Lenders and servicers generally would want to work with borrowers to avoid foreclosure, which, according to industry estimates, can lead to a loss of as much as 40 percent to 50 percent of the unpaid mortgage balance. Loss mitigation techniques that preserve homeownership are typically less costly than foreclosure, particularly when applied before default. Borrowers who have been current in their payments but could default after reset may be able to work with their lender or servicer to adjust their payments or otherwise change their loans to make them more manageable. Comprehensive data about how many loan workouts and modifications have actually occurred are not available, but some reports suggest that the numbers may be limited thus far.

Given the substantial number of resets from now through the end of 2008, however, I believe it would behoove the industry to join together and explore collaborative, creative efforts to develop prudent loan modification programs and other assistance to help large groups of borrowers systematically.

Second, I believe that modernization of programs administered by the Federal Housing Administration, which has considerable experience helping low- and moderate-income households obtain home financing, could also help avoid foreclosures. FHA modernization could give the agency the flexibility to work with private-sector lenders to expedite the refinancing of creditworthy subprime borrowers and to design products that improve affordability through such features as variable maturities or shared appreciation.

Third, we must pursue initiatives to prevent these problems from recurring, and the Federal Reserve is making strides in this direction. ... For example, as I mentioned earlier, failure to escrow for taxes and insurance can lead to a situation akin to payment shock for borrowers. It is a common practice for these payments to be escrowed in the prime markets, and I see no reason that escrows should not be standard practice in the subprime markets too.

On the lender side, the originate-to-distribute model can leave lenders with weaker incentives to maintain strong underwriting standards. In particular, originators who securitize may inadequately screen potential borrowers unless investors provide oversight and insist on practices that align originator incentives with the underlying risk. The originate-to-distribute system is thus not only a potential source of risk to the financial system but also raises concerns regarding consumer protection.

[I]t is important that new laws carefully target lending abuses without unduly restraining responsible lending.  Getting this balance right is particularly critical now, as many borrowers facing rate adjustments may need to refinance into more affordable loans.  

To the extent possible, efforts should be made to avoid foreclosure. We encourage servicers to reach out to financially stressed homeowners, to make every effort to keep them in their homes. Lenders and servicers, for example, may be able to assist troubled borrowers by modifying the loan, deferring payments, extending the loan maturities, converting an adjustable-rate mortgage to a fixed-rate or fully-indexed loan, or capitalizing delinquent amounts. The best outcome is a loss mitigation strategy that results in a mortgage obligation that the borrower can meet in a sustained manner.

To me, the uncertainties about how financial conditions might evolve and affect the real economy mean that risk management considerations have an important role in the current policy environment. The cutback in nonconforming mortgage originations and the continued high level of inventories of unsold homes will result in further weakness in housing markets. Under one scenario, the effects on overall growth will be fairly isolated to declines in residential construction similar to our experience in 2006 and early 2007. However, there is a less benign possibility. Housing demand and prices could weaken a good deal more than we expect either because a new shock hits the sector or because we have underestimated the weakness already in train. A more pronounced downturn could weigh more heavily on consumer spending. In addition, further delinquencies and foreclosures could add to the problems with mortgage-backed securities. This, in turn, could generate further adverse effects on financial conditions that support economic activity. Together, such events would pose a more serious downside risk to growth. I want to emphasize that I do not see this extreme outcome as likely. But it is one of those high cost outcomes that we should guard against.

In addition to providing consumers with better information, the Federal Reserve plans to exercise its rule-making authority under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) to address unfair or deceptive mortgage lending practices. We plan to propose rules by the end of this year that would apply to subprime loans offered by all mortgage lenders. The practices that may be addressed involve prepayment penalties, stated-income lending, failure to require escrows for taxes and insurance, and making loans without regard to the borrower's ability to repay.    

The elevated defaults we have already seen on recent vintages of subprime mortgages have resulted in losses for the highest risk tiers, and have caused investors to sell higher quality securities at a discount, reflecting uncertainty surrounding the accuracy of the investment-grade rating. If the ratings were accurate, highly rated securities containing subprime debt would have only a remote chance of default similar to investment-grade securities containing prime mortgages, home equity loans, or student loans. Unfortunately, underlying assumptions for the subprime market were inaccurate for several reasons I'll describe.

First and most importantly, most parties involved in the process assumed that house prices would continue rising nationally. This assumption seems to have had the biggest impact on the situation we see today. ... Second, the subprime market has grown very rapidly in recent years, so such widespread use of subprime mortgages is a relatively new phenomenon. This limited history made it difficult to assess the likelihood of defaults if underlying economic conditions changed. And third, the increased reliance on mortgage brokers who originated the loans but had little stake after they were securitized was a departure from the traditional buy-and-hold strategy of many financial institutions. These brokers typically are compensated based on volumes of loans made and sometimes on the rates and fees as well; as a result, the brokers have few incentives to worry about the longer-term viability of the mortgage.

Defaults in the subprime market have resulted in even the most secure tranches of subprime securitizations selling at a sizable discount. Investors are now questioning the appropriateness of surrogate securitization, contemplating more independent analysis of the securities and underlying assets and the need to distinguish between securitizations with different underlying assets. These are appropriate considerations, to be sure, but until they are more confident, investors have been shying away from even investment-grade securitization. The problems in securitization are highlighted by the impact on jumbo mortgage loans. Because of difficulties in securitization, the cost of these loans has risen significantly. This is particularly a problem in New England where the price of housing is quite high.

To better understand the subprime issue, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston has been studying publicly-available information from the Registries of Deeds in New England states, which allows us to study the patterns of mortgages issued on a given house over time. ... A first finding is that recent foreclosures have been disproportionately related to multi-family dwellings... This highlights a potentially serious problem for tenants, who may not have known that the owner might be in a precarious financial position. Second, the Banks research shows that the duration of a subprime mortgages is on average quite short for a sample of subprime mortgages used to purchase a home between 1999 and 2004, two-thirds have prepaid within two years and almost 90 percent have prepaid within three years. Prepayment will occur if the home is refinanced or if it is sold. While some of those sales may have been under difficult circumstances, it is plausible that many borrowers who purchased homes with subprime products did benefit from the appreciation of home prices in New England that occurred over the last decade.

In our research, we looked at what happened to homeowners who used subprime loans to buy their homes and found that five years later, 90 percent were either still in their house or had profitably sold it.  While our research also shows that number will likely be lower for the most recent vintages, which already exhibit elevated defaults, most subprime buyers have a positive experience with homeownership. So, perhaps the most critical issue is that financing that supports responsible subprime lending continues, despite recent problems. Since the broker channel has been disrupted, as described earlier, I believe there is an opportunity for commercial and savings banks to help provide liquidity in this market. Most commercial and savings banks were not involved in originating subprime mortgages and are well capitalized, and may have profitable opportunities to explore in this market.

I am hopeful that financial institutions will play an important role in providing financing for many of the borrowers facing higher rates as their mortgages reset. In the past, rate-resets may not have been as problematic as they could be now, because borrowers had an easier time refinancing or selling. As we look at the situation now, we want to see borrowers continue to have the option to refinance, and want to see lenders continue lending so that resets do not become an increasing problem. As I said a moment ago, perhaps the most critical issue is that financing that supports responsible subprime lending continue.

Although this episode of financial turmoil is still unfolding, my preliminary judgment is that there are no new lessons. Weak underwriting practices put far too many borrowers into unsuitable mortgages. As borrowers default, they suffer the consequences of foreclosure and loss of whatever equity they had in their homes. It is painful to have to move, especially under such forced circumstances. Investors are suffering heavy losses. There is no new lesson here: Sound mortgage underwriting should always be based on analysis of the borrower’s capacity to repay and not on the assumption that a bad loan can be recovered through foreclosure without loss because of rising property values.

The other aspect of the current financial turmoil that reaffirms an old lesson is that it is risky to finance long-term assets with short-term liabilities.

The Federal Reserve has neither the power nor the desire to bail out bad investments. We do have the responsibility to do what we can to maintain normal financial market processes. What that means, in my view, is that we want to see restoration of active trading in assets of all sorts and in all risk classes. It is for the market to judge whether securities backed by subprime mortgages are worth 20 cents on the dollar, or 50 cents, or 100 cents. Obviously, the market will judge different subprime assets differently, based on careful analysis of the underlying mortgages. That process will take time, as it is expensive to conduct the analysis that good mortgage underwriting would have conducted in the first place. Although there is a substantial distance to go, restoration of normal spreads and trading activity appears to be under way, and we can be confident that in time the market will straighten out the problems. We do not know, however, how much time will be required for us to be able to say that the current episode is over.

The government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are, to a limited extent, assisting in subprime refinancings and should be encouraged to provide products for subprime borrowers to the extent permitted by their charters.  However, the GSE charters are likely to limit the ability of the GSEs to serve any but the most creditworthy subprime borrowers.  Indeed, if GSE programs remove the strongest borrowers from the pool, the risks faced by other programs--such as a modernized FHA program--could be increased.

Some have suggested that the GSEs could help restore functioning in the secondary markets for non-conforming mortgages (specifically jumbo mortgages, those with principal value greater than $417,000) if the conforming-loan limits were raised.   However, in my view, the reason that GSE securitizations are well-accepted in the secondary market is because they come with GSE-provided guarantees of financial performance, which market participants appear to treat as backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, even though this federal guarantee does not exist.  Evidently, market participants believe that, in the event of the failure of a GSE, the government would have no alternative but to come to the rescue.  The perception, however inaccurate, that the GSEs are fully government-backed implies that investors have few incentives in their role as counterparties or creditors to act to constrain GSE risk-taking.  Raising the conforming-loan limit would expand this implied guarantee to another portion of the mortgage market, reducing market discipline further.