80 percent of the property's
current appraised value in full satisfaction of the debt with an additional 5 percent being
released to the servicer and investment pool in equal increments over three years so
long as the loan continues to perform. The incentives would need to be structured to
minimize the potential for conflicts of interest. For the future, we also suggest that the
mortgage industry should revise the standard language in PSAs to provide reasonable
compensation to servicers for loan modifications in addition to foreclosures.
Additional Suggestions
Title II of the Discussion Draft establishes an outline for an auction system to address
troubled mortgages on a bulk basis. As the difficulties that homeowners and the credit
markets face are growing, Congress may want to consider additional options that might
achieve sufficient scale to benefit large numbers of troubled borrowers and achieve
market stability. While auctions can be an effective mechanism for addressing large
inventories of assets, it will be difficult to develop an efficient auction structure involving
securitized assets and a fair mechanism for establishing value in the current markets.
The financial and market dislocations that have occurred thus far call for bold steps.
While significant, direct government intervention into the mortgage markets should be
avoided unless absolutely necessary, current circumstances may dictate that the federal
government take a more direct role in facilitating solutions for many thousands of
troubled mortgages to avoid more dire consequences for all Americans. The direct
purchase of mortgages through an auction process, as outlined in Title II, may be one
solution if the legal and valuation issues can be resolved. However, there are other
options that may help limit government and the taxpayer exposure to future losses.
As mentioned earlier, two of the key principles for crisis management in our market
economy are to adopt solutions that operate within existing market mechanisms and to
ensure that the ongoing risks are borne by those who stood to gain from the original
investment. Since the problems today come from unaffordable mortgages and
increasing numbers of homeowners who owe more than their home is worth, optimal
solutions would seek to address those issues within existing market structures. Title I of
the Discussion Draft is one way of achieving this, by allowing borrowers to refinance
into sustainable mortgage loans using this new FHA program.
Another approach may be direct government incentives for principal pay-downs within
the existing securitization trusts. Incentives to restructure the mortgages within existing
pools through significant reductions in mortgage principal can achieve affordable and
long-term sustainable mortgages at today's market interest rates. This can be targeted
to benefit borrowers, rather than investors. Importantly, significant reductions in the
current principal balance of the mortgages can create new equity for homeowners -which, as in Title I, could be phased in over a period of years -- that will encourage
community stability and reduce the proliferation of vacant homes. By keeping the
restructured mortgages in the existing securitization pools, the investors -- not the
government or taxpayers -- retain all of the risks of future delinquencies. That is where
those risks should be. We would welcome an opportunity to explore such structures with
Congress in addition to FHA-based proposals.
Conclusion
The FDIC continues to encourage servicers to work with borrowers to achieve longterm, sustainable loan modifications. This method continues to hold promise, and it
would be a mistake for servicers or borrowers who could currently engage in loan
modifications to delay their efforts with the hope of getting a better "deal" from Congress
or the regulators. Any viable proposal is going to require that investors accept significant
losses and that borrowers are evaluated according to their ability to repay.
Nevertheless, loan modifications were never intended to be the sole solution to the
problems in the mortgage market. It is appropriate that policy makers carefully consider
additional tools for addressing the variety of issues creating uncertainty and volatility in
the markets. The FDIC supports long-term solutions characterized by fair apportioning
of the costs and risks of modifying or restructuring loans, the use of existing government
and market systems, and the mitigation of potential exposure to taxpayers. The FDIC is
committed to working with Congress constructively to identify solutions for establishing
values and transparency that will result in healthy and vibrant mortgage markets in the
future.
This concludes my testimony. I would welcome any questions the Committee might
have.
1 Alt-A loans are those made under expanded underwriting guidelines to borrowers with
marginal to very good credit. Alt-A loans are riskier than prime loans due to the
underwriting standards of the loans, not necessarily the credit quality of the borrowers.
2 Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey, Fourth Quarter 2007.
Seriously delinquent mortgages are defined as those 90 days or more past due or in
foreclosure.
3 FDIC calculations based upon data from LoanPerformance.
4 FDIC calculations based upon data from LoanPerformance.
5 Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey, Fourth Quarter 2007.
6 Inside Mortgage Finance, November 16, 2007 and February 8, 2008.
7 Inside MBS & ABS, July 13, 2007 and January 11, 2008.
8 National Association of Realtors, seasonally adjusted rates.
9 Bureau of the Census.
10 Capone, Jr. C. A., Providing Alternatives to Mortgage Foreclosure: A Report to
Congress, Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 1996.
11 FDIC estimates are based on the Loan Performance Securities Database. They
reflect data collected through August 2007 on first-lien mortgages secured by owneroccupied properties where the mortgage has been securitized in private MBS issues.
These figures have been adjusted to include an estimate of subprime securitized loans
that are not included in the Loan Performance database.
12 FHA Annual Management Report - PDF 4.09M (PDF Help), Fiscal Year 2007, pages
22-23.
Last Updated 4/9/2008
@FedFRASER