(Should Borrowers Take it Even If They Don’t Need It?)
The likelihood that a mortgage holiday will be adopted
is high. The UK and Italy have already adopted such plans,
and with the pandemic bound to get worse before it gets
better, pressures for mortgage relief will grow.
What has been Interesting to me is that my mail on
the subject has not been from borrowers in imminent danger
of default. Rather, it comes from those who are not in
immediate danger but might nevertheless find it to their
advantage to participate in such a program when it becomes
available. That is a more challenging question that
requires information on exactly how the plan will work.
Since we don’t know that, I will discuss three possible
models and their implications for borrowers who might or
might not find it advantageous to participate.
Payment Subsidy:
In this model, the payment is made by a third party,
which would be either the lender or the Federal Government.
In the US, it will not be the lender because in most cases
lenders only service loans that they had sold for placement
in mortgage-backed securities. Imposing a mandatory subsidy
on Investors in mortgage-backed securities would be grossly
unfair to them, and extraordinarily disruptive to that
market.
The only feasible source of payment subsidies is
the Federal Government. Since it would be advantageous for
every borrower to participate, whether they needed it or
not, the Government would be forced to adopt detailed
eligibility rules that would take many months to implement.
Bottom line, payment subsidies are a bad idea, no
matter who pays them
Mortgage Freeze:
This approach freezes the status of a participant’s mortgage
as of a current date, for a period of N months. When the
freeze ends, the borrower starts paying again as if no time
had elapsed. The payoff date is pushed forward by N months,
but everything else stays the same.
Unlike a payment subsidy,
borrowers will have little incentive to participate except
for the dubious freedom of being able to procrastinate
without cost. There is no need for extensive eligibility
rules. Mortgage-backed securities would remain a problem but
it should be manageable.
Payment Forbearance
With Interest Accrual: With this
approach, borrowers are allowed to skip the payment for a
specified period without incurring late charges or
delinquency reports, but interest accrues on their mortgage
balance. When the forbearance period ends and they begin
paying again, either the term will be extended from what it
had been, or they will need to raise the payment to pay off
on the original schedule.
This is the method that has
long been used by mortgage servicers in dealing with
delinquent borrowers. To borrowers, this is the least
attractive option. But it is the least costly option to the
lender, and imposes the least disruption to the
mortgage-backed securities market.
Prediction: The Federal Government will mandate a program of payment forbearance with interest accrual, good for 3 months but extensible to 6 months.
March 21, 2020 Postscript: I have been criticized, with some justification, for not indicating a preference among the three approaches I described, so here it is. I would select a mortgage freeze, which would leave borrowers unscathed and impose the major cost on lenders and investors. They are better positioned to survive it than borrowers or taxpayers.
March 28,
2020 Postscript: More recently, I
have seen statements on the mortgage holiday from the
governor of California, directed to mortgage lenders
operating in that state, and from Fannie Mae, directed to
all firms that service loans guaranteed or owned by Fannie
Mae. In both cases, while neither is explicit, it is clear
that the mortgage holiday applies to payments only, and that
interest will continue to accrue.
In both cases, however, borrowers in serious
trouble can “request additional help, as practicable, upon
showing of hardship due to COVID-19.” In sum, the burden of
proof is on the borrower to make their case for support
beyond a recess in mortgage payments. And it is up the
individual loan servicer to decide whether the case is
compelling enough to grant.
In sum, borrowers who can make their payments should do so, because the system makes it impossible for borrowers to profit from the pandemic.