Why Not Use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to Reduce
Mortgage Costs?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have now been in Federal
Governmental conservatorship for 10 years, with no end in
sight and no plan for their future. While the prevailing
political climate is hostile to the agencies continued
existence, there is also a well-justified fear that
terminating them would depress the mortgage market and new
housing construction. The result has been a policy
paralysis.
Given the impasse, the best approach may be to give
the agencies a new mission, one that could be completed in
3-5 years that would command broad agreement on both sides
of the political aisle. This would kick the can further down
the road but it would be a better can when it got there.
The mission would be to reduce mortgage costs. Two major rule changes would figure prominently in their agenda. One would convert third party settlement costs into lender charges. The other would shift the ownership of property appraisals from lenders to borrowers.
Converting Third Party Settlement
Costs Into Lender Charges
To borrowers, third party settlement costs are a
horrible and unnecessary source of complexity, confusion and
overcharges. Existing attempts to deal with the problem
through government-mandated disclosures, rules against
markups and prohibitions of referral fees have only added to
the complexity of the process without preventing pervasive
overcharges.
Third party settlement costs could be converted
into lender charges by implementation of one simple rule:
any service required by lenders as a condition for the
granting of a home mortgage must be purchased and paid for
by the lender. Lenders would embed these costs in the price
charged the borrower. The borrower would then have to deal
with only one set of prices.
Prices of third party servicers paid by borrowers
indirectly in the price of the mortgage would be
substantially lower than the inflated prices they now pay
directly to third party providers.
Under existing arrangements, competition by third
party providers to sell title insurance, mortgage insurance,
appraisals and other required services is directed not at
the consumers who pay for the services but at the lenders
who refer consumers to them. Lenders use their strategic
position as a referral source to get a piece of the action,
receiving free or underpriced services provided by the
firms to which they refer business, or by participating in
the ownership of such firms.
Bottom line, if lenders had to pay for all the
services they require of borrowers, the price of those
services would drop like a rock. Fannie and Freddie could
bring that about by restricting their purchases to mortgages
that meet the new rule.
Shift Control of Appraisals to
Mortgage Borrowers
In our current housing finance system, appraisals
are issued in the name of the lender to whom a prospective
borrower has applied for a loan, and it is not transferable
to another lender. The second rule change that could be
implemented by Fannie and Freddie would be to vest ownership
of appraisals in the mortgage borrowers who paid for them,
who could use them with any lenders to whom they apply.
The switch to a borrower-ownership model would
reduce the number of applications that are aborted when the
appraised value turns out to be too small to support the
transaction. It would reduce the time required to execute
purchase transactions. And it would facilitate mortgage
shopping by eliminating the need to pay for multiple
appraisals.
Shifting to a system of borrower control of
appraisals does not mean that borrowers would select
appraisers. That would open the door to the same abuses that
arose when lenders selected appraisers. Rather, borrowers
would purchase their appraisal from an appraisal management
company (AMC), which would select the appraiser assigned to
a property, and would be responsible for the quality of
appraisals and the independence of the appraiser. AMCs would
be subject to approval by the Federal agencies, which would
look to AMCs rather than lenders as the principal guarantors
of the integrity of appraisals.
Approved AMCs would compete for the business of potential borrowers in terms of price, which would reduce the cost of appraisals. Under existing rules, appraisals are ordered by lenders who have no incentive to negotiate lower prices. In many cases, lenders have an ownership interest in the AMC to which they send business. Such ownership interests in effect legalize referral fees. They will disappear under a system of appraisal control by borrowers.
