The Economic Effects of Legal Restrictions on High-Cost Mortgages

Article

Abstract

We analyze the effects of state predatory mortgage lending laws, which have been a model for recent changes in the United States federal legislation enacted to regulate the mortgage contract terms common in higher-risk mortgage market segments. Using the Rothschild-Stiglitz approach to model credit markets under asymmetric information, legal restrictions are shown to reduce the use and attractiveness of mortgage credit. Consistent with model predictions, empirical results indicate that originations of regulated high-cost mortgages were significantly less than predicted in states with more restrictive laws. The differences between predicted and actual originations of high-cost mortgages in states with less restrictive laws were not significant. These differences were also not significant for non-high-cost originations across all states. Thus, credit regulation was differentially associated with reduction in originations of high-cost mortgages, and non-high-cost lending did not consistently expand in areas where high-cost mortgages were restricted.

Keywords

Dodd-Frank Act High-cost mortgages Mortgage credit Prepayment penalties Subprime lending 

References

  1. Avery, R.B., Canner, G.B., Cook, R.E. (2005). New information from HMDA and some implications for fair-lending enforcement. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 91, 344–394.Google Scholar
  2. Bhardwaj, G., & Sengupta, R. (2008). Did prepayments sustain the subprime market? Working paper 2008-039B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: St. Louis Missouri.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, J.R., Cordes, J.J., Yezer, A.M.J. (1979). Financial institution regulations, redlining and mortgage markets. In: The regulation of financial institutions (pp. 101–143). Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.Google Scholar
  4. Blitz, R.C., & Long, M.F. (1965). The economics of usury regulation. Journal of Political Economy, 73, 608–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond, P., Musto, D.K., Yilmaz, B. (2009). Predatory mortgage lending. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(3), 412–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bostic, R.W., Engel, K.C., McCoy, P.A., Pennington-Cross, A.N., Wachter, S.M. (2008). State and local anti-predatory lending laws: the effect of legal enforcement mechanisms. Journal of Economics and Business, 60, 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brueckner, J.K. (1994). Borrower mobility, adverse selection, and mortgage points. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 3, 416–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brueckner, J.K. (2000). Mortgage default with asymmetric information. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 20(3), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burnett, K., Finkel, M., Kaul, B. (2004). Mortgage lending in North Carolina after the anti-predatory lending law: Final report. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Abt Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Calem, P.S., Gillen, K., Wachter, S.M. (2004). The neighborhood distribution of subprime lending. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29, 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calomiris, C.W., & Mason, J.R. (1998). High loan-to-value mortgage lending. Washington: AEI Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chari, V.V., & Jagannathan, R. (1989). Adverse selection in a model of real estate lending. Journal of Finance, 44(2), 499–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsisengphet, S., & Pennington-Cross, A.N. (2006). The evolution of the subprime mortgage market (Vol. 88). Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review.Google Scholar
  14. Corbae, D., & Quintin, E. (2011). Mortgage innovation and the foreclosure boom. Working Paper: University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Texas A&M.Google Scholar
  15. Courchane, M., Surette, B., Zorn, P. (2004). Subprime borrowers: mortgage transitions and outcomes. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29(4), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cutts, A.C., & van Order, R.A. (2005). On the economics of subprime lending. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 30(2), 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Danis, M.A., & Pennington-Cross, A.N. (2008). The delinquency of subprime mortgages. Journal of Economics and Business, 60(1–2), 47–66.Google Scholar
  18. Deng, Y., Quigley, J., van Order, R.A. (2000). Mortgage termination, heterogeneity, and the exercise of mortgage options. Econometrica, 68, 275–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeMong, R.F. (2004). The impact of the New Jersey home ownership security act of 2002. Working paper. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia, McIntitre School of Commerce.Google Scholar
  20. Dunn, K.B., & Spatt, C.S. (1985). An analysis of mortgage contracting: prepayment penalties and the due-on-sale clause. Journal of Finance, 40(1), 293–308.Google Scholar
  21. Elliehausen, G., & Staten, M.E. (2001). The impact of the Federal Reserve Board’s proposed revisions to HOEPA on the number and characteristics of HOEPA loans. FSRP Working paper 61. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  22. Elliehausen, G., & Staten, M.E. (2004). Regulation of subprime mortgage products: an analysis of North Carolina’s predatory lending law. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29, 411–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elliehausen, G., Staten, M.E., Steinbuks, J. (2008). The effect of prepayment penalties on the pricing of subprime mortgages. Journal of Economics and Business, 60(1–2), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ernst, K., Farris, J., Stein, E. (2002). North Carolina’s subprime home loan market after predatory lending reform. Durham, NC: Center for Responsible Lending.Google Scholar
  25. Gerardi, K., Lehnert, A., Sherlund, S., Willen, P. (2008). Making sense of the subprime crisis. Brookings papers on economic activity (pp. 69–145).Google Scholar
  26. Harvey, K.D., & Nigro, P.J. (2004). Do predatory lending laws influence mortgage lending? An analysis of the North Carolina predatory lending law. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 29, 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ho, G., & Pennington-Cross, A.N. (2005). The impact of local predatory lending laws. Working paper 2005-049B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: St. Louis Missouri.Google Scholar
  28. Ho, G., & Pennington-Cross, A.N. (2006a). The impact of local predatory lending laws on the flow of subprime credit. Working paper 2006-009A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: St. Louis Missouri.Google Scholar
  29. Ho, G., & Pennington-Cross, A.N. (2006b). The impact of local predatory lending laws on the flow of subprime credit. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(2), 210–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ho, G., & Pennington-Cross, A.N. (2006c). The termination of subprime hybrid and fixed rate mortgages. Working paper 2006-042A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: St. Louis Missouri.Google Scholar
  31. Kau, J.B., & Keenan, D.C. (1995). An overview of the option-theoretic pricing of mortgages. Journal of Housing Research, 6, 217–244.Google Scholar
  32. LeRoy, S.F. (1996). Mortgage valuation under optimal prepayment. Review of Financial Studies, 9(3), 817–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacKinlay, A.C. (1997). Event studies in economics and finance. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 13–39.Google Scholar
  34. Mayer, C., Piskorski, T., Tchistyi, A. (2012). The inefficiency of refinancing: why prepayment penalties are good for risky borrowers. Journal of Financial Economics. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.10.003.Google Scholar
  35. Mortgage Bankers Association (2010). Summary of mortgage related provisions of the Dodd-Frank wall street reform and consumer protection act. Resource document. Retrieved from http://www.mbaa.org/files/ResourceCenter/MIRA/MBASummaryofDoddFrank.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2013.
  36. Phillips-Patrick, F., Hirschorn, E., Jones, J., LaRocca, J. (2000). What about subprime mortgages? Mortgage market trends (Vol. 4). US Department of the Treasury: Office of Thrift Supervision.Google Scholar
  37. Quercia, R.G., Stegman, M.A., Davis, W.R. (2004). Assessing the impact of North Carolina’s predatory lending law. Housing policy debate, 15, 573–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rothschild, M., & Stiglitz, J.E. (1976). Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: an essay on the economics of imperfect information. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(4), 629–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stanton, R., & Wallace, N. (1998). Mortgage choice: what’s the point? Real estate economics, 26(2), 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steinbuks, J. (2008). Essays on regulation and imperfections in financial markets. Ph.D. Dissertation, George Washington University.Google Scholar
  41. Yang, T.L. (1992). Self-selection in the fixed-rate mortgage market. Real Estate Economics, 20(3), 359–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yezer, A.M., Phillips, R.F., Trost, R.P. (1994). Bias in estimates of discrimination and default in mortgage lending: The effects of simultaneity and self-selection. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 9(3), 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Federal Reserve Board of GovernorsWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations