Home > Mortgages > Trump’s Mortgage Fee Cut Reversal: What it Really Means for House Hunters

Comments 1 Comment

Almost lost amid all the celebrating and marching this weekend were a set of official actions the Trump administration took soon after the Inauguration. One directly impacts some consumers who are house-hunting right now.

You might have seen headlines suggesting President Donald Trump raised taxes on middle-class homeowners, but that’s not an accurate way to portray what happened. Instead, Trump signed an administrative order to halt a fee rate cut, announced just days earlier by the Obama administration, that would have saved homebuyers who don’t have big down payments and use Federal Housing Administration-backed home loans an average of about $450 annually in their monthly house payments.

The order will make home loans more costly for a large group of buyers — about 40% of millennial buyers use the program targeted by the Trump order. That, in turn, can make life harder on older owners looking to sell their homes and trade up.

What Really Happened

In the hours after he was sworn in, Trump signed an order that stopped a lame-duck step by the Obama administration that would have lowered monthly fees for consumers who buy homes with less than 20% down payments and use a government program operated by the Housing and Urban Development department known as “FHA loans” to insure their mortgages. The decrease would have saved average homeowners about $37 monthly, according to Attom Data Solutions. It would have saved homeowners much more in places where home prices are higher — averaging more than $1,000 annually in 13 counties across the United States.

FHA loan fees were raised during the recession to cover program losses, and Obama’s move would have returned them to about the level they were before the housing bubble burst. For now, they remain above their 2008 levels.

Keeping the fees higher effectively lowers the buying power of home shoppers, as money that could be spent toward mortgage payments is instead shifted to insurance payments.

Help For Less-Liquid Homebuyers

Many homeowners are familiar with the additional fees that come with low-down-payment mortgages. Buyers with less than 20% generally must pay for mortgage insurance in case they cannot make their mortgage payments. That’s because the owners will have so little equity in their homes that banks can’t be sure they’d make their money back if they foreclosed on the home and sold it.

There are several forms of this kind of insurance; the most popular is provided by the Federal Housing Administration through FHA-backed loans. For an upfront fee and an ongoing monthly cost, the FHA will guarantee a loan between a buyer and a bank — that gives banks the ability to lend money to buyers with as little as 3% down.

The program dates back to the 1930s, and helps create first-time homebuyer activity. The FHA has insured 34 million properties since its inception, and the agency says it is the largest insurer or mortgages in the world.

Low-down-payment buyers can opt for private mortgage insurance, or PMI, instead. PMI tends to be less expensive, but buyers with lower credit scores or smaller down payments might not qualify for it.

Without these kinds of insurance programs, a buyer shopping for a median-priced $185,000 home would need at least $37,000 in a cash down-payment to buy a home, or would be required to finance the down payment some other way.

Younger Buyers Could Be Hit Hardest

FHA loans are particularly popular with millennials; 38% of new loans closed by younger buyers are FHA loans, according to mortgage data firm Ellie Mae.

FHA insurance isn’t cheap. At closing, buyers pay 1.75% of the loan in an upfront fee. For a $185,000 mortgage, that’s an extra $3,238 in cost; it’s usually financed as part of the loan. The ongoing monthly fee on that mortgage is about $126 per month — a rate of .085% of the loan annually, paid in monthly installments. The fee is known as the MIP, or mortgage insurance premium. The MIP was targeted by Trump’s order.

In the waning days of the Obama administration, the FHA announced it would drop the fee from 0.85% to 0.60% — a 0.25% drop. That would have provided $37 in monthly savings for a buyer with a median-priced home, or about $446 annually, Attom says. An FHA buyer in Santa Clara County, California, would have saved much more— $1,448 annually.

The fees collected from consumers go into the fund used to support the FHA loan program.

Before the recession, ongoing FHA fees were 0.55%. Not surprisingly, the FHA fund collapsed in the face of massive defaults during the collapse of the housing bubble. To restore the fund, FHA fees were raised steadily, beginning in January 2008, reaching a high of 1.35% in January 2013.

When the fund reached Congressionally-mandated reserve levels, the premiums were reduced, down to 0.85% in January 2015

A drop that would have returned FHA monthly fee levels to their 2008 levels, announced Jan. 9, was set to take effect on Jan. 27.

On the eve of HUD nominee Ben Carson’s confirmation hearings, Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, was critical of the fee cut.

Greater Risk of Another Bailout?

“It seems the Obama administration’s parting gift to hardworking taxpayers is to put them at greater risk of footing the bill for yet another bailout,” Hensarling said. Carson then said he would “really examine” the premium cut at his hearing.

Daren Blomquist, senior vice president at ATTOM Data Solutions, says the rate cut two years ago triggered a short-term jump in home sales to FHA buyers. On the other hand, the impact of the rate cut wasn’t as dramatic as hoped, in part because fast-rising prices gobbled up much of the anticipated increased buying power.

“This decision not too surprisingly reflects the Trump administration’s fiscally conservative philosophical bent, favoring not putting taxpayers at risk — or at least what they perceive as risk — for the sake of a government program that helps people buy homes,” Blomquist said to me. “This is not to say that the Trump administration won’t take policy steps to help the homeownership rate rebound, but the levers pulled will more likely involve trying to allow the market to address the situation with deregulation rather than addressing the situation through government programs that potentially put taxpayers at risk.”

When asked for comment on why the fee cut was suspended, a HUD spokesperson directed Credit.com to its letter announcing the move.

“FHA is committed to ensuring its mortgage insurance programs remains viable and effective in the long term for all parties involved, especially our taxpayers,” it reads. “As such, more analysis and research are deemed necessary to assess future adjustments while also considering potential market conditions in an ever-changing global economy that could impact our efforts.”

Buyers might be tempted to wait and see what the Trump administration does with FHA fees — some observers think they could ultimately be lowered — but that might be a mistake. If home prices continue to rise, those increases would quickly eat up any savings from lower FHA fees. You can learn more about getting a mortgage (and buying a home) here.

Image: RobertCrum

 

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Portcullis

    3 days ago I posted to the sites that were covering this item and I said “he will take care of it within the week’
    Has anybody actually noticed who was behind the original cut?

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other sponsored content on Credit.com are Partners with Credit.com. Credit.com receives compensation if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any financial products or cards offered.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team