[The originate-to-distribute system] broke down at a number of key points, including at the stages of underwriting, credit rating and investor due diligence ... These problems notwithstanding, the originate-to-distribute model has proven effective in the past and with adequate repairs could be so again in the future.

From Q&A as reported by Reuters

To date, permanent modifications in this credit cycle episode, as in the past, have typically involved a reduction in the interest rate or an extension of the loan terms, while reductions of principal balance have been quite rare. But the current housing difficulties differ from those in the past, largely because of the pervasiveness of situations known as negative equity positions in which the amount owed on the mortgage exceeds the current market value of the property. A distressed borrower with a negative equity position may have neither the means nor the incentive to remain in the home. In this environment, servicers and investors may well find principal reductions that restore some equity for at-risk homeowners to be an effective means of avoiding delinquency and foreclosure.

Although principal write-downs may be especially germane today given the prevalence of negative equity positions, they are not necessary or appropriate for all borrowers who have negative home equity or who become delinquent on their mortgage. On the contrary, a strategy of targeting write-downs to certain groups of borrowers may provide the best path forward. For example, one possibility would be to limit the availability of write-downs to those borrowers with high debt payment-to-income ratios and loan-to-value ratios significantly in excess of 100 percent before loan modification, but with the capacity to carry a written-down mortgage. In any event, it seems clear that principal reductions should be part of the tool kit that servicers and investors bring to bear as they deal with delinquent loans.

Separately, the GSEs--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--could be asked to do more. Recently, the Congress has greatly expanded Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's role in the mortgage market by temporarily increasing the conforming loan limits for these GSEs. In addition, their federal regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, has lifted some of the constraints that were imposed on these entities because they have resolved some of their recent accounting and operational problems. Thus, now is an especially appropriate time to ask the GSEs to move quickly to raise more capital, which they will need to take advantage of these new securitization and investment opportunities, to provide assistance to the housing markets in times of stress, and to do so in a safe and sound manner. As the GSEs expand their roles in our mortgage market, there is a strong need for the Congress to move forward on GSE reform legislation, including the creation of a world-class GSE regulator.

With modernization and expansion, the FHA could play an important role in relieving stress in the mortgage and housing markets as well as in restarting securitization markets. Securitization markets are needed to help relieve capital stresses on banks and to provide more affordable mortgages to borrowers. To this end, more consideration needs to be given to how the FHA can scale up quickly and improve its processes and underwriting systems so that they are comparable in quality with those currently being used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, providing the FHA with broad authority to offer innovative products that meet market needs and to outsource loan underwriting and other program elements to private-sector providers could allow the FHA to insure more mortgage borrowers and to do so more quickly. The FHA needs to be better able to compete in today's marketplace and it needs access to the best risk-management tools available when managing the risks to the government.

While much attention has focused on interest rate resets as a trigger for delinquencies and defaults—particularly on loans with artificially low introductory rates—so far they have not played a significant role. This is not to say, however, that resets won’t matter. In 2008, about 1.5 million loans are scheduled to reset.

The proposed requirement to assess repayment ability is intended to protect consumers from abusive practices while maintaining their access to responsible credit. We recognize that satisfying both objectives at the same time is a challenge. The proposed rule's potential for consumer actions, coupled with its careful avoidance of prescribing quantitative underwriting thresholds, could raise compliance and litigation risk. In turn, this could raise the cost of credit for higher-risk borrowers or limit the availability of responsible credit. That is why we have proposed prohibiting a "pattern or practice" of disregarding repayment ability rather than attaching a risk of legal liability to every individual loan that does not perform. Some commentators have argued that the pattern or practice requirement creates a higher standard of proof that can make it more difficult and costly for consumers to pursue litigation. We have specifically sought comment on this provision and look forward to perspectives offered by the industry and consumer groups.

I was convinced at the time and am convinced now that the level of adjustable-rate mortgages . . . wasn't a serious problem for attracting people into the market who then got caught [by higher rates]. People who had taken out loans in June 2003 at adjustable rates could have converted those to long-term fixed-rate mortgages at a profit over the next 18 months. And people didn't. And the reason they didn't. . . . Put it this way: They should have. I don't know frankly why they didn't. Long-term rates were low. Refinancing would have been a good decision.

If I am guilty of encouraging people to take out adjustable-rate mortgages, I am guilty for 30 days.

On his speech of Feb. 23, 2004, in which he encouraged homeowners to take out adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs, saying he tried to correct those comments on March 2, 2004,

Regarding the mounting levels of debt, encouraged in part by the low cost of borrowing, Greenspan said that he was "reluctant to underestimate the ability of most households and companies to manage their financial affairs."

The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the second world war. It will end eventually when home prices stabilise and with them the value of equity in homes supporting troubled mortgage securities.

In addition to regulations, strong uniform oversight of different types of mortgage lenders is critical to avoiding future problems. Regulatory oversight of mortgage lending has become more challenging as the breadth and depth of this market has grown over the past decade. Other changes, such as the increased role of nonbank mortgage lenders, have added complexity.

Among the practices addressed by our proposal is the use of yield spread premiums (YSPs).⁶ Many consumers use mortgage brokers to guide them through a complex process and shop for the best deal. Unfortunately, consumers may believe that the broker has a responsibility to get them that best deal, which is not necessarily the case. In fact, the design of YSPs may provide the broker a financial incentive to offer a loan with a higher rate. Consumers who do not understand this point may not shop to their best advantage. Therefore, we would prohibit a lender, for both prime and subprime loans, from paying a broker an amount greater than the consumer agrees to in advance. Brokers would also have to disclose their potential conflict of interest. The combination of stricter regulation and better disclosure will not solve all the problems. We do believe, however, that this proposal will give consumers much better information and raise their awareness of brokers' potential conflict of interest while reducing a broker's incentive to steer a consumer to a higher rate.

6.  A YSP is the present dollar value of the difference between the lowest interest rate the wholesale lenders would have accepted on a particular transaction and the interest rate the broker actually obtained for the lender.  This dollar amount is usually paid to the mortgage broker.  It may also be applied to other loan-related costs, but the Board's proposal concerns only the amount paid to the broker. 

In any event, my view is that we should regard recent events in the mortgage market as reflecting the normal process of innovation. The lessons have been expensive and painful, and the pain is not yet over. As with the dot-com bust, where many firms went bankrupt but some sound business models survived, we should expect that successful innovations behind the subprime market will also survive. In time, I believe, we will find that the subprime sector of the mortgage market will be as normal as any other part of the mortgage market.

The public policy problem is the danger that, with the sad record of so many mistakes and abuses in recent years, regulatory burdens designed to end the abuses will do so but only at the cost of making subprime lending so costly and risky to lenders that they will have no interest in restoring this market. We should not forget that market discipline imposed by lenders who have suffered extremely large losses is already making it very difficult for anyone to originate subprime mortgages. In time, if new regulatory burdens do not become too great, we should expect to see new practices become standard.