May 22, 2012

Data Confirms That Securitized Mortgages Less Likely to Be Modified

 Government data analyzed by Federal Reserve economists shows what many home owners have already learned the hard way: Consumers have a much better chance of renegotiating a distressed mortgage if the original bank lender still holds it.

Homeowners are 26 to 36 percent more likely to be able to renegotiate a bank-held mortgage than mortgages that have been securitized, or sold by the lender to another company to be bundled into securities, according to a new study to be published in the Journal of Financial Economics.

“Homeowners don’t have a say in whether their bank sells their mortgage or not, but that can have a significant impact on whether their loan is re-negotiated,” said Itzhak Ben-David, co-author of the study and assistant professor of finance at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business. 

Ben-David, along with three economists from the Chicago Fed, concluded in the study that “frictions introduced by securitization” make it harder for homeowners to renegotiate a troubled loan.

The study drew from 2007-09 government data on more than 34 million mortgages totaling $6 trillion – about 64 percent of the U.S. home mortgage market. It included detailed data from mortgage servicers owned by 10 of the biggest U.S. banks supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and from large thrifts regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Among the modified loans, borrowers whose loans were still held by the mortgage originator often paid higher interest rates and had a roughly 9 percent lower default rate after modification than similar borrowers whose loans were in securities regardless of the strength of their credit history. The most common type of modification was to lower or freeze the interest rate, the economists found.

The Treasury Department’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which initially promised to help up to 4 million distressed homeowners, has been criticized by consumer advocates and a government watchdog for rejecting most borrowers for permanent mortgage modifications. Of 1.4 million homeowners who obtained trial modifications with HAMP, only 550,000 had their modifications made permanent.

Other groups have asked HAMP to release loan-level data collected from mortgage servicers which would shed light on which borrowers are getting modifications and the types of modifications.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

American University Fellow

Amy Biegelsen won the Virginia Press Association’s 2009 Best in Show Award for a portfolio on health and environmental stories. She is the recipient of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association’s Excellence in Journalism prize for a story on children’s mental health issues and is a two-time finalist for the Livingston Award for Young Journalists. She earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Chicago.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.