One factor can make mortgage modifications up to one-third more likely, study finds

Feb 09, 2011 by Jeff Grabmeier

One factor, little-known by borrowers, can play a large role in whether banks are willing to renegotiate mortgages with homeowners who are struggling to meet payments.

Unfortunately, it is a factor that homeowners have no control over.

Researchers found that owned by lenders were 26 to 36 percent more likely to be renegotiated than very similar mortgages that the original lenders sold to other companies, which turned them into securities.

"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.

"From the homeowners' perspective, whether their mortgage is traded among investors is completely outside of their control."

Other co-authors of the study are Sumit Agarwal, Gene Amromin, and Douglas Evanoff from the Chicago , and Souphala Chomsisengphet from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The research was accepted to the Journal of Financial Economics and will be published in a future print edition.

When people get mortgages from lenders such as banks, these lenders can keep the mortgages themselves, or they can sell them to a company like , who bundles many thousands of mortgages together into one security offering. They then offer shares of this security to investors.

The lender you got the mortgage from may still "service" the loan – meaning it will collect your payments and deal with your paperwork – but it doesn't actually own your mortgage any more.

"You may not even know that your mortgage has been sold, but it could have real effects on you if you ever become delinquent in your payments," Ben-David said.

Other studies have looked at whether securitization of mortgages affects renegotiations, and have shown conflicting results. But these other studies did not have direct data on renegotiations between lenders and homeowners, so their results may not be as robust as this new study.

By contrast, Ben-David and his colleagues evaluated data on more than 34 million mortgages, making up about 64 percent of all U.S. residential mortgages. This unique dataset includes detailed information on mortgages from 19 different servicing companies owned by 10 large banks. These servicing entities have control over whether mortgages are renegotiated, regardless of their ultimate corporate ownership, Ben-David said.

The dataset comes from two federal agencies: the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

The researchers focused their attention on the nearly 1.6 million mortgages that were "in trouble" – more than 60 days past due -- in 2008 and the first two quarters of 2009.

The data showed that, at least in 2008 and early 2009, the servicers were not taking quick action against delinquent homeowners, Ben-David said. Six months after the mortgages were listed "in trouble," nearly half had no action taken against them by their mortgage servicers.

Even after a year, servicers had taken no action against about one-quarter of all delinquent homeowners.

"Part of the reason may be that the whole system was congested," Ben-David said. "There were not enough lawyers to handle all of these delinquent loans. Or, perhaps some borrowers self-cured and became current."

About half of the in-trouble mortgages had been foreclosed or were in the foreclosure process after a year. The remaining one quarter was in some type of modification process, he said.

The most common type of modification was a reduction or freezing of the interest rate, results showed.

While only about a quarter of the troubled loans in the study underwent modification, the most striking result was how bank-held loans were 26 to 36 percent more likely to be renegotiated than comparable securitized mortgages.

"This is a very significant economic effect," Ben-David said.

The results were similar no matter the quality of the loan. In other words, borrowers with the best credit scores suffered as much as those with lower scores.

The researchers also looked at what happened to borrowers who did get modifications of their loans.

The results showed that borrowers whose loans were owned by banks actually got tougher terms – for example, they paid higher interest rates after modification than similar borrowers whose loans were in securities.

Still, bank-held loans had about a 9 percent lower default rate after modification than did similar securitized loans.

"That's likely due to the fact that servicers have better information about borrowers whose loans they own directly," Ben-David said.

"The bank knows these borrowers better, so even if they give less concessions they still have better outcomes. They know exactly how much they have to give."

But why are borrowers less likely to get loan modifications if their mortgages are held in securities?

Ben-David said it probably has to do with the added costs involved when the company that services the loan is different from the owner of the loan.

"There are coordination issues between the servicer and owner, as well as the fact that servicers may not have the financial incentive to renegotiate because they don't own the loan," he said.

On an individual level, there's not much one can do to improve your chances of getting a modification, since don't have control over whether their mortgage is securitized and can't even find out if it has been securitized, according to Ben-David.

From a policy perspective, the federal government had the right idea with its Home Affordable Modification Program, which was designed to help struggling homeowners, he said.

"In retrospect, we know HAMP has not worked well because it wasn't implemented properly. But the economic idea was sound – reduce the servicers' transaction costs so they have an incentive to modify loans," Ben-David said.

Explore further: Migrant employment on the rise

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Mortgage crisis: Blame the bank?

Aug 27, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Banks have played a big role in the mortgage crisis, not only because they issued loans to suspect borrowers, but because many originated and sold bad loans to other lenders, says a University of Michigan ...

Mortgage defaults at lowest levels in five years

Dec 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Default risk on home loans fell once again this quarter to its lowest level in more than five years, says a professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.

New mortgage design would minimize home foreclosures

Jan 19, 2011

With mortgage loan defaults on the rise yet again, two mortgage researchers are proposing a new type of mortgage contract that automatically resets the balance and the monthly payment based on the mortgaged home's market ...

Recommended for you

Migrant employment on the rise

17 hours ago

Skilled migrants are enjoying better jobs and higher levels of employment thanks to a shift in policy, according to a new study by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University ...

Three hours of life per euro

Oct 15, 2014

Public spending appears to have contributed substantially to the fact that life expectancy in eastern Germany has not only increased, but is now almost equivalent to life expectancy in the west. While the possible connection ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Roland
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2011
A mortgage is a contract between 2 parties. It shouldn't be transferable by either party to someone else. But if such transfers are going to be allowed, they should be allowed for both parties. Equal justice before the law is dead in the US.
S_Bilderback
not rated yet Feb 09, 2011
That's the type of laws we inherit when the people making/passing our country's laws are in the back pockets of the people with the money. (and are also writing their own campaign finance laws)
No one else but bankers can sell a contract to a third party and have it's content legally modified without notification or resigning all liable parties.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2011
A mortgage is a contract between 2 parties. It shouldn't be transferable by either party to someone else. But if such transfers are going to be allowed, they should be allowed for both parties. Equal justice before the law is dead in the US.
Basically you want to shut down the entire economic system in that case. Every piece of currency is a transferrable contract.
dieseltaylor
not rated yet Feb 10, 2011
Currency is not the same as it is a state-endorsed fiction rather than aa contract between two parties.

Reverting to the point on mortgages there is no doubt that the transfer of mortgages has had major reprecussions. Avoiding paying filing fees on transfer of a mortgage to the local recording office is one scam. And it raises the specter of huge numbers of improperly registered mortgages.

Fundamentally the growth of passing off - you believe you are dealing with a proper organisation - who then pass you to another is a dangerous slope. The airline you know has good planes and a fine record but then substitutes a rented in, or associate company, is an early example of how the public are being toyed with.

Given a choice I suspect most consumers like to know who they are dealing with and what they can expect. Industries are just taking the mickey as they know individually the consumer has not the ability to claim foul.