Upload
congressional-budget-office
View
616
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Congressional Budget Office
Modeling The Budgetary Cost of FHA’s Single Family Mortgage Insurance
Francesca Castelli, formerly of CBO; Gabriel Ehrlich, Damien Moore, and Jeffrey Perry, all of CBO
September 12, 2014
Presentation for the Inaugural Conference of the Center for Finance and Policy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
This presentation provides information from Modeling the Budgetary Costs of FHA's Single Family Mortgage Insurance, Working Paper 2014-05 (Congressional Budget Office, September 2014), www.cbo.gov/publication/45711.
1 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Overview
■ The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA’s) single-family mortgage insurance program
■ Budgetary costs and the capital reserve account
■ CBO’s statistical modeling and cost projections
2 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
FHA’s Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program
■ The program facilitates access to mortgage credit for borrowers with – Low down payments – Limited or poor credit histories
■ FHA guarantees mortgages against default
■ Borrower pays up-front and annual fees
■ Estimated $1.2 trillion of insurance is in force at the end of fiscal year 2014 (HUD 2013a)
3 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
FHA Share of Purchase Loan Originations
Percentage of Total Market
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
4 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
FHA and National Average Serious Delinquency Rates
Percentage of Outstanding Loans
2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 20130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FHA
National Average
5 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Capital Reserve Ratio of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, Excluding Home Equity Conversion Mortgages
Percent
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Budgetary Treatment of Federal Credit Programs: Key Concepts
■ Credit reform subsidy
■ Fair-value subsidy
■ Capital reserve account
7 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Budgetary Treatment of Federal Credit Programs
■ Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA) of 1990
■ In each year, the federal budget deficit reflects – Estimates of lifetime costs (credit reform subsidies) of new mortgage
guarantees in that year – Reestimates of costs (subsidy reestimates) of previously issued
mortgage guarantees
■ Credit reform subsidies are present value calculations that use a Treasury rate to discount cash flows
8 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Credit Reform Subsidy Calculation (Illustration)
■ FHA fee: 175 basis points (bps) up front, 135 bps annually
■ Expected insurance claims: 70 bps annually
■ Annual cash outflow (in basis points):
Year 0 1 2 . . .
Fees −175 −135 −135 . . .
Claims 70 70 . . . _____________ _____________ _____________
Net Cash Flow −175 -65 -65 . . .
Discounted at Treasury Rates −175 plus −455 equals −630, or −6.3% credit reform subsidy
9 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Fair-Value Subsidies
■ Private mortgage insurers charge annual mortgage insurance premiums – Generally exceed FHA’s fees – Significantly higher than expected losses
■ Private insurers’ fees in excess of losses – Administrative costs – Return on capital (Investors demand a higher return than Treasury
rates to compensate them for market risks.)
■ For FHA – Administrative costs are accounted for outside of subsidies – Market risks are not accounted for in the budget – Taxpayers (and beneficiaries of federal programs) bear market risks
associated with FHA’s guarantees
10 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Year 0 1 2 . . .
Fees −175 −135 −135 . . .
Claims 70 70 . . . Risk Premium 115 115
____________ ____________ ____________
Net Cost −175 50 50 . . .
Discounted at Treasury Rates −175 plus 300 equals 125, or 1.25% fair-value subsidy
Fair-Value Subsidy Calculation (Illustration)
■ Same cash flows as in the FCRA illustration, but they include a risk premium for credit loss exposure of 115 bps per annum.
■ Annual cash outflow and risk premium charge (in basis points):
11 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
FCRA versus Fair-Value Accounting
■ Fair-value accounting provides a more comprehensive measure of cost than FCRA accounting
■ Disadvantages of FCRA Accounting – Budgetary savings provide incentive to expand credit programs – Makes economically equivalent alternatives to credit programs appear
to be more costly
■ Disadvantages of Fair-Value Accounting – Risk premium is not a cash cost – Cost of market risk is excluded from the estimates of many non-credit
programs, for example, unemployment insurance
12 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
The Capital Reserve Account
■ Part of the system of accounts used to reconcile subsidies with cash flows
■ Can be calculated as the sum of estimated subsidy savings on outstanding cohorts plus accumulated interest
■ Often cited as a measure of program solvency, but FCRA programs have permanent authority to draw funds to pay claims as needed
■ FHA is required to maintain a 2% ratio of capital reserve balance to insurance-in-force (but has not done so since 2009)
■ The balance does not represent resources that can be used to offset future spending
13 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
CBO’s Statistical Modeling
■ Used to project cash flows for FCRA and fair-value calculations
■ Estimated from loan performance records from 1992 through 2009 – Loan characteristics at origination plus quarterly performance data
■ Statistical models follow existing literature – Multinomial logit model for default and prepayment probabilities – Linear regression for loss given default
14 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Statistical Modeling Variables
■ Borrower credit scores (after 2004)
■ Interest rates
■ Home equity
■ State unemployment
■ Outside source of down payment
■ Geographic location
■ Age of loan
■ Loan amount
15 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Macroeconomic Projections
02468
1012141618
Ten-Year Treasury Note Rate
02468
1012141618
One-Year Treasury Note Rate
1953 1965 1978 1990 2003 2015 2028 20400
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Log Federal Housing Finance AuthorityPurchase-Only House Price Index
1953 1965 1978 1990 2003 2015 2028 20400
2
4
6
8
10
12
Unemployment Rate
Mean
95th Percentile
5th Percentile
Percentage Points Percentage Points
Percentage Points1991q1 = 100, Log of Index Level
16 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Projections of Lifetime Claim Rates
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Actual (Through 2013)
Projected
5th Percentile
95th Percentile
Percent of Mortgages
17 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Projections of Lifetime Prepayment Rates
Percent of Mortgages
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Actual(Through 2013)
Projected
95th Percentile
5th Percentile
18 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Projections of Loss Given Default
Percent of Unpaid Balances
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
5th Percentile
95th Percentile
19 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Estimated FCRA Subsidy Rates
Percentage Points
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
95th Percentile
5th Percentile
20 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
CBO’s Projections for the Capital Reserve
Office of Management and Budget
Congressional Budget Office
Mean 5th Percentile— Better Outcome
95th Percentile—Worse Outcome
Capital Reserve Contribution, 1992 to 2013 cohorts 3.3 3.1 25.7 −28.0
Total Subsidy Savings, 2014 and 2015 cohorts 22.3 16.4 23.7 8.3
Billions of Dollars
21 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Projected Fair-Value Subsidy Rates for Purchase Loans for the 2014 Cohort, by FICO Score and Original Loan-to-Value Ratio
Borrower's FICO Score
Loan-to-Value Ratio
500 to 559
560 to 599
600 to 639
640 to 659
660 to 679
680 to 719
720 and Above
Less Than 80 3.9 2.3 2.0 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.3
80 to 90 5.8 4.4 3.7 2.4 2.5 1.8 0.8
90 to 95 2.9 3.5 3.9 2.1 2.4 1.5 0.4
95 to 97 n.a. 2.7 2.2 0.2 0.5 -0.4 -1.4
97 and Above n.a. 3.1 2.8 0.5 0.7 -0.3 -1.2
Percent
Note: n.a. = not applicable.
22 C O N G R E S S I O N A L B U D G E T O F F I C E
Future Modeling Improvements
■ Incorporate more recent performance data (after 2009)
■ Use better information on FHA’s streamline refinances
■ Improve risk premium estimates
■ Find additional ways to quantify uncertainty