FHA Announces Major Changes

From the Mortgage Bankers Association of America

HUD announced a new series of changes aimed at strengthening the troubled FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.

The steps include:

• Consolidation of FHA’s Home Equity Conversion Mortgage options;

• An additional 10 basis-point increase in FHA mortgage insurance premiums;

• Requiring borrowers to pay annual mortgage insurance premiums for the life of the loan;

• Requiring lenders to manually underwrite loans for which borrowers have a decision credit score below 620 and a total debt-to-income ratio greater than 43 percent;

• A proposed increased down payment requirement for mortgages with original principal balances above $625,500;

• Increased enforcement efforts for FHA-approved lenders regarding “aggressive” marketing to borrowers with previous foreclosures

“These are essential and appropriate measures to manage and protect FHA’s single-family insurance programs,” said FHA Commissioner Carol Galante. “In addition to protecting the MMI Fund, these changes will encourage the return of private capital to the housing market and make sure FHA remains a vital source of affordable and sustainable mortgage financing for future generations of American home buyers.”

The changes come in the wake of FHA’s most recent actuarial report on the MMIF. The December report said in fiscal 2012, the Fund’s capital reserve ratio fell below zero to negative 1.44 percent, well below its congressionally mandated 2 percent capital reserve ratio, while the Fund’s economic value fell to negative $16.3 billion.

The report cited continued losses stemming from FHA’s former practice of allowing down payment assistance programs, as well as losses from FHA’s Home Equity Mortgage Conversion program, also known as reverse mortgages and spurred concerns on Capitol Hill that FHA might have to ask the federal government for additional financial support. HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan in December said no such decision would take place until the Obama Administration submits its proposed fiscal 2014 budget in February.

A summary of FHA actions announced yesterday:

Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Consolidation. FHA said it will consolidate its Standard Fixed-Rate Home Equity Conversion Mortgage and Saver Fixed-Rate HECM pricing options, effective for FHA case numbers assigned on or after April 1. Galante noted the Fixed-Rate Standard HECM pricing option currently represents a “large majority” of the loans insured through FHA’s HECM program and is responsible for placing “significant stress” on the MMIF. 

“To help sustain the program as a viable financial resource for aging homeowners, the HECM Fixed-Rate Saver will be the only pricing option available to borrowers who seek a fixed interest rate mortgage,” FHA said. “Using the HECM Fixed-Rate Saver for fixed-rate mortgages will significantly lower the borrower’s upfront closing costs while permitting a smaller pay out than the HECM Fixed Rate Standard product, thereby reducing risks to the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.” 

Additional details can be found in a new HECM Mortgagee Letter: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=13-01ml.pdf.

Changes to Mortgage Insurance Premiums. FHA said it will increase its annual mortgage insurance premium for most new mortgages by 10 basis points (0.10 percent) and will increase premiums on jumbo mortgages ($625,500 or larger) by 5 basis points or 0.05 percent. These premium increases exclude certain streamline refinance transactions. 

FHA will also require most FHA borrowers to continue paying annual premiums for the life of their mortgage loan, reversing a 2001 change in which FHA cancelled required MIP on loans when the outstanding principal balance reached 78 percent of the original principal balance. FHA acknowledged that it remained responsible for insuring 100 percent of the outstanding loan balance throughout the entire life of the loan, a term which often extends far beyond the cessation of these MIP payments. 

Galante said FHA’s Office of Risk Management and Regulatory Affairs estimated that the MMIF has foregone “billions of dollars” in premium revenue on mortgages endorsed from 2010 through 2012 because of this automatic cancellation policy.

“Therefore, FHA will once again collect premiums based upon the unpaid principal balance for the entire period for which FHA is entitled,” Galante said. “This will permit FHA to retain significant revenue that is currently being forfeited prematurely.”

Manual Underwriting Requirement on Loans with Decision Credit Scores below 620 & DTI Ratios Above 43 Percent. FHA will require lenders to manually underwrite loans for which borrowers have a decision credit score below 620 and a total debt-to-income ratio greater than 43 percent. Lenders will be required to document compensating factors that support the underwriting decision to approve loans where these parameters are exceeded, using FHA manual underwriting and compensating factor guidelines.

Raising Down Payment on Loans above $625,500. Through a Federal Register notice to be published in the next several days, FHA will announce a proposed increased down payment requirement for mortgages with original principal balances above $625,500. The minimum down payment for these mortgages will increase from 3.5 to 5 percent. 

“This change, coupled with the statutory maximum premiums charged for these loans, will help protect FHA and further facilitate its efforts to encourage higher levels of private market participation in the housing finance market,” FHA said.

Access to FHA after Foreclosure. FHA also announced it will step up its enforcement efforts for FHA-approved lenders regarding aggressive marketing to borrowers with previous foreclosures and remind lenders of their duty to fully underwrite loan applications. FHA also said it will work with other federal agencies to address such false advertising by non-FHA-approved entities. 

“It has come to FHA’s attention that a few lenders are inappropriately advertising and soliciting borrowers with the false pretense that they can somehow ‘automatically’ qualify for an FHA-insured mortgage three years after their foreclosure,” FHA said. “This is simply not true and such misleading advertising will not be tolerated.”

 

CFPB Head Appointment In Jeopardy

Source: Weiner, Brodsky, Kider, PC

On Friday, January 25, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit emphatically struck down President Obama’s January 2012 “recess appointments” of three members to the National Labor Relations Board. In doing so, the Court emphasized the narrow construction of the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause in a sweeping manner that is sure to bolster current challenges to Richard Cordray’s “recess appointment” as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on the same day.

Generally, the Constitution requires Presidential Appointments to be confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. The Recess Appointments Clause provides the President with the power to appoint executive officers during times of Congressional recess, without Senate confirmation, when the Senate cannot provide its advice and consent. The DC Circuit struck down the President’s NLRB “recess appointments” on two separate grounds: (1) “Recess” as used in the Constitution means only the specific time period between official sessions of Congress; and (2) the vacancy being filled by a
“recess appointment” must arise during a recess of Congress. The DC Circuit found that neither of these conditions was present in the President’s “recess appointments” to the NLRB in January 2012.

In its ruling regarding the definition of “the Recess,” the DC Circuit construed the term narrowly because the Constitution uses different terms in different portions of its enumerated powers, specifically using the terms “adjournment” and “Recess” in different aspects for its enumeration of Congressional powers, and found no basis to adopt the NLRB’s argument that recess can mean indeterminate periods of inactivity by Congress and should be within Presidential discretion to determine. The DC Circuit forcefully and colorfully rejected these arguments: “An interpretation of ‘the Recess’ that permits the President to decide when the Senate is in recess would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction.”

The DC Circuit also rejected the government’s position that any vacancy can be filled during recess, instead holding that the explicit language of the Constitution holds that recess appointments may only be used for vacancies that arise during the recess. The DC Circuit further held that any such vacancy must be filled during the same recess, otherwise the President cannot use the recess appointment power.

This decision will likely heavily influence the current litigation pending against the recess appointment of Richard Cordray as Director of the CFPB, as Director Cordray was appointed by President Obama on the same day by a purported “recess appointment.” This decision places not only Director Cordray’s appointment in doubt, but places into question the validity of a number of actions taken by him or the CFPB since the Dodd- Frank Act required a Director to be in place prior to the CFPB obtaining certain of its supervisory authorities.

We will continue to monitor this situation as new developments arise.

New Loan Officer Compensation Rules Finalized

From Mortgage Daily

A final rule on loan originator compensation aims to eliminate incentives for originators to steer borrowers into high-cost loans.

Prior to the subprime mortgage meltdown in 2007, mortgage brokers and loan officers were encouraged by subprime lenders to forego low-rate options for their clients that yielded smaller commissions and instead push prospects into higher-cost subprime products that paid big yield-spread premiums.

While many originators behaved responsibly and put borrowers into the lowest cost programs, some succumbed to the incentives and opted to put prime borrowers into subprime loans.

Provisions in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act were designed to eliminate such incentives.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Friday released final rules that implement the Dodd-Frank provisions. The rules, which were originally proposed in August 2012, revise Regulation Z to implement amendments to the Truth in Lending Act.

Compensation that varies with the loan terms is prohibited by the rules. This means that originators cannot earn more because they convince a customer to take a mortgage with a higher interest rate, a prepayment penalty or higher fees. Also prohibited is compensation paid for steering the borrower to a lender-affiliated title company.

“To prevent evasion, the final rule prohibits compensation based on a ‘proxy’ for a term of a transaction,” the CFPB explained. “The rule also further clarifies the definition of a proxy to focus on whether: (1) the factor consistently varies with a transaction term over a significant number of transactions; and (2) the loan originator has the ability, directly or indirectly, to add, drop, or change the factor in originating the transaction.”

While originators are generally prohibited from reducing their compensation to offset the cost of a change in transaction terms, the final rule allows originators to reduce compensation to defray some unexpected increases in estimated settlement costs.

The final rule, however, does allow business profits to be used to make contributions to certain tax-advantaged retirement plans like 401(k) plans. It also authorizes bonuses and contributions to other plans that don’t exceed 10 percent of an individual originator’s total compensation.

Originators are prohibited from being paid by both the borrower and other parties like creditors, though mortgage brokers are allowed to pay commissions to employees or contractors as long as the commissions are not based on loan terms.

While the Dodd-Frank act generally prohibits originators from collecting up-front points or fees from the consumer while also being paid by another party, the CFPB elected to exercise its authority to completely exempt the prohibition while it scrutinizes the proposal’s design, operation and possible effects in a mortgage market undergoing regulatory overhaul.

In response to public comments from the mortgage industry, consumer groups and other government stakeholders, the CFPB abandoned a proposal to require that originators provide borrowers prospects with an option that has no up-front discount points or origination fees. Among those that had opposed the provision was the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.

“Once the new set of Dodd-Frank rules that the bureau is implementing take effect, the bureau will evaluate how those rules are affecting consumers’ understanding of up-front charges and the decisions consumers make,” the bureau stated.

In order to level the playing field between bank and non-bank originators, both types of originators will be required to meet character, fitness and financial responsibility reviews. In addition, both types of originators will be required to undergo criminal background checks for felony convictions and completed training about mortgage rules.

The rule clarifies that certain employees of manufactured home retailers, servicers and seller financers are excluded from the definition of a loan originator. Also excluded are real estate brokers; management, clerical and administrative staff; and loan processors, underwriters and closers.

On mortgages and home-equity loans, mandatory arbitration of disputes are generally prohibited under the new rules. In addition, the practice of increasing loan amounts to cover credit insurance premiums is also not allowed.

The rules go into effect in January 2014, though the prohibition against mandatory arbitration and credit insurance financing takes effect in June 2013.

“The CFPB plans to work with creditors and mortgage originators to ensure a smooth transition to implementation,” the announcement said. “To help with compliance, the CFPB will, among other things, be publishing implementation guides, and, in coordination with other agencies, be releasing materials that help creditors and originators understand supervisory expectations.”

Fiscal Cliff Deal Helps Housing

The industry can breath a sigh of relief with the final fiscal cliff deal bringing back a popular tax break on mortgage insurance premiums and debt forgiveness for borrowers who go through a short-sale or some other type of debt reduction. A topic that is still up for discussion and likely to surface later in the year is whether the popular home loan interest tax deduction will be part of a long-term deficit reduction plan. Still, the deal passed by the Senate and House on Jan. 1 is one that leaves room for hope in the housing market. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 apparently extends a law that expired at the end of 2011, which allowed for the deductibility of MI premiums, according to a research report from Isaac Boltansky with Compass Point Research & Trading. The law now applies to fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

“The law dictates that eligible borrowers who itemize their federal tax returns and have an adjusted gross income (AGI) of less than $100,000 per year can deduct 100% of their annual MI premiums,” Compass Point said. “Certain borrowers with AGIs above $100,000 may benefit from the deductibility as well but are subject to a sliding scale. The tax break covers private MI as well FHA mortgage insurance and VA and Rural Housing Service fees. In 2009, about 3.6 million taxpayers claimed the MI deduction,” the research firm added.

One of the more watched provisions of the fiscal cliff was the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, which was set to expire on Dec. 31. The fiscal cliff deal extends it for another year, meaning homeowners who experience a debt reduction through principal forgiveness or a short sale are exempt from being taxed on the forgiven amount. “The amount extends up to $2 million of debt forgiven on the homeowner’s principal residence,” Compass Point Research & Trading said. “For homeowner’s to qualify, their debt must have been used to ‘buy, build, or substantially improve’ their principal residence and be secured by that residence. The law, which was passed in 2007 with a 5-year sunset provision, will now be in effect until Jan. 1, 2014.”

Another win for housing is a provision tied to the government’s plan to increase the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20% for individuals who earn more than $400,000. While in theory, this is harder on higher-income homeowners, Compass Point sees a silver lining through an exclusion. Compass Point notes the law “states that only gains of more than $250,000 for individuals ($500k for households) are subject to taxes on the excess portion of capital gains. Point being, in order for an individual homeowner to be impacted by the increased capital gains tax rate they would need to have an adjusted gross income above $400,000 and gain more than $250,000 from the sale of the property. Since this exclusion threshold remained intact, the impact of the capital gains tax increase is limited.” Source: HousingWire

Closer Look at Proposed LO Compensation RuleWebinar discusses CFPB proposal Oct. 15, 2012 By JERRY DeMUTH MortgageDaily.com

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau’s current proposal for loan originator compensation, while clarifying many aspects of the current rule, also could lead to violations of some state laws, or even Internal Revenue Service codes, according to a recent online event on the subject. The deadline for public comments on the proposal is Tuesday. The presentation was made by three attorneys with the mortgage banking and the consumer financial services groups at the national law firm, Ballard Spahr LLP. They spoke during a webinar on the proposed new rule sponsored by the Washington, D.C.-based firm. First, the definition of loan originator is “very broad” under the proposed rule, said John D. Socknat, and even includes persons who assist consumers by advising them on credit terms, preparing application packages, collecting application and supporting information, or even advertises or otherwise communicates to the public that they provide such services. The latter, he said, would include business cards, rate sheets and promotional items. But managers and administrative and clerical staff are excluded if they do not arrange, negotiate or otherwise obtain an extension of credit for a consumer or if their compensation is not based actual loan originations. The proposal also “finally addresses” the anti-steering safe harbor issue, said Richard J. Andreano. The key to complying, he said, is that loan originators have to present the loan with the lowest rate to consumers, even if it includes more points than they said they are willing to pay and if they qualify for that loan. The current rule does not specifically require originators to present to borrowers the loan with the lowest rate, only the one with the lowest rates and fees. “But the originator can’t impose points and fees on a loan unless it results in a lower rate. But this only applies before the consumer has received the good-faith estimate and since this is occurring before the good-faith estimate,” Andreano pondered, “how do you determine if they may not qualify for a loan?” He also noted all of this is in the preamble to the proposed new rule, not in the section on pricing policies. That section sets forth ties between specific increases and decreases in rates and the size of points and fees, with a specific rate reduction for each additional point. “These are very complex proposals,” he commented. Andreano also pointed out that the CFPB, which originally had considered a flat-fee approach to originations, with the same fee applying to all loans, now proposes a “zero-zero alternative.” Under this proposal, any originator who receives compensation from any person other than the consumer may not impose on the consumer any points or fees unless a comparable, alternative loan without points and fees is made available to the consumer. “That’s an interesting concept,” he said. To prevent manipulation of loan qualifications and loan availability, the CFPB, Andreano said, is considering two different alternatives that would either prevent originators from changing their underwriting standards for the purpose of disqualifying consumers from a “zero-zero alternative” or prevent originators from offering loans with points and fees unless the consumer would qualify for a comparable loan without points and fees. The proposed rules, said Michael S. Waldron, also now address the matter of compensation paid on a borrower’s behalf by parties other than the borrower. “This was not addressed previously,” he said, but warned that such an arrangement can be impacted by state laws. “You have to make sure you follow state law,” Waldron emphasized. Waldron also noted that while the current rule does not expressly address the sharing of pooled compensation, the proposed rule “outright bans” pooled compensation among loan originators who are compensated differently for loans with different terms. “Point blanks,” Waldron noted, are not expressly addressed by the current rule and may not be allowed under the proposed rule. Citing a CFPB advisory comment on the proposed rule that “there are no circumstances under which point blanks are permissible, and they there continue to be prohibited,” Waldron said, “‘Continue’ is a critical word. It truly shuts the door on point blanks.” New conditions also are placed on contributions to both qualified and non-qualified profit-sharing plans, Waldron pointed out. When applying these, he said, loan originator participants have to make sure they do not violate Internal Revenue Codes or become non-compliant with other rules. “There’s a lot of pitfalls when amending qualified and non-qualified plans,” he cautioned. Finally, while under the current rule a loan originator’s compensation may not be changed based on changes to a specific loan’s terms or conditions, Socknat pointed out that the proposed rule would permit a reduction in an originator’s compensation to cover unanticipated increased non-affiliated, third-party closing costs that cause the actual amount of costs to exceed limits imposed by applicable law. However, Socknat said, the proposed rule forbids an originator from agreeing to pay part of a borrower’s closing costs to avoid high-cost loan provisions. The comment deadline on the proposed rule is Oct. 16. Comments can be submitted to www.regulations.gov.

The Most Optimistic Housing Forecast Yet

From CNN/Money…

The long-battered housing market is finally starting to get back on its feet. But some experts believe it could soon become another housing boom. Signs of recovery have been evident in the recent pick ups in home prices, home sales and construction. Foreclosures are also down and the Federal Reserve has acted to push rates on home loans near record lows. But while many economists believe this emerging housing recovery will produce only slow and modest improvement in home prices, construction and jobs, others believe the rebound will be much stronger.

Barclays Capital put out a report recently forecasting that home prices, which fell by more than a third after the housing bubble burst in 2007, could be back to peak levels as soon as 2015. “In our view, the housing market had undergone a dramatic over-correction during the prior five years, resulting in pent-up demand for housing purchases that would spark a rapid rise in housing starts,” said Stephen Kim, an analyst with Barclays, in a note to clients. In addition to what Kim sees as a big rebound in building, he’s bullish on home prices, expecting rises of 5% to 7.5% a year. Construction is expected to be even stronger, with numerous experts forecasting home construction to grow by at least 20% a year for each of the next two years. Some believe building could be back near the pre-bubble average of about 1.5 million new homes a year by 2016, about double the 750,000 homes expected this year.

“We think the recovery is for real this time around,” said Rick Palacios, senior analyst with John Burns Real Estate Consulting. “If you look across the U.S. economy right now, there are only a handful of industries looking at 20-30% growth over the next 4-5 years, and housing is one of those.” The housing rebound can have a ripple effect that could help get the entire economy growing at a much stronger pace, which will add to more demand for housing. “That turn in the [housing] market is occurring now and it should become a boom by 2015. It will be powerful enough … to lift the entire U.S. economy,” said Roger Altman, chairman of Evercore Partners and former deputy Treasury secretary, in a column for the Financial Times. Altman said he expects housing will add 4 million jobs to the economy over the next five years, as pent-up demand for home purchases drives building and and home prices higher. Source: CNN/Money

Why Are Mortgage Rates Not At 2.8%?

Imagine a 30-year mortgage on which you only pay 2.8 percent in interest a year.

Such a mortgage could already exist, but something in the banking system is holding it back. And right now, few agree on what that “something” is.

Getting to the bottom of this enigma could help determine whether mortgage lenders are dysfunctional, greedy or simply trying to do their job in a sensible way.

Right now, borrowers are paying around 3.55 percent for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage that qualifies for a government guarantee of repayment. That’s down from 4.1 percent a year ago, and 5.06 percent three years ago.

Mortgage rates have declined as the Federal Reserve has bought trillions of dollars of bonds, a policy that aims to stimulate the economy. Last week, the Fed said it would make new purchases, focusing on bonds backed by mortgages.

The big question is whether those purchases lead to even lower mortgage rates, as the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, hopes.

But mortgage rates may not decline substantially from here. Something weird has happened. Pricing in the mortgage market appears to have gotten stuck. This can be seen in a crucial mortgage metric.

Banks make mortgages, but since the 2008 crisis, they have sold most of them into the bond market, attaching a government guarantee of repayment in the process.

The metric effectively encapsulates the size of the gain that banks make on those sales. In September 2011, banks were making mortgages with an interest rate of 4.1 percent. They were then selling those mortgages into the market in bonds that were trading with an interest rate, or yield, of 3.36 percent, according to a Bloomberg index.

The metric captures the difference between the bond and mortgage rates; in this case it was 0.74 percentage points. The bigger the “spread,” the bigger the financial gain for the banks selling the mortgages. That 0.74 percentage point “spread” was close to the 0.77 percentage point average since the end of 2007. Banks were taking roughly the same cut on the sales as they were in previous years.

But something strange has happened over the last 12 months. That spread has widened significantly, and is now more than 1.4 percentage points. The cause: bond yields have fallen a lot more than the mortgage rates banks are charging borrowers.

Put another way, the banks aren’t fully passing on the low rates in the bond market to borrowers. Instead, they are taking bigger gains, and increasing the size of their cut.

So where might mortgage rates be if the old spread were maintained? At 2.83 percent – that’s the current bond yield plus the 0.75 percentage point spread that existed a year ago.

It’s important to examine why the tight relationship between bond yields and mortgage rates becomes unglued.

One explanation, mentioned in a Financial Times story on Sunday, is that the banks are overwhelmed by the demand for new mortgages and their pipeline has become backlogged. When demand outstrips supply for a product, it’s less likely that its price — in this case, the mortgage’s interest rate — will fall. There are in fact different versions of this theory.

One holds that bank mortgage operations are still poorly run, and therefore it’s no surprise they can’t handle an inundation of new applications. Another says banks deliberately keep rates from falling further as a way of controlling the flow of mortgage applications into their pipeline. If mortgages were offered at 2.8 percent, they wouldn’t be able to handle the business, so they ration through price, according to this theory.

Another backlog camp likes to point the finger at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled entities that actually guarantee the mortgages. The theory is that these two are demanding that borrowers fulfill overly strict conditions to get mortgages. Banks fear that if they don’t ensure compliance with these requirements, they’ll have to take mortgages back once they’ve sold them, a move that can saddle them with losses.

As a result, the banks have every incentive to slow things down to make sure mortgages are in full compliance, which can add to the backlog. Once this so-called put-back threat is decreased, or the banks get better at meeting requirements, supply should ease.

But there is a weakness to the backlog theories.

The banks have handled two huge waves of mortgage refinancing since the 2008 financial crisis. During those, the spread between mortgage and bond rates did increase. But not anywhere near as much as it has recently. And the spread has stayed wide for much longer this time around.

For instance, $1.84 trillion of mortgages were originated in 2009, a big year for refinancing, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication. In that year, the average spread between bonds and loans was 0.89 percentage points. And the banking sector was in a far worse state, which would in theory make the backlog problem worse.

Today, the sector is in better shape, with more mortgage lenders back on their feet. But the spread between loans and bonds is considerably wider. In the last 12 months, when mortgage origination has been close to 2009 levels, it has averaged 1.1 percentage points. This suggests that it’s more than just a backlog problem

Some mortgage banks seem to be having little trouble adapting to the higher demand. U.S. Bancorp originated $21.7 billion of mortgages in the second quarter of this year, 168 percent more than in the second quarter of last year.

Wells Fargo is currently the nation’s biggest mortgage lender, originating 31 percent of all mortgages in the 12 months through the end of June. In a conference call with analysts in July, the bank’s executives seemed unfazed about the challenge of meeting mounting customer demand.

“We’ve ramped up our team members in mortgage to be able to move the pipeline through as quickly as possible,” said Timothy J. Sloan, Wells Fargo’s chief financial officer. He also said that the bank had increased its full time employees in consumer real estate by 19 percent in the prior 12 months. Not exactly the picture of a bank struggling to expand capacity.

But if banks are readily adding capacity, why aren’t mortgage rates falling further, closing the spread between bond yields? Perhaps a new equilibrium has descended on the market that favors the banks’ bottom lines.

The drop in rates draws in many more borrowers. The banks add more origination capacity, but not quite enough to bring the spread between bonds and loans back to its recent average.

The banks don’t care because mortgage revenue is ballooning. But it all means that the 2.8 percent mortgage may never materialize. Source: New York Times