Are Higher Credit Scores Being Punished? The Mortgage Fee Policy That’s Sparking Debate

You’ve diligently paid your bills on time, and your credit score is proof of your responsible financial behavior. But what if you suddenly find yourself penalized for having good credit?

That’s the predicament many borrowers now face due to a recent change in the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) mortgage fee policy. This controversial new rule has sparked criticism from those who believe responsible borrowers with higher credit scores are being unfairly targeted. In contrast, those with lower credit are given a leg up in the housing market.

As you dive into the world of homebuying, it’s crucial to understand how these new fees will impact your mortgage application process and overall financial planning.

We will explain the rationale behind the FHFA’s mortgage fee adjustments and explore the potential consequences for homebuyers and the broader housing market. 

Is this policy change a step towards leveling the playing field for first-time buyers and minorities who have historically faced challenges in the housing market, or is it simply encouraging irresponsible behavior at the expense of those who have worked diligently to maintain good credit?

Let’s find out.

What is Happening? 

So, why are folks with solid credit scores feeling the heat? The new rule on mortgage fees attempts to address credit disparities and affordability concerns in the housing market.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) intends to promote equity and enhance first-time homebuyers’ and minorities’ access to housing by increasing fees for borrowers with higher credit scores and decreasing them for those with lower scores.However, this policy shift has sparked criticism, with some arguing that it punishes responsible borrowers and encourages irresponsible behavior.

The policy implications of this new rule extend beyond the immediate impact on borrowers with good credit. By redistributing fees this way, the FHFA asks those with higher credit scores to subsidize loans for riskier borrowers. While this may help address some affordability issues in the short term, it raises questions about the long-term consequences of such a policy, particularly regarding risk management.

Critics argue that this approach could encourage banks to lend to unqualified borrowers and increase the likelihood of another financial crisis. However, despite these concerns, it’s essential to recognize that borrowers with higher credit scores will still generally enjoy lower mortgage payments than those with lower scores.

Moreover, the new framework is just one piece of a larger puzzle in addressing housing affordability and access. Nonetheless, the unintended consequences of this policy shift cannot be ignored. As the debate continues, it will be crucial for policymakers to carefully consider both the immediate and long-term impacts of their decisions on borrowers, lenders, and the overall stability of the housing market.

Diving Into The New Fees

Let’s dive into the controversy surrounding these mortgage fee changes and how they affect borrowers with good credit. The crux of the issue lies in the perceived redistribution of credit from responsible borrowers to those with riskier loans.

Critics argue that the fee changes punish responsible borrowers by making them pay more and encourage riskier borrowers to take on loans they may not be able to afford, potentially leading to another financial crisis. On the other hand, proponents of the changes say they’re intended to improve mortgage accessibility for those who have historically had a more challenging time obtaining credit, such as first-time homebuyers and minority borrowers.

While it’s true that the new fees will result in some borrowers with higher credit scores paying more, it’s essential to consider the broader context. Housing affordability has become an increasingly pressing issue in recent years, and it’s particularly challenging for those who still need to establish credit histories or the ability to make large down payments.

By adjusting the fees, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) hopes to level the playing field and make homeownership more attainable for these disadvantaged groups. However, whether this approach will ultimately achieve its goals and whether the potential risks outweigh the benefits.

Let’s consider another example focusing on the issue mentioned, where borrowers with down payments between 5% and 25% will pay more in fees than those who put down less than 5% of the home value.

Suppose there are two homebuyers, Alice and Bob. Both of them want to purchase a house priced at $300,000 and have a credit score of 680. Alice decides to put down a 20% down payment ($60,000) on her mortgage, while Bob plans to put down a 4% down payment ($12,000) on his mortgage.

Under the new fee structure, Alice, with a 20% down payment, will be charged an LLPA of 1.5% (since her credit score is 680). This means she will pay $3,600 in fees on her loan amount of $240,000 ($240,000 * 1.5%).

On the other hand, Bob, with a 4% down payment, will be charged a lower LLPA of 1.25% (also because his credit score is 680). 

This means he will pay $3,600 in fees on his loan amount of $288,000 ($288,000 * 1.25%).

In this example, even though Alice has made a larger down payment and is considered less risky, she ends up paying the same amount in fees as Bob, who made a smaller down payment and is considered riskier. The new fee structure has led to a situation where borrowers like Alice, who are generally considered less risky due to their larger down payments, end up paying more or the same in fees compared to those with smaller down payments. 

This is the issue that many experts are calling foul on, as it contradicts the traditional risk-based pricing model.

Although some say it still rewards higher credit scores. Let’s create a new example to illustrate the section explaining how the new price structure rewards higher-credit-score borrowers with lower fees.

Suppose there are two homebuyers, Carol and David, who are both interested in purchasing a house priced at $250,000. They each plan to put down a 5% down payment ($12,500). However, Carol has a credit score of 760, while David has a credit score of 660.

Under the new fee structure, Carol, with her higher credit score of 760, will be charged an LLPA of 0.5%. This means she will pay $1,187.50 in fees on her loan amount of $237,500 ($237,500 * 0.5%).

On the other hand, David, with his lower credit score of 660, will be charged a higher LLPA of 1.625%. This means he will pay $3,859.38 in fees on his loan amount of $237,500 ($237,500 * 1.625%).

In this example, the new price structure rewards Carol, who has a higher credit score, with lower fees. Despite both borrowers having the same down payment and loan amount, Carol pays significantly less in fees compared to David, whose credit score is lower. 

This demonstrates that under the new fee structure, fee percentages decline as credit scores rise, continuing to reward higher-credit-score borrowers with lower fees.

Overall, it’s essential to carefully weigh the arguments on both sides and consider the long-term implications of these mortgage fee changes. While the intent to increase mortgage accessibility for underserved groups is commendable, it’s crucial to strike a balance that doesn’t penalize responsible borrowers or encourage risky behavior.

Policymakers and industry experts will need to closely monitor the effects of these changes and be prepared to make adjustments as necessary to ensure the stability and fairness of the mortgage market for all borrowers.

What One Expert Believes

In a thought-provoking Benzinga article, Peter Schiff, the CEO and chief global strategist at Euro Pacific Capital, expressed his concerns about the new mortgage fee rules under the Biden administration’s Federal Housing Finance Agency. Schiff, known for his astute prediction of the 2008 financial crisis, suggests that these changes encourage riskier behavior and may undermine the solvency of America’s banks.

Schiff wryly advised those with good credit scores, saying, “Just miss a few payments, screw up your credit score. That will help your mortgage rate.” This paradoxical situation is highlighted by the ironic comment that some borrowers with high credit scores may end up paying higher fees than those with lower credit scores. 

He went on to criticize the rule change, noting, “This new rule encourages people to make smaller down payments than they might otherwise have made. Normally, if you make a big down payment, you get a better rate. But now, Biden wants the better rates to go to people that don’t make a big down payment.” Schiff points out that these changes may lead to more people becoming homeowners, but at the expense of the stability of the banking system.

Schiff’s ominous warning, “The worst part about this is that it’s going to further undermine the solvency of our banking system because banks are going to be encouraged and actually required to make more loans to riskier borrowers, which means more mortgages are going to end up in default,” serves as a sobering reminder of the potential consequences of these new rules. 

By shining a light on these concerns, Schiff’s perspective invites us to consider the long-term implications of the changes to mortgage fees and whether they may ultimately be doing more harm than good.

The FHFA Releases a Statement to Clear the Air

In a world where misconceptions are abundant, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has taken it upon themselves to clear the air surrounding the recent changes to the pricing framework of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Releasing a statement that goes over the misconceptions being reported.

The first misconception lies in the belief that higher-credit-score borrowers are being charged more so that lower-credit-score borrowers can pay less. The fact remains that the revised fees, similar to the previous ones, typically rise as credit scores decline for a specific down payment amount.

The second misconception is the idea that the updated fees are either pure increases for low-risk borrowers or pure decreases for high-risk borrowers. In actuality, several borrowers with high credit scores or substantial down payments will experience a reduction in their fees or see no change at all.

The third misconception assumes that the prior pricing framework was perfectly calibrated to risk, despite the fact that many years have passed since it was last comprehensively reviewed. The updated fees will be more closely matched with the anticipated long-term financial performance of those mortgages concerning their associated risks.

The fourth misconception is that the new framework incentivizes borrowers to make lower down payments to benefit from lower fees. Nonetheless, borrowers who make a down payment less than 20% of the home’s value usually pay mortgage insurance premiums, which must be included in the Enterprises’ fees when assessing a borrower’s overall expenses.

Lastly, the changes to the pricing framework were not designed to stimulate mortgage demand, contrary to some beliefs. The objectives of the pricing review were publicly announced, and stimulating demand was never a goal.

By debunking these misconceptions, the FHFA aims to illuminate the path to a more resilient housing finance system, fostering safety and soundness, and helping the Enterprises achieve their mission to provide affordable, sustainable mortgage credit for all Americans.

How New Homebuyers Are Affected

You might be wondering how these mortgage fee changes will directly affect homebuyers like yourself. The impact on affordability will be felt differently by borrowers depending on their credit scores, down payments, and other factors.

Credit score disparities will be slightly reduced, as borrowers with lower credit scores will pay less in fees while those with higher scores will pay more. Despite seeming counterintuitive, the objective is to promote fairness and provide better access to housing for first-time buyers and minorities by implementing this strategy. However, this has led to concerns about riskier lending practices and the potential for another financial crisis.

As mortgage market changes continue to evolve, some experts argue that the new fees could encourage banks to lend to unqualified borrowers, putting the housing market at risk. On the other hand, proponents of the new policy assert that the changes are necessary for creating a more equitable and sustainable housing market.

The debate over the effectiveness of these new rules is ongoing, and the ultimate outcome may depend on how well they are implemented and monitored by regulators.

It’s essential for you, as a homebuyer, to stay informed about these changes and understand how they can affect your mortgage costs. Keep in mind that despite the new fees, having a higher credit score will still generally lead to lower payments. It’s crucial to maintain responsible borrowing behaviors and make sound financial decisions when purchasing a home.

While the policy’s effectiveness remains a topic of debate, your focus should be on what you can control – your credit score, down payment, and overall financial health.

So, Is the Change Good or Bad?

Ultimately, whether these changes are beneficial depends on your perspective and personal circumstances, as the adjustments aim to level the playing field but also stir up concerns about riskier lending practices.

Proponents of the new rules argue that they promote equitable homeownership by reducing credit disparities and improving access to housing for first-time buyers and minorities. However, critics assert that by raising fees for borrowers with higher credit scores, the changes effectively force responsible borrowers to subsidize the risks associated with less creditworthy applicants.

One concern is that these changes may encourage irresponsible borrowing, as borrowers with lower credit scores will have reduced upfront fees, potentially leading to a higher rate of default. Additionally, higher fees for responsible borrowers may discourage them from entering the housing market, causing market consequences such as lower demand and reduced home prices.

On the other hand, the new framework aims to improve affordability in a housing market that has become increasingly difficult for many buyers, especially those without substantial credit histories.

While the new fee structure does raise some concerns, it is important to remember that higher credit scores will still lead to lower mortgage payments overall. The adjustments do not completely eliminate the benefits of responsible borrowing, but they do redistribute some of the costs in an effort to improve access to homeownership for those who have historically had a harder time obtaining credit.

As the housing market continues to evolve, it will be crucial to monitor the impact of these changes to ensure they are promoting equitable and sustainable homeownership while maintaining responsible lending practices.

Website | + posts

Davin is a jack-of-all-trades but has professional training and experience in various home and garden subjects. He leans on other experts when needed and edits and fact-checks all articles.