NAR_grey_logo-01

Planning Done: Measuring the QM Rule’s Impact

The qualified mortgage (QM) rule was implemented in January of 2014. It is the first of two rules that came from the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that will impact the housing market. This law is intended to protect consumers by strengthening underwriting standards, but some have argued that the rules will raise costs and reduce access for consumers. To gain insight on the impact of the new law, NAR Research surveyed a sample of lenders with questions about the impact of the lending on their business and how the rule could in turn impact consumers.

On Friday, January 10th, 2014, the requirements of the ability to repay and qualified mortgage (QM) rule went into effect. The Dodd-Frank act requires that originators make a good faith effort to verify a borrower’s ability to repay (ATR) their mortgage and imposes stiff penalties if they do not. The QM rule allows for varying degrees of assumed compliance with the ability to repay rule, which is advantageous to lenders as it allows them to minimize and to budget for potential penalties and litigation expenses. All mortgage applications received on or after January 10th are required to comply with the QM rule which includes full documentation of income, assets and employment, a maximum of 3% for points and fees, a cap of 43% on the back-end debt-to-income ratio, and limitations on the type of mortgage products that qualify and prepayment penalties among other requirements.

Here are some highlights from the survey:

  • When asked about the extent of the QM rule’s impact, 55% of survey respondents indicated that the QM rule would affect 2.6% to 20% of their originations.
  • The 3% cap on points and fees was the feature of the new rule that most concerned respondents as 60% indicated that they were “very concerned”.
  • A strong majority of respondents indicated that they would defer to investors preferences on how to treat non-QM loans, but 45% indicated that they would not originate non-QM mortgages.
  • Roughly a fifth of respondents did not know whether or not they would charge non-QM borrowers higher rates, but the most frequently cited change for prime and near-prime borrowers was an increase of 50 to 75 basis points and 150 basis points for sub-prime.
  • Relative to 2013, respondents indicated a high reluctance to originate mortgages with non-QM features and their aversion toward originating non-QM loans increased as credit scores declined. They also indicated an elevated reticence to originate mortgages that fit into the rebuttable presumption definition of the QM rule and even some hesitance to originate safe harbor QM mortgages.
  • A significant share of respondents indicated that they would impose buffers in advance of the 43% back-end debt-to-income ratio, the 3% cap on points and fees, and the limitation on the annual percentage rate to within 150 basis points over the average prime offer for eligibility with the safe harbor definition of the QM.
  • In response to the new rule, the vast majority of respondents plan to increase staff and expenditures on compliance software. In addition, 11% will shutter affiliated title insurance or other companies.
  • Finally, 16.7% of respondents indicated that they had already adapted to the rule, while 44.4% would be ready within three months. Nearly a third of respondents indicated that it would take three to six months before they had adapted, but all would be ready within one year.

What does this change mean for REALTORS and consumers? Consumers should expect to have to document their income, employment and resources. If your client has a high debt-to-income ratio, the FHA as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be more lenient than private financers. However, if your client falls under one of the other aspects of the non-QM space or even the rebuttable presumption portion of the QM space (e.g. high fees, subprime, interest only, etc.) your client might require help finding a specialty lender. Consider finding a few lenders who specialize in financing these special cases at affordable rates so that you can meet your client’s needs if the time comes.
For the full survey, click here.

Ken Fears, Manager, Regional Economics and Housing Finance Policy

Ken Fears is the Manager of Regional Economics and Housing Finance Policy. He focuses on regional and local market trends found in the Local Market Reports and the Market Watch Reports . He also writes on developments in the mortgage industry and foreclosures.

More Posts

Comments
  1. Steve

    Based on the housing data coming out recently it is tough to know how the market will progress in the 1st half of 2014. This article is helpful, in terms of understanding how lenders view the new rules. My question is this – what affect is the new legislation having on credit availability for home buyers? And to what extent is the affect influencing the number of home sales? Any thoughts on this are appreciated.

  2. T.J. Doyle, Marketing & Communications Manager

    Good questions Steve. This survey summarizes lenders initial plans and the impact on lending at the time the QM was implemented. It will take a few months before we know the full impact of lender overlays in relation to the QM rule. However, there are other issues impacting the spring market which should not be understated. The sharp rise in prices and mortgage rates relative to last year have certainly taxed buyers and the low inventories, while good for sustaining price momentum, is leaving many consumers underwhelmed with options for the biggest purchase of their lives. We will survey lenders again in the few months to estimate the actual impact of QM in terms of sales lost.

  3. Sam Carkhuff

    Dodd-Frank, QRM and all the rest of it is laughable given the fact that those two birds and their “friends” in Congress created the mess this nonsense is supposed to “fix”. Oh, it’s real and a fact of life now but it was all unnecessary given the market manipulation the politicians engaged in to suit their theoretical view of homeownership. Cash for Clunkers comes to mind which destroyed the used car market. I can’t wait for the next idiot government program to come along intended to “help” the housing market. I’m thinking Son of Affordable Homeownership Act. Oops, that sounds frighteningly like ACA. Sorry!

ADD YOUR COMMENT