Je veux savoir à propos de…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

47402

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules
40.7 percent in 2010 to 42.8 percent in 2016, but declined to a low of 37
percent in 2019. Numerous commenters broadly agreed with the description of trends provided in the ANPR and encouraged FHFA to continue to provide data on this issue. A few commenters requested that FHFA
provide additional data pertaining to the race and ethnicity of borrowers for loans that meet this subgoal. Two commenters recommended that FHFA analyze Census Bureau data over the next five years in an effort to determine if displacement is occurring in certain communities. Another commenter recommended that FHFA, in coordination with other regulators, monitor home sales prices, resident incomes, and other data to determine the impact of the subgoal.
Although one commenter recommended leaving the subgoal in its current form, citing its benefits to socioeconomic diversity, several commenters expressed concern about the Enterprises receiving housing goals credit for loans to borrowers who meet no standard other than living in a lowincome area. A number of commenters recommended that FHFA continue to monitor and analyze trends regarding whether the low-income areas home purchase subgoal has resulted in the displacement of residents. Other commenters suggested revising the subgoal to ensure that FHFA allows housing goals credit only for loans to borrowers at or below 80 percent of AMI. One commenter explicitly stated that the housing goals targets should be based only on income, not geography.
Another commenter recommended allowing only a certain percentage of loans above 80 percent of AMI to qualify for the subgoal and encouraged FHFA to analyze the potential impact of different caps i.e., 100 or 125 percent of AMI.
Question 3: Should FHFA revise the low-income areas home purchase subgoal to consider loans on properties located in Opportunity Zones, and if so, how should such loans be treated?
Some commenters supported the idea of the Enterprises receiving housing goals credit for Opportunity Zone loans for low-income borrowers. For example, one commenter favored providing housing goals credit for loans in Opportunity Zones as a way to help encourage affordable housing investment but did not support giving the Enterprises extra or double credit for loans in Opportunity Zones. Other commenters opposed allowing housing goals credit for Opportunity Zone loans due to the relative newness of the program. One of these commenters encouraged FHFA to conduct more
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:13 Aug 24, 2021

Jkt 253001

analysis on the types of housing developments found in Opportunity Zones before offering housing goals credit. Another commenter expressed concern about the ultimate beneficiaries of Opportunity Zones, as well as skepticism that lowor moderateincome households or communities would benefit from the program.
Question 4: Is there evidence that the Enterprise housing goals have helped expand low-income homeownership in the marketplace?
FHFA received a number of comments emphasizing the value of the housing goals over time and the importance of maintaining Enterprise focus on these segments of the market.
Some commenters stated that there has been a positive impact on low-income homeownership and the housing goals have expanded access to low-income households. Other commenters noted that the housing goals are foundational to the mission of the Enterprises, as laid out in the statute and their charters.
Another commenter argued for the importance of the housing goals in incentivizing lending to low-income borrowers.
One commenter stated that the housing goals have served as a catalyst for expanding banks abilities to serve lowand moderate-income borrowers.
Another commenter stated that the housing goals have contributed to increases in Latino home ownership.
The commenter also described the benefits of the Enterprises efforts to standardize eligibility criteria and underwriting factors, enabling more low-income households to obtain credit.
The commenter also urged FHFA to monitor mortgage servicing standards and, if necessary, provide notice of any mortgage relief or loss mitigation options to ensure that servicers of Enterprise-backed loans proactively help homeowners who are struggling with payments.
Several commenters encouraged FHFA to establish higher or more rigorous housing goals. One of the commenters argued that the Enterprises could better serve the manufactured housing market segment through purchasing chattel home loans and homes settled as real estate. Another commenter encouraged FHFA to support manufactured home consumer lending through the Enterprise housing goals and the Duty to Serve program.
A number of commenters encouraged FHFA to review its policies to ensure there are no unnecessary barriers to meeting the housing goals and serving low-income households. One commenter specifically focused on the price of guarantee fees because pricing
PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

structures can impact whether a creditworthy borrower can afford a mortgage. The commenter highlighted the impact that guarantee fees have with respect to pooling risk, eliminating excessive risk-based pricing, and encouraging greater access to sustainable homeownership.
Although the majority of the commenters expressed support for the housing goals, one commenter argued that they have not been successful and that the rates of homeownership for low-income households have declined over the last 30 years. The commenter recommended that FHFA address risklayering i.e., mortgages with multiple characteristics associated with higher risk by limiting Enterprise acquisitions of mortgages for low-income borrowers to mortgages with a projected mortgage default rate of less than 14 percent and by encouraging 20-year instead of 30year mortgages. Another commenter expressed the belief that the housing goals have had a minimal effect on lowincome homeownership. The commenter argued that the mortgages captured by the housing goals are not excessively risky and would have been made in the absence of the housing goals. The commenter also argued that there is no evidence that the housing goals have created a lower-priced or more affordable mortgage.
Other Comments There were additional topics that commenters raised in responses to the ANPR. For example, a number of commenters claimed that their responses to certain questions specifically, those concerning whether there are categories of loans that should be excluded from the housing goals, the impact of the low-income areas home purchase subgoal, and the impact of the Enterprise housing goals over time were affected by insufficient access to data. These commenters asserted that they would have been able to better respond to the questions in the ANPR if they had access to additional and more comprehensive data about the composition of housing goals loans and the historical performance of those loans. One commenter suggested supplementing existing reports like the Annual Housing Report with data on the risk characteristics and the performance of loans that receive housing goals credit.
Several commenters focused on the racial homeownership gap between White households and Black or Latino households and emphasized the importance of homeownership to family wealth. The commenters cited the persistently lower rates of
E:FRFM25AUP1.SGM

25AUP1