U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–459 PDF 2006

H.R. 3043, THE ZERO DOWNPAYMENT

PILOT PROGRAM ACT OF 2005

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 30, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 109–43

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

CAMPBELL, JOHN, California 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio, Chairman

GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice Chairman 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

STEVAN, PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

CAMPBELL, JOHN, California 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BARBARA LEE, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 30, 2005 .................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

June 30, 2005 .................................................................................................... 33

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2005

Bowdler, Janis, Housing Policy Analyst, National Council of La Raza .............. 5

Newman, Robert, Executive Vice Chairman and CEO, AmeriDream, Inc ......... 6

Petrie, Michael F., President, P/R Mortgage & Investment Corporation, testifying as Chairman, Mortgage Bankers Association .......................................... 8

Shear, William B., Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 3

Wilson, David F., President, Wilson Construction LLC, testifying as President, National Association of Home Builders .................................................... 10

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Oxley, Hon. Michael G. .................................................................................... 34

Ney, Hon. Robert .............................................................................................. 37

Tiberi, Hon. Patrick .......................................................................................... 39

Bowdler, Janis .................................................................................................. 40

Newman, Robert ............................................................................................... 49

Petrie, Michael .................................................................................................. 54

Shear, William .................................................................................................. 62

Wilson, David .................................................................................................... 79

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Department of Housing and Urban Development ......................................... 45

National Multihousing Council/National Apartment Association ................ 88

(1)

H.R. 3043, THE ZERO DOWNPAYMENT 

PILOT PROGRAM ACT OF 2005

Thursday, June 30, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 

Room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Ney 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Ney, Tiberi, Pearce, Neugebauer, Waters, Davis of Alabama, Cleaver, and Green. 

Chairman NEY. We will begin. I assume some other members 

will be arriving. 

This morning, the subcommittee meets to discuss Congressmen 

Pat Tiberi’s and David Scott’s legislation to create more homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers. Reintroduced 

last week, H.R. 3043 would eliminate the downpayment requirement for families and individuals who buy homes with FHA-insured mortgages. Of course, we took this bill up last time and 

moved it out of the committee. 

Theoretically, downpayment requirements were established to assure the lender that a borrower would be less likely to default or 

risk foreclosure on a home if there was some personal investment 

or stake. Through the invention of automated or computerized underwriting to determine credit scores, lenders believe that 

downpayments were one of the best techniques for the credit-worthiness of a potential borrower. 

At the hearings conducted on March 24, 2004, and the full committee markup on June 3, 2004, on the previous bill, H.R. 3043 incorporated the 2004 reported bill as well as some key revisions that 

will establish the bill as a pilot program, and limit the pilot to 

50,000 loans, and sunset the program in 2010. Today’s hearing will 

allow us to continue our discussions from the previous Congress as 

to whether this proposal would increase defaults and foreclosures 

for FHA-related mortgages, placing the Government at a higher liability. 

The new legislation incorporates several safeguards to protect 

FHA’s mutual mortgage insurance and that fund would of course 

enhance provisions developed during last year’s markup. These 

changes, I think, will help the pilot program to be responsive to 

concerns that without adequate safeguards, zero downpayment reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:02 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 029459 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\29459.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
2

quirements will lead to increased foreclosures, so I think that will 

help with the argument that it will not. 

However, critics will continue to state that it is unclear whether 

removing downpayment requirements could be a sound underwriting decision or whether borrowers without downpayment contributions from their own resources would pose a greater credit 

risk. As we debate Congressman Tiberi’s and Congressman Scott’s 

zero downpayment proposal, as we debated it last year, we know 

that the biggest obstacle to homeownership for most families is the 

inability to come up with enough cash to meet downpayment and 

closing costs. Minority families in particular are burdened by high 

downpayment requirements. 

In the first quarter of 2005, the racial divide in homeownership 

remains wide, with 76 percent of white households owning their 

own home, compared with 48.8 percent of African-American households and 49.7 percent of Hispanic households. Lagging minority 

homeownership rates are a serious concern. Minority households 

are expected to account for two-thirds of the household growth over 

the coming decade. As we continue our debate on legislation such 

as zero downpayment and other homeownership initiatives, clearly 

the ability of such households to make transitions to homeownership will be especially important, and an important test of the Nation’s capacity to create economic opportunities for minorities and 

immigrants and for all Americans. 

This is an important piece of legislation. I have talked to Mr. 

Tiberi and Mr. Scott. I hope people fully realize that a lot of people 

are out there and they will struggle to make that payment. They 

will do everything they can do, but sometimes they have to save 

so long for the downpayment that they could have had their children and their families into housing a long time ago. 

So I think this bill is a very, very reasonable balance, with safeguards, more of them than the last piece of legislation, so I look 

forward to working with the committee on it. 

With that, are there any other opening statements? 

I ask unanimous consent to insert written testimony for the 

record for the National Model Housing Council and the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development. 

I want to welcome our panel today. 

We have Ms. Janis Bowdler. She is a housing policy analyst with 

the National Council of La Raza. The Council was established in 

1968 and is a nonprofit organization established to reduce poverty, 

reduce discrimination, and improve opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans. 

Robert Newman is the executive vice president and chief operating officer of AmeriDream, Incorporated, a nonprofit organization 

founded in 1999 to expand affordable housing opportunities for underserved groups. AmeriDream seeks to improve and promote the 

value of homeownership as the foundation of building strong communities and individual prosperity. 

Michael Petrie is the president of P/R Mortgage & Investment 

Corporation in Indianapolis, Indiana, and chairman of Greensfork 

Township State Bank in Spartanburg, Indiana. Mr. Petrie is the 

current chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association. 

3

Mr. William B. Shear is Director of Financial Markets and Community Investment at the United States Government Accountability Office, GAO. Mr. Shear’s work has focused on Governmentsponsored entities, the Federal Housing Administration and the 

Rural Housing Service and community and economic development 

programs. He is no stranger to the committee, I would note. 

Dave Wilson is a custom homebuilder from Ketchum, Idaho. He 

serves on the board of the Idaho Housing Finance Agency and is 

testifying today as the 2005 president of the National Association 

of Home Builders. The Association’s mission is to enhance the climate for housing and the business industry. 

With that, I am going to go just a little bit out of order. I want 

to thank all the panelists, and we start with Mr. Shear. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SHEAR, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL 

MARKETS AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. SHEAR. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am 

pleased to be here this morning to discuss methods the FHA can 

use to manage risk in the new zero downpayment product. 

My testimony is primarily based on our recent report on actions 

needed to help FHA manage risk from new mortgage loan programs. We reviewed a substantial amount of research indicating 

that loan-to-value ratio, called LTV, and credit score are among the 

most important factors when estimating the risk level associated 

with individual mortgages. Our analysis of the performance of low 

and no downpayment mortgages supported by FHA and others corroborates key findings in the literature. 

Generally, mortgages with higher LTV ratios and lower credit 

scores are riskier than mortgages with lower LTV ratios and higher 

credit scores. In our report, we suggested that Congress may want 

to consider limiting any new zero downpayment product that it 

may authorize. We also recommended that HUD, among other 

things, consider piloting new products such as a zero downpayment 

product and that HUD establish a framework for when and how to 

pilot programs. We also recommended other actions HUD could 

take to mitigate the risk of new and changed products that are discussed in my written testimony. 

In this oral summary, I will focus on our suggestions and recommendations pertaining to piloting a zero downpayment product. 

In summary, there are several risk-management practices mortgage institutions use in designing, implementing and monitoring 

low and zero downpayment products. We believe these practices 

could be instructive for FHA in managing risks associated with the 

zero downpayment product. 

Therefore, if Congress decides to authorize the zero downpayment FHA product, we support piloting the product and piloting is 

a major feature of H.R. 3043. Based on information we obtained 

from selected conventional mortgage providers, private mortgage 

insurers, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, mortgage institutions 

sometimes use pilots to limit the initial availability of new products, to build experience, or to better understand the factors that 

contribute to risk for low and no downpayment products. 

4

Some mortgage institutions also may limit the origination and 

servicing of the product to their better lenders and servicers. HUD 

officials told us that they face challenges in administering the pilot 

program in limiting mortgage products to certain approved lenders 

or servicers. However, there are several available techniques for 

limiting an initial product that could help to address HUD’s concerns, including limiting the time period in which it is available. 

Further, we believe that in some circumstances the potential cost 

of making widely available a product when the risks of that product are not well understood could exceed the costs of initially implementing such a product on a limited basis. 

I will provide some examples of how some mortgage institutions 

limit availability of new products. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

sometimes use pilots for limited offerings of new products to build 

experience with a new product type or to learn about particular 

variables that can help them better understand the factors that 

contribute to risks for these products. 

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae officials also told us they sometimes set volume limits for the percentage of their business that 

could be low and no downpayment lending. Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac officials provided numerous examples of products that 

they now offer as standard products, but which began as part of 

underwriting experiments. These include the Fannie Mae Flexible 

97 product, as well as the Freddie Mac 100 LTV product. 

FHA has also utilized pilots or demonstrations as well when 

making changes to its single-family mortgage insurance. Generally, 

HUD has done this in response to legislation that requires a pilot 

and not on its own initiative. For example, FHA’s home equity conversion mortgage insurance program started as a pilot. Congress 

initiated the program, which is sometimes called a reverse mortgage, in 1987 to provide elderly homeowners the financial vehicle 

to tap the equity in their homes without selling or moving from 

their homes. 

Through statute, the program started as a demonstration program that authorized FHA to insure 2,500 reverse mortgages. 

Through subsequent legislation, FHA was authorized to insure an 

increasing number of these mortgages until Congress made the 

program permanent in 1998. 

In summary, loans with low or zero downpayments carry greater 

risk. Without any compensating measures such as credit enhancements and increased risk monitoring and oversight of lenders, introducing a new FHA zero downpayment product would expose 

FHA to greater credit risk. We believe that FHA could mitigate the 

risk and potential costs of a zero downpayment program by conducting the program as a pilot. Because it may take a few years 

to determine the risk of a new loan product, even early termination 

of a fully implemented product could still expose the government 

to significant financial risk, without some types of limits on the 

number of loans insured. 

Mr. Chairman, it is always a great privilege to be here. It is wonderful to be here. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shear can be found on page 62 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you very much. 

5

Ms. Bowdler. 

STATEMENT OF JANIS BOWDLER, HOUSING POLICY ANALYST, 

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA 

Ms. BOWDLER. Thank you, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Waters, and members of the committee for inviting me to speak today. 

I am Janis Bowdler from the National Council of La Raza. I feel 

honored to be before this committee as part of such a distinguished 

panel. Though I clearly do not have as many years of experience 

as others here today, I do bring with me NCLR’s expertise and perspective on this important issue. 

As NCLR’s housing policy analyst, I conduct research, policy 

analysis, and advocacy. I have published on fair and affordable 

lending, housing counseling, and access to homeownership. I also 

provide technical assistance to NCLR grantees that operate housing counseling programs. NCLR is the largest Hispanic constituency-based civil rights organization in the Nation. We serve America’s 40 million Hispanics in all regions of the country through a 

network of more than 300 nonprofit affiliate organizations. 

Today, I want to briefly talk about the importance of increasing 

homeownership and building wealth in Latino communities, offer 

NCLR’s perspective on the Zero Downpayment Act, and finally I 

will make a few recommendations to further strengthen the bill. 

Increasing Latino homeownership is critical to the financial security of Latino families and the economic stability of the broader 

community. In this spirit, NCLR has been a leader in promoting 

and increasing Hispanic families’ access to fair and affordable 

homeownership for more than 20 years. Recently, we have begun 

focusing our efforts on helping Latino families accumulate assets 

and build wealth for the future. In 1997, we created the NCLR 

homeownership network to provide homeownership counseling to 

Latino neighborhoods through community organizations. Since 

then, more than 115,000 families have been counseled through our 

network. More than 17,000 of these families have become homeowners. 

The Latino population continues to grow at rapid rates. While 

the number of Latinos entering the homebuying market continues 

to grow, Latino homeownership still lags behind that of whites by 

28 percentage points. Such low homeownership rates translate into 

lower levels of wealth and fewer financial opportunities in the form 

of tax benefits and home equity. For this reason, Hispanic wealth 

is outpaced by that of whites by 27 to 1. As you all are well aware, 

wealth accumulated through home equity is essential for sending 

children to college, starting small businesses, or providing for a 

family during retirement. This is especially true among low-and 

moderate-income families. 

While Hispanics face a number of barriers to homeownership, affordability and lack of affordable mortgage products are two key 

barriers. The zero downpayment pilot program addresses both barriers. FHA has been a mainstay of affordable mortgages for underserved populations for decades. This includes Latino families as 

well. One in five Hispanic mortgageholders in 2004 had an FHAinsured mortgage. 

6

However, FHA has also been plagued by high foreclosure rates 

and lender and broker abuse. In 2004, the rate at which FHA 

began foreclosures on their loans was more than 5 times that of 

prime lenders. Foreclosures are devastating to these families. FHA 

foreclosures, in particular, pose significant costs to American taxpayers. As you consider this pilot program, keep in mind the financial risk and potential for abuse that it poses. 

However, the addition of default counseling is a significant improvement over earlier versions of the legislation. Housing counseling is a powerful tool that connects low- and moderate-income 

families with their first homes. For example, in 2004, 90 percent 

of NCLR homeownership network clients earned below 80 percent 

of the earned median income. Of those who became homeowners, 

the average interest rate was only 6 percent. Even more importantly, when homeownership counseling is received before the time 

of purchase, it significantly reduces the likelihood of 60-day delinquency. 

NCLR commends Congressman Tiberi and Congressman Scott 

and the members of the committee for their diligent efforts on affordable housing and housing counseling. That said, we do have 

some ideas as to how the bill can be further strengthened. NCLR 

makes the following three recommendations. 

First, ensure adequate resources for housing counseling agencies. 

This can be done by clarifying that counseling agencies can be compensated by lenders based on the value of their service. Consistent 

income based on the delivery of service will allow counseling agencies to build capacity and expand their operations. This is important, given the number of families that will need counseling services because of the zero downpayment pilot. 

Second, ensure timely access to counseling, specifying that counseling must be completed before the application is even taken. It 

is critical that families are given an opportunity to make fully informed decisions prior to beginning the loan process. 

Finally, prevent unethical lending practices by allowing the products to be offered only by FHA-approved lenders who perform well 

in HUD’s Credit Watch program. I would like to stress that fair, 

affordable, and flexible mortgage products are important to increasing wealth through homeownership. The zero downpayment product offers families a flexible mortgage option and the addition of 

housing counseling will help vulnerable families to decide if this 

product meets their needs. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bowdler can be found on page 

40 of the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Newman. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT NEWMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, AMERIDREAM, INC. 

Mr. NEWMAN. Good morning, Chairman Ney, Ranking Member 

Waters, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 3043, the Zero 

Downpayment Pilot Program Act of 2005. 

7

My name is Robert Newman. I am the executive vice president 

and chief operating officer of AmeriDream, Inc. The work of 

AmeriDream began in February of 1999 to help reduce the government’s burden of increasing homeownership to everyone. Since our 

inception, we have helped more than 160,000 low- to moderate-income individuals and families become homeowners and have given 

more than $500 million in downpayment gifts to homebuyers nationwide. 

We have provided homebuyer education to over 6,000 people; 

counseled over 500 homeowners seeking help with loss mitigation; 

invested over $12 million in community redevelopment projects; 

and given over $2 million in funding to other nonprofits to support 

their missions. All our services are provided in both English and 

Spanish. It is important to know that all these services have been 

provided free of charge to homebuyers and have not used government funding or taxpayer dollars. 

Last year, Ann Ashburn, AmeriDream’s president and CEO, testified and provided testimony to this subcommittee and suggested 

refinements to the Zero Downpayment Act. We commend the subcommittee for listening to the input of everyone who was here. It 

is only appropriate that I acknowledge some of those improvements. 

First, we are pleased that homebuyer education is now a requirement for homebuyers participating in the zero-down program. Second, we are grateful for the required disclosures regarding the 

homebuyers’ alternatives to the zero-down program, as well as disclosing any increased costs associated with the use of the program. 

Third, H.R. 3043 is improved by the use of HUD’s total scoring systems in the processing and approving of applications. And fourth, 

by implementing the zero-down program as a pilot program, it advances the important policy objective in a way that reduces the potential risk and enhances the program’s likelihood of success. 

In that same spirit of providing ongoing input for the subcommittee, we would respectfully propose three additional refinements for the bill. First, we encourage the subcommittee to seek 

appropriate ways to leverage the substantial experience and resources of charitable downpayment gift providers. We believe this 

can be accomplished by recognizing in H.R. 3043 that nonprofit 

downpayment assistance providers are structured to reduce the 

burdens on government’s limited resources and are viable options 

to the zero-down program for homebuyers who do need downpayment assistance, but choose not to use the zero-down program. 

Second, we suggest that H.R. 3043 ensure homebuyers the option 

of using nonprofit downpayment assistance program to offset any 

fees associated with participating in the zero-down program. 

AmeriDream has created a place called ‘‘home’’ for more than 

160,000 individuals and families. In fact, from the time we sat before you last year to now, AmeriDream alone has helped an additional 30,000 homebuyers become homeowners. We respectfully 

suggest that the members not overlook the integral role that nonprofit organizations such as AmeriDream can continue to play in 

helping low- to moderate-income homebuyers achieve the dream of 

homeownership. 

8

Third, we recommend that homebuyers using the zero-down program have a 700 credit score. The amount of equity that a family 

has in its home has been shown to be one of the principal drivers 

of mortgage default. Most 100 percent no downpayment programs 

in the conventional market require that the borrower have a relatively strong credit score. A score of 700 will be consistent with 

the market and will coincide with FHA’s goals of fostering successful homeownership. 

The refinements we propose are intended to enhance H.R. 3043’s 

ability to increase successful homeownership. They are offered in 

the spirit of partnership and are supported by the experience and 

accomplishment of having successfully enabled more than 160,000 

families in this country to attain the American dream of homeownership. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope my comments and suggestions make clear 

to you and your distinguished colleagues that we praise your efforts in fostering homeownership for the low- to moderate-income 

families of America. We also hope that under your leadership and 

direction, our suggested refinements will be included in H.R. 3043 

as you consider what is best for those among us who heretofore 

have had the greatest challenges in gaining successful homeownership. 

Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions you may 

have for me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Newman can be found on page 

49 of the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Petrie. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL PETRIE, PRESIDENT, P/R MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT CORPORATION, TESTIFYING AS 

CHAIRMAN, MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PETRIE. Good morning, Chairman Ney, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting the Mortgage Bankers Association 

to share its views on H.R. 3043, the Zero Downpayment Pilot Program Act of 2005. We applaud Congressman Tiberi and Congressman Scott for recently introducing the bill. 

My name is Michael Petrie and I am president of P/R Mortgage, 

an investment corporation in Indianapolis, Indiana; chairman of 

Greensfork Township State Bank, Spartanburg, Indiana; and chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association. 

MBA believes FHA should have the ability to offer a no downpayment home loan product to extend the opportunity of homeownership to more American families. As this committee is well 

aware, homeownership is one of the most significant aspects of the 

typical family’s financial health. While the FHA began this success 

story for the American family over 70 years ago, the private sector 

has continued with innovations, especially over the past 15 years 

in developing sophisticated credit qualifying tools and a diverse 

array of mortgage products. 

Over a year ago, MBA testified before this subcommittee in support of an FHA zero downpayment product. While we celebrate the 

U.S.’s high homeownership rate, the very same rate masks a glaring disparity. Minorities have a much lower rate of homeownership 

9

than non-minorities, and low- and moderate-income families have 

a much lower rate of homeownership than most at or above median-income levels. This was true a year ago and unfortunately remains true today. 

The downpayment hurdle disproportionately affects low- and 

moderate-income families who may be able to make monthly housing payments without difficulty, but find it problematic to save for 

the downpayment. Members have discovered, and the studies support, that a borrower’s credit profile is a more important indicator 

of the performance of a loan than is the amount of the downpayment. The national credit information system preserved under the 

Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, allows lenders 

to efficiently access a borrower’s credit information and effectively 

evaluate risk. 

So in looking to remove the downpayment as an obstacle to 

homeownership, MBA is not suggesting a homeownership at all 

costs strategy. Rather, we are advocating a targeted and measured 

attempt to remove the downpayment obstacle and close the homeownership gap among ethnic groups and economic classes. 

However, we understand the real estate finance system must be 

careful and appropriate when lending money to families for often 

the largest investments they will make. Recently, some have expressed concern that lenders are extending too much credit and 

these loans may pose a risk. All the more reason for a strong FHA, 

an FHA that is empowered to pilot products, and specifically a no 

downpayment mortgage financing product for homebuyers with required counseling and with all the protections that go along with 

FHA insurance. FHA’s loss mitigation program will ensure these 

borrowers have many options at their disposal after the loan closes 

if they run into difficulty. 

With these safeguards, MBA is confident the FHA zero downpayment product will allow good borrowers to become good homeowners. When the bill was introduced last year, some in Congress 

and in the industry were critical of the Zero Downpayment Act of 

2004. However, most of the concerns were addressed by the Financial Services Committee when the bill was marked up in the 109th 

Congress. H.R. 3043 also addresses those concerns. Over the past 

year, some developments have occurred to make an FHA zero 

downpayment program even more relevant today. There was concern last year regarding FHA delinquencies and foreclosures. There 

is good news to report. FHA delinquencies and foreclosures have 

declined during the first quarter of 2005 according to MBA’s most 

recent national delinquency survey. 

Finally, last year the cost of the program to the Federal treasury 

caused some apprehension. Recently, however, the Congressional 

Budget Office lowered the program’s financial score over 5 years. 

It is important to remember that FHA generates hundreds of millions of dollars through insurance premiums. MBA does have suggestions for minor improvements to H.R. 3043 that we believe 

would further strengthen the program. 

First, MBA would suggest allowing classroom or group counseling. This counseling resembles the type used by Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac for meeting the mandatory counseling requirements 

under their programs. Second, the statute should explicitly state 

10

that generic examples of counseling documents be used to educate 

potential borrowers. 

MBA appreciates the opportunity to present its views on this important potential option for FHA. We look forward to working with 

the subcommittee and Congressmen Tiberi and Scott on H.R. 3043. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Petrie can be found on page 54 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WILSON, PRESIDENT, WILSON CONSTRUCTION LLC, TESTIFYING AS PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS 

Mr. WILSON. Good morning, Chairman Ney, members of the subcommittee. 

On behalf of the 225,000 members of the National Association of 

Home Builders, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

Let me begin by saying that the National Association of Home 

Builders strongly supports H.R. 3043 as introduced by Representative Tiberi. We believe passage of this proposal would mean that 

some 50,000 families would be able to achieve homeownership who 

otherwise would be denied this opportunity. Furthermore, it enables FHA to do so in a prudent manner without negatively impacting the mutual mortgage insurance fund or the general insurance fund. 

This legislation continues a long tradition of innovation by FHA 

by addressing a primary obstacle for preventing minority and lowand moderate-income families from becoming homeowners. According to the Census Bureau’s study, one of the top reasons why families and individuals cannot afford to purchase a home was the inability to come up with the up-front cash needed for closing. Data 

from the Federal Reserve indicates that 87 percent of all renters 

have less than $50,000 in wealth available to pay for a downpayment and closing costs on a new home. For minority renters, that 

figure rises to 94 percent. With so little wealth, and absent some 

form of downpayment assistance, it is difficult for a large number 

of renters, especially minority renters, to become homeowners. 

In addition, many of these same families are not served by the 

conventional mortgage products. Currently, the chief way to address downpayment barriers for FHA borrowers is through downpayment assistance programs facilitated by third parties. While 

these programs have contributed positively to homeownership expansion efforts, more options are needed. FHA studies have indicated that loans to homebuyers who receive third party assistance 

do not perform as well as other FHA-insured loans. 

The higher loan default rate is not in and of itself a problem 

since these efforts are aimed at serving a borrowing population 

that has traditionally been underserved. However, loans assisted 

by these downpayment assistance programs do not compensate the 

FHA insurance fund for their increased risk. H.R. 3043 addresses 

the downpayment hurdle, while allowing FHA to establish mortVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:02 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 029459 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\29459.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
11

gage insurance premiums and underwriting and counseling requirements targeted to this financing program. 

I would like to take a moment to expand on why NAHB further 

believes this program can be carried out in a safe and sound manner without harm to FHA. First, the ability to differentiate between high- and low-credit risk borrowers has been enhanced 

through technology and advances in automated underwriting such 

as FHA’s Total Mortgage scorecard. This allows lenders to better 

evaluate borrowers before bringing them into the program. 

Second, the risk to FHA can be mitigated through risk-based 

pricing such as proposed by HUD in the form of higher up-front 

and/or annual mortgage insurance premiums. HUD estimates that 

this approach results in no net cost to FHA and increases the 

monthly payment on a $100,000 mortgage by about $50 a month. 

Finally, housing counseling can lower the risk to FHA by ensuring the prospective first-time homebuyer understands the responsibilities of actually being a homeowner. The value of these programs is well documented. NAHB is pleased that H.R. 3043 would 

include condominiums and cooperatives as eligible options. In 

many communities, these homeownership alternatives are more 

than within the reach of low-and moderate-income families, just as 

single-family detached homes, and can provide the same wealthbuilding community and development benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to share our 

views on the zero downpayment pilot program. The members of the 

National Association of Home Builders work daily with families 

who want to achieve the American dream of homeownership. By 

implementing this program as a limited-scope pilot, Congress can 

give this program a chance to prove its worth. 

We look forward to working with the subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found on page 79 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

I am going to yield. It is Mr. Tiberi’s bill. Mr. Scott is not here, 

but I am going to yield for questions first to Mr. Tiberi. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the record, I would like to submit my opening statement. 

Chairman NEY. Without objection. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. I apologize for being late. I am in a 

markup in another committee. I want to thank you all for testifying today. I want to expand a little bit on Mr. Petrie’s and Mr. 

Wilson’s testimony that I was able to hear. 

First off, Mr. Newman, thank you for being here today. We share 

in our effort to try to put people in homes. In hearing your testimony and looking at testimony, I was not quite sure if you are for 

or against the bill. 

Mr. NEWMAN. We are for the bill. 

Mr. TIBERI. You are for the bill? 

Mr. NEWMAN. We support the goal of the bill and we are supporting the bill. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. Your organization and I have talked in the 

past. I know you have had discussions with others and our House 

leadership. One of the issues that you talk about is a concern of 

cost to the government. The issue of foreclosures has come up. In 

12

Ohio, in fact, there has been a group that has done a study on foreclosures that has yet to be printed, which I am going to touch on. 

What was interesting is you mention in your testimony, underlined, ‘‘It is important to note that all of these services have been 

provided free of charge to homebuyers and have not used government funding or taxpayer dollars.’’ 

Can you kind of explain how you all worked, for the record, for 

the committee? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Our downpayment assistance program works with 

lenders and sellers primarily. The buyers go to lenders who have 

to be qualified by lenders or brokers to get a loan. The lender 

makes a determination as to whether or not this individual needs 

some downpayment assistance to be able to qualify for the loan. On 

the other side, builders and sellers enroll their homes in our program and say that they are willing to offer downpayment assistance to widen the pool of potential buyers. 

So the seller and the lender come together and make an agreement that in effect they are willing to help out and meet the seller’s needs. We give a gift to the buyer, and in turn the buyer is 

able to provide that to the seller when they close. 

Mr. TIBERI. Where does the gift come from, your gift? 

Mr. NEWMAN. The gift comes from a pool of funds that we have. 

So it is a revolving pool. So sellers who have used the program, 

who have registered with us maybe a year ago, maybe 4 months 

ago, they have paid us a service fee for the transaction that we do. 

It goes into a fund. That fund is used for future buyers. 

Mr. TIBERI. So let me ask you this. My neighbor last year sold their house for $168,000 or $169,000. Their house was listed in the 

low-$160s. They ended up selling to a first-time homebuyer who 

participated not in AmeriDream, but in a program similar to 

AmeriDream; bought their home. The seller, my former neighbors, 

actually ended up gifting to the program and in exchange for that 

gifting, they raised the price of their home to around $168,000, 

which was then financed by the buyer through this gift program. 

Is that how it is normally done? 

Mr. NEWMAN. That is not something that we condone at all. We 

do not advocate that. We depend tremendously on two people in the 

transaction, really three. It is the lender to qualify the buyer and 

the terms. The lender is also going to get the appropriate appraisal 

for the property. After all of that is done, then they reach out to 

us for the gift amount. We are not involved in the qualification of 

the buyer nor are we involved in the listing or the appraisal of the 

property. We do not condone, and we do not advertise and we do 

not do any outreach on the product to suggest to individuals to increase the price of the home. 

Mr. TIBERI. Here is my concern is that, let me go to the foreclosure point, because you say there is no cost to Government funding or taxpayer dollars. The study being done in Ohio which has 

not been printed yet, my understanding in talking to people who 

are doing it, shows that Ohio has the second-highest foreclosure 

rate in the country, and central Ohio is pretty up there. 

They are tracking downpayment assistance programs as being a 

large part of that; that people are going into these homes and even 

though they are getting the downpayment assistance, they are payVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:02 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 029459 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\29459.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
13

ing an inflated price for the cost of their home, whether it is a 

newly built home or whether it is an existing home, it is toward 

the higher price in that particular neighborhood. 

Most of the loans that are done, at least through the study, are 

financed by FHA. I assume most of the homes that you all are involved with are backed by FHA. So then the government does have 

a hook. Taxpayers are on the hook for these homes that are foreclosed. So I guess my point is, and my time has expired, and I appreciate the chairman yielding his time to me, my point would be 

that if we looked at this in a larger picture, that we in this Financial Services Committee have an obligation to protect taxpayers 

through FHA, at the same time of trying to provide a lofty goal of 

homeownership. 

That is why I introduced the bill, is to make sure that we here 

in this committee and this Capitol could make sure that at the 

same time as providing homeownership to as many Americans as 

possible, protect taxpayers and protect the viability of FHA. If we 

control it, I think we have the ability to do that. I hope that most 

members of this subcommittee and full committee look at the issue 

more broadly to find out exactly how the market works today. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman NEY. Is there anything you want to respond to? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Well, thank you for your comments. 

Chairman NEY. Briefly, because we are going to move on. 

Mr. NEWMAN. Very briefly. 

Having not had an opportunity to read the study since it has not 

been released yet, I think that our response would be that we have 

long sought and heard the same type of statements and comments 

that have been made, and we have long sought to work with FHA 

to identify the actual cause of the problem and to come up with solutions or recommendations as to how to address that. 

We continue to reach out, and with the new Commissioner of 

FHA we are hoping to be able to reach out and develop some sort 

of partnership to identify the true causes of the problems, not just 

the results, but the true causes of the problems and see if there is 

a way that we can work together to help mitigate that. So we look 

forward to being able to address some of those issues. 

Mr. TIBERI. I hope this is an issue that we can work on together. 

Mr. NEWMAN. I hope so as well. 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Petrie? 

Mr. PETRIE. Mr. Chairman, can I respond also? 

I would just like to add onto what the Congressman’s point is. 

Indiana last year was the number one foreclosure State. I do not 

know if we are one or two now. We had some research also done 

and completed that showed that we are a high-FHA State, using 

FHA, and that the downpayment assistance loans were twice the 

rate of foreclosures than the others. So our data shows the same 

things. I think the HUD IG did a report 2 years ago. They say that 

some of their data is flawed, but it showed that a higher rate of 

foreclosure was in there, too, with these types of loans. So we think 

this program will be very helpful in working to reverse that situation. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman NEY. Mr. Shear? 

14

Mr. SHEAR. At Chairman Ney’s request, we are doing a study 

now on downpayment assistance. I would say that the situation 

that you brought up involving your neighbor is a matter of concern 

that we have in looking at downpayment assistance. I do not have 

results to report, but downpayment assistance has become such a 

large share of newly originated FHA-insured loans. 

We do have the concern of the relationship with the seller and 

we do have a concern as to how that can affect appraised values, 

and how the premise of the program, which is a promising premise, 

is to put equity in the home for the borrower. One of the things 

that we are assessing is the performance of these loans, but we are 

also looking at whether the premise of whether equity is being put 

into these homes in the sense of true equity, whether that is occurring. 

Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman, 

because one of the criticisms last year that was brought to the attention of our leadership in the House was the fact that my program put a person into a home with no money down and the value 

of the home, with costs, was less than the payment, the borrowing 

amount. 

My point has been, and my neighbor is a perfect example, is the 

fact that my new neighbor has equity in the home through a downpayment assistance program, but the problem is what he paid is 

much higher than the value of the neighborhood. If something 

would happen and he forecloses, he is in the soup and so is FHA. 

That is something that has not been connected to a lot of folks. 

Whether it is a newly built home, and there are unfortunately 

in Columbus, Ohio, subdivisions where this has happened, or an 

existing home like my neighbor, where the purchase price that he 

paid is far higher than the value of the going rate in that neighborhood. So thank you for understanding that. 

Mr. SHEAR. Representative Tiberi, I thank you for your comment. 

What I will point out is that in that situation, when we say what 

is the true loan-to-value ratio, it is based on the notion of really 

what is the true value of the house. So in that situation, we would 

question, not based on the sales price, but based on some sense of 

the true valuation of the house, is there real equity in the home. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

Speaking of successful lawmakers, our two colleagues to the right 

passed the Fair Housing and HOPE VI last night, so maybe Mr. 

Tiberi and I ought to consult with the two of you on how to do that. 

Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I assure you as 

a neophyte I was very fortunate. I was blessed because the truth 

is, I did just about everything that I could to assure the failure of 

the bill. 

[Laughter.] 

I had a great staff and great bipartisan support, Mr. Chairman, 

and I thank you so much for your kind words. 

I would also like to thank our Ranking Member, Congresswoman 

Waters, and thank the members of this outstanding panel. You 

have all spoken well. 

I would like to know, without question, whether everybody does 

indeed support this bill and if there is someone who does not, if you 

15

will kindly extend a hand into the air, I will address you. Is there 

anyone who does not support it? Okay. I thought so. Everyone supports it. 

There is a provision in the bill on page 13 starting at about line 

3 that deals with suspension in the event of what I would call a 

default rate that exceeds 3.5 percent. My question is: Does this language sufficiently cover concerns addressed about the inability of 

some persons to pay a downpayment? Would that help make you 

comfortable with the bill itself or does that create an additional 

concern by it being there? 

Let’s start with Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman. 

No, we think that is a safety catch there that if the program is 

not successful that then you have time to adjust for it. We certainly 

do not want to create, and I think Congressman Tiberi said it, 

added value to houses that really are not there that could create 

a housing bubble, if you will. This will allow the program to move 

forward. If it starts to get to that 3.5 percent rate, then you all 

could re-evaluate it to say that maybe we are not doing the right 

thing here; that we are having higher foreclosures than we really 

want with this program. But we truly support the program from 

the standpoint that it will allow a lot of underserved families to 

have the ability to own a home. 

Mr. GREEN. Before the next person responds, I would like my colleague, Mr. Tiberi, to know that I greatly appreciate the energy 

and effort that you have put into this. I would echo that also to 

my colleague who is not here, Congressman Scott. You are to be 

commended and I truly compliment you. 

Now, to Mr. Shear. 

Mr. SHEAR. Okay. You asked the question, do we support the bill. 

We think it is a prerogative of Congress of whether you want to 

offer zero downpayment products. There are certain questions that 

come up having to do with the weighing of risk versus the mission 

of the FHA program. But we do firmly support the piloting nature 

of the bill. We are very much in support of the pilot nature of this 

bill. 

In terms of what I will call the ‘‘trigger mechanism’’ for how well 

the loans perform, I would say that we agree with the notion of 

having a triggering mechanism that if the loans do not perform 

very well that you might want to, in a sense, further limit the program. We would be glad to assist this committee, in terms of the 

legislation, if you wanted to consider other types of trigger mechanisms to serve that purpose. So I will just point out a few. 

Even though I will refer to defaults or delinquencies, HUD gets 

data on 90-day delinquencies. Even though many delinquencies are 

cured and do not lead to a claim on the insurance fund, delinquencies can be a good early warning indicator of how well loans 

are doing. So something that might serve the purpose better would 

be to look at certain delinquency data, rather than the claim rate. 

If you wanted to use claim rates, another possibility would be to 

have a triggering mechanism which, what we tend to look at are 

what we call cumulative claim rates. So let’s say a lot of loans were 

made in 2006, we would look at claims in 2006, 2007, 2008 in a 

cumulative fashion, rather than in a 1-year window each year. This 

16

is just a technical observation of what could be done with this triggering mechanism— 

Mr. GREEN. I do not mean to disrupt. In fact I do, I apologize. 

I have a limited amount of time and I would like to give the others 

a chance to respond. 

Mr. SHEAR. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. But thank you very much. 

Mr. SHEAR. Okay. 

Mr. PETRIE. The Mortgage Bankers Association, on the surface, 

does not have a problem with the 3.5 percent claim rate, but I 

would like to state that FHA for 70 years has successfully designed 

products that have provided substantial revenue to the Federal 

Government and no cost to the taxpayers of the United States. 

Whenever you have a pilot program, the purpose of a pilot is to 

give the designer the ability to structure a program. If you are 

overly prescriptive, you take away their ability to manage the risk. 

This is a prescriptive measure. A 700 credit score is a prescriptive 

measure. You basically take away the power of FHA to design what 

is appropriate. 

The mortgage insurance premium for this product is already 

priced higher than it normally would be, and by setting a pilot 

limit of 50,000 loans, you have already kind of capped off the top 

of your risk. Any other measures become more prescriptive, which 

limits their ability to manage risk, and I think we would like it less 

prescriptive, rather than more prescriptive. 

The other thing, too, the way we look at it, the MMI insurance 

fund is to cross-subsidize loans. When you are trying to reach down 

farther, you are going to take on higher risk, but that is the intent. 

The intent is to reach down farther to meet those people that can 

make the monthly payment, but may not have the downpayment. 

So you are going to have more risk, but you have priced it for that 

and you have limited your risk by the number of loans. To throw 

in a lot of other measures just becomes prescriptive and handcuffs 

FHA and would stop their creativity to best serve this group. I 

would think we want to be less prescriptive now that you already 

have your limits in place. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GREEN. All right. 

Mr. NEWMAN. We certainly support having that claim cap on 

there. I differ a little bit with my fellow panel-member in terms of 

having a little bit more prescriptiveness in it. I think the role of 

FHA is to implement some protective measures, but I am not sure 

that their first goal is to generate revenue for the government as 

much as it is to ensure that the folks who are most at risk have 

the best scenario of getting into homes and being able to stay in 

their homes. By putting the onus on them to continue to generate 

revenue for the government, sometimes they may have differing 

agendas. Their first agenda should be the protection of the homebuyer in helping them to get into a home and to stay in their home. 

I think that putting a little bit of prescription in there also helps 

to mitigate some of the concerns that folks may actually have about 

the downpayment assistance providers. Right now getting the appraisal of a home at a certain height is not the downpayment assistance’s fault or it is not necessarily FHA’s. The people who do 

17

that are appraisers. The people who qualify the individuals for the 

gift amount will be the lenders. The same thing in this model. If 

you take away some of those prescriptions, you will still have some 

of those same players in there who can be as creative as they have 

been, but sometimes not in the best interests of the homebuyer. 

It is also important to remember that this bill, as well as everything else that we have done in downpayment assistance, is geared 

toward the people who are most at risk and invariably have the 

higher probability of making a claim. So having some of that cap 

on there so that it does not lose a lot of control in spite of making 

additional revenue, as was mentioned that they have higher costs 

in there, is not a bad thing to have in there. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. BOWDLER. I will only briefly echo some of the comments. I 

think that the cap is a good idea. NCLR is very supportive of the 

idea of running this as a pilot program. One hundred percent financing is risky for most people that do it, so we do want to make 

sure that we proceed carefully and cautiously, keeping in mind the 

vulnerable families that are most likely to use FHA. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have been more than 

generous with my time and your time. I thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the first question I would like to just throw out to the 

panel is one of the things that when we talk about what is causing 

low homeownership in our country, although it is increasing and I 

am proud of that. In fact, I have been a homebuilder for a number 

of years, so if there is anybody more pro-housing than Randy 

Neugebauer, I do not know who is. But I am interested in making 

sure we do this the right way. 

The thing that I begin to wonder, is it downpayment or is it credit quality that is keeping a lot of people out of the homeownership 

business? When I talk to my friends in the lending business, I hear 

more of them talk about poor credit quality, poor credit scores than 

I hear about people not having the downpayment to get into those 

homes. 

And then when we start talking about going to a zero downpayment scenario where we know the risk is going up and we talk 

about raising the bar on what those credit scores are. So if we do 

get to that point, if we have a program that says we are going to 

let you in for zero down, but we are going to put very high restrictions on your credit scores, how many people are going to fall into 

that grid? 

Ms. BOWDLER. I think, at least within the Latino community, 

they face a number of barriers to becoming first-time homebuyers. 

Affordability is just one of them. Others include credit scores, as 

you mentioned, but we have a little bit different problem with credit scores in that too many Latino families have thin or no credit 

scores. In other words, they do not have enough information in 

their credit file. When you run a traditional automated underwriting systems, it comes out as a zero. So they may be a perfectly 

18

good credit risk, but it is hard to gauge that with the automated 

underwriting system. 

I just want to go back to one example. When NCLR began their 

pilot program, Home To Own, which grew into our counseling network, we helped over 400 families become homebuyers. We used a 

combination of downpayment assistance, individual counseling, and 

flexible mortgage products, which we piloted with Fannie Mae. 

Afterwards, the Morrison Institute of Arizona did a study to see 

what was it that helped families get into homes. They found that 

while downpayment was an issue for a lot of families, it was not 

their largest barrier. In fact, it was the individual counseling and 

the flexible mortgage products that were the most help in overcoming their barriers. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Okay. Others? 

Mr. SHEAR. We have not analyzed it directly, but we have looked 

at some research that looks at that question. Most of the research 

does not link together the ability to make a downpayment with 

credit score. What we do observe is that from a standpoint of risk 

mitigation, there are tradeoffs involved. So we do not know how 

large the population is, but there could be a number of potential 

homebuyers whose homeownership could be facilitated if downpayment requirements were reduced, and with higher credit scores 

being required. 

Mr. PETRIE. One of the things that you point out regarding 

homeownership, homeownership today is the highest it has ever 

been. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. That is right. 

Mr. PETRIE. I think with this program, what we are trying to do 

is reach down to a segment that cannot conform to conventional 

markets. They are not going to have the higher income. The conventional markets do not serve lower incomes as well as FHA as 

shown they can do, or the lower credit scores. They have higher 

credit scores, especially when you combine it with the 80–20 or the 

equity on the backside of that. So even though there are a lot of 

different downpayment programs, some of these people are locked 

out of that because their credit scores may not be high enough or 

they have other issues there. 

One of the things that we look at, and I have served 8 years on 

the board of a neighborhood housing partnership in Indianapolis 

where we did housing counseling and provided secondary financing 

to get lower-income and minorities into homes. What you end up 

with is two mortgage payments, two different types of lenders, different issues. This product is very good from the standpoint that 

you have one fixed-rate loan for the full thing so it is not confusing 

to the borrower. 

They do not have two different lenders they have to deal with. 

Plus the loss mitigation issues that HUD provides, that FHA provides with regard to forbearance of interest or special forbearance 

to keep them in the home longer, that is kind of why their delinquency rates are higher is because they do keep these people in 

homes better than some of the conventional or other types of mortgage products out there. 

So we think this product answers a need in the marketplace for 

those types of people that we can get in, but may not be able to 

19

access it today, or if they do access it, at a riskier type product that 

may put them in more harm’s way. So we think that we are on the 

right track here and that is why we are so supportive of this program. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Should the mortgage insurance premium be 

raised across the board? I think in Mr. Tiberi’s bill I saw something 

that led me to believe that we were talking about moving from a 

rate of 1.75 percent to 2.25 percent or something like that. Are we 

talking about making that the MIP for all FHA loans or just for 

this one? 

Mr. PETRIE. Just this product. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Just for this product. 

Mr. PETRIE. The reason why we are doing this product is it has 

been scored as a higher-risk product. I would like to point out that 

the current product that is out there generates hundreds of millions of dollars over its cost, so that is not what we would believe 

is appropriately scored for the risk. The point being then that these 

products, this may be higher-priced than it needs to be, but that 

is what HUD will determine or FHA will determine over time. It 

then may be able to be brought down. 

Right now, they are just saying based on the way things work, 

CBO, OMB, how things are scored, they have to be at this level so 

it is kind of a break-even. But in essence, there are plenty of funds 

in the insurance to cover these 50,000 loans if there is any type of 

default rate. 

So the point going back is why do we have to have a 3.5 percent 

claim rate to suspend the program when there are sufficient funds 

to cover losses of any type in the insurance fund for this type of 

program? It should be used because the intent of the FHA is to 

broaden homeownership, so those funds should be used to broaden 

at maybe greater risk to the taxpayer, but it is going to be covered. 

You are not going to have to go back and get funds from taxpayers 

to do it. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 

Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, can I just add? 

Chairman NEY. Sure. 

Mr. TIBERI. We would love to have you run for Congress, by the 

way, and come up here and help us on this. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman NEY. Just not in our district. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. I second that emotion. 

[Laughter.] 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by complimenting my friend from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, 

and Mr. Scott from Georgia for what I think is a good bill that has 

very strong bipartisan support. Hopefully, it will have a better fate 

than it did in the last Congress. I want to try to use some of our 

experience with this bill to see if it can give us some guidance on 

some regulatory issues that we are facing regarding the conventional mortgage lending market. 

The instinct of this bill, if I understand it correctly, is that we 

are going to take a group of relatively objectively high-risk potenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:02 Sep 13, 2006 Jkt 029459 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\29459.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
20

tial consumers, potential homeowners. We are going to give them 

the benefit of this product and then we are going to put certain requirements in place that minimize the risk, an element of mandatory counseling, for example. 

It occurs to me that this may give us some guidance on another 

issue that we are facing. Right now this committee and this Congress are trying to figure out how we regulate the conventional 

mortgage lending market, particularly in the context of subprime; 

particularly in the context of another class of products that are 

available for potentially high-risk consumers. 

One of the features of this bill is that it contains a mandatory 

counseling element. I know that there is some feeling that it could 

be made stronger in the sense that there is a thought that the 

counseling should have to be completed, not just started, before the 

loan is approved, but there is a mandatory counseling element 

here. 

Let me ask some of you on the panel, and perhaps we can start 

with you, Ms. Bowdler. Does this give us some guidance as to how 

we ought to be thinking about subprime loans? Does it make sense 

that if we require an element of mandatory counseling for these 

kinds of loans that we ought to think about mandatory counseling 

for subprime loans? 

Ms. BOWDLER. There are really two questions there, so let me 

start with the first one, going to protections on FHA loans. I think 

that is what you are getting at. We have all heard stories and we 

have talked about some of the stories about the abuse on FHA 

loans. There are a lot of really bad stories out there. NCLR, for example, recently completed a report that looked a predatory lending 

in the Latino community and we found that like a lot of other studies that Latinos were in fact over-represented in subprime and 

FHA loans. 

That said, I think that this whole committee recognizes that 

what we really need are stronger protections and housing counseling is definitely not a panacea to predatory lending. That said, 

in the absence of stronger protections at this point, housing counseling is a really effective way to inform consumers and help them 

make educated decisions about their loan products. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Should it be mandatory in the context 

of subprime loans? 

Ms. BOWDLER. I think that I would recommend that every firsttime homebuyers receive pre-purchase counseling. I do not think 

that you can make it mandatory for every loan. There are a couple 

of reasons for that. In part, it is because the counseling infrastructure at this point could not handle that volume. So I think that we 

would have to look at what would be the best way, how could we 

set families in counseling agencies, how can we set them up for 

success to deliver that kind of service. I think that we would be 

getting ahead of ourselves to mandate counseling for millions of 

borrowers without them having access to quality counseling. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Could we put triggers into the subprime 

market that if the loans had certain characteristics that they would 

be required to undergo counseling? Maybe instead of having the 

whole pool of loans that fit that category, the loans that had certain characteristics or certain criteria? 

21

Ms. BOWDLER. I think you could do that. What I would want to 

caution against is the use of counseling as a deterrent to getting 

financing. We definitely do not want to see that happen, either. So 

we would have to be careful about how we structure that. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Any quick reactions from the rest of the 

panel on that question? 

Mr. PETRIE. As part of my role as chairman of the MBA, I did 

a housing panel in Gary, Indiana. We had all the various housing 

providers, not-for-profits, counselors. We had all the counseling 

agencies, the consumer credit counseling agencies. We were all sitting around the table talking about how we can better improve 

housing in Gary, Indiana, with downpayment assistance and whatever. 

What came up to a certain respect is that when people had poor 

credit and they were counseled to, well, it is going to take a year; 

we want you to work another year to get your credit better. When 

people want to own a home, they will do anything to own a home. 

They do not want to wait a week, a month, a year or whatever. So 

the counseling aspect, you are creating a hurdle which they are 

going to get around different ways. When they want to get the 

home, they are going to do that. 

I would like to point out that although FHA and subprime overlap a little bit, a lot of the borrowers are different types of borrowers. They have different types of issues with their credit that 

may not be the risk profile that we are talking about for this type 

of program. But we would not be in favor of mandatory counseling 

from that standpoint for all FHA loans because we do not know the 

relationship to the problem of foreclosure or delinquency. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Let me close with one quick question. I 

recognize that my time is a little bit over, but one other aspect that 

I want to briefly touch on. My assumption, and correct me if I am 

wrong, but my assumption is that FHA loans do not include prepayment penalties. Am I right about that? 

Mr. PETRIE. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay. One of the issues that we are debating obviously in the context of regulating the larger mortgage 

lending market is the utility of prepayment penalties and whether 

or not prepayment penalties provide some special problem for consumers. Does the fact that FHA loans do not include prepayment 

penalties suggest to us that we ought to be more aggressive in our 

regulation of prepayment penalties in the conventional market? 

Mr. PETRIE. Actually, I am a multifamily lender. We actually use 

prepayment penalties to yield what we call ‘‘call protection’’. The 

purpose of call protection is to reduce the interest rate because the 

investor will take a lower amount of interest if they know they 

have a steady stream. The purpose of prepayment penalties is to 

reduce the interest rate. The way we look it, you are taking an option away from the borrower of this interest rate or that interest 

rate, but I have to stay in it. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Why not have them for FHA loans then? 

Mr. PETRIE. Pardon? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Why not have them for FHA loans? 

Mr. PETRIE. FHA precludes that. 

22

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. That is begging the question. Is that a 

good thing? 

Mr. PETRIE. In multifamily, the type of loans I do are FHA and 

they do have call protection. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Okay. Just the final point, as my time 

is about to run out, do any of you think that FHA loans ought to 

allow prepayment penalties? Ms. Bowdler, I am assuming as the 

consumer advocate on the panel you certainly, I assume, would not 

think that FHA loans should allow prepayment penalties. 

Ms. BOWDLER. No. Actually, we would not recommend prepayment penalties for FHA. I will say that I know that there are the 

economic tradeoffs that Mr. Petrie was referring to. That kind of 

discussion goes on in the marketplace all the time, and families 

have to make decisions based on that. NCLR want to work with 

this committee as they try to figure those things out. 

What I will say about prepayment penalties, though, is that all 

it takes is to get them attached to one bad loan, and what our 

counselors see all the time is when an abusive loan comes through, 

it is the prepayment penalty that does not allow them to help the 

family, that makes it too expensive to refinance into another product. At least in FHA, you have the advantage where if they were 

put there by mistake for whatever reason, then you can easily refinance out of it. 

Mr. PETRIE. One final point on prepayment penalties with FHA, 

we would not be for that because FHA predominantly serves firsttime homebuyers. We want them to be able as quickly as possible 

refinance into a conventional market and lower their rate. That is 

really the intent of the program, to get them in and then move 

them down the stream to a better interest rate however they can 

do it. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ALABAMA. Mr. Chairman, I think my time has expired, unless one of you wanted to give a final answer. 

Mr. NEWMAN. I just want to piggyback on that because that goes 

back to your first question about the homebuyer education piece of 

it. Again, if the buyer knows about those realities and some of the 

opportunities available to them, it is very important. We cannot 

underscore the importance of education before you get into your 

first home. 

I have to absolutely concur that if there was going to be any 

mandatory homebuyer education, it would have to be on the firsttime homebuyer education. I would not just limit it to subprime. 

I did not go through a subprime. I had a couple of degrees when 

I bought my first house. Going into the homeownership experience 

was the most interesting thing I ever went through in my life because it was a black box. I walked in and came out shaken. 

So I just think that if we are going to talk about education, it 

is important for all first-time homebuyers to have some level of experience. I do not know if we have to make it required, but at least 

they are exposed to some of the minor details or the higher details 

about the homebuying experience so they can be successful homeowners. 

Chairman NEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Pearce? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

23

I think we are all working toward a common goal here of deepening that homeownership across the society. I have a couple of 

questions here in the application. 

Mr. Shear, what is the cost associated with this program that we 

are talking about, the zero downpayment? In other words, the cost 

per person, cost per loan, cost per whatever? 

Mr. SHEAR. We have not costed-out the program. I know that the 

Congressional Budget Office made estimates for a previous bill, but 

we have not looked at the cost of the program. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Petrie, I guess you might be the next one. If we 

are to guess nationwide about non-performing loans, how big a 

chunk of change does that take? Do you have any idea? You may 

not know. 

Mr. PETRIE. Are you speaking with regards to FHA? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, the FHA. 

Mr. PETRIE. I can tell you right now. According to our research, 

FHA delinquency dropped from 13 percent to 10.5 percent. Foreclosures are less than 1 percent. So they are declining. Delinquency 

is a lagging indicator. Since the economy has improved, you would 

expect delinquencies to go down and that is exactly what is happening, even in the FHA marketplace. So that is happening. 

With regard to your question on cost, I believe the CBO scored 

this bill at $38 million over 5 years based on the insurance premium and the risk that they have. So you can take $38 million and 

divide by 5, that is the annual cost over 5 years. That is the total 

cost for 5 years. 

Mr. PEARCE. I guess that would be very similar. We have gotten numbers that show that in 2004 there was $7.2 billion paid out to 

mortgage service providers. The average claimant size was $93,000 

in the mutual mortgage, and then special mortgages were $83,000. 

Mr. PETRIE. I would like to point out that there is no cost. After 

all those claims are paid, there are still hundreds and hundreds of 

millions of dollars that flow to the treasury from these programs. 

Mr. PEARCE. If there is no cost, why do we have a cap of 50,000? 

It seems like if this is a no-cost proposition, we should really have 

10 million instead of 50,000. 

Mr. PETRIE. The intent, I think, is to pilot the program. I think 

if they going to say we are going to moderate the risk, then you 

sort of cap to allow them to work through the program, design it 

the best way they can. This 50,000 allows the Congress to control 

the maximum extent of the risk. 

The other point I was making, though, and I guess you are making the point, is not to be prescriptive with other terms and conditions if you have capped it at 50,000 loans. 

Mr. PEARCE. No, my point is that if it is no-cost, which I have 

heard that said, why are we limiting it? I think there is a cost, 

frankly. I think there is a cost. I think that we need to be aware 

of that cost going in. None of us would want to step in front of the 

idea of ownership, but we need to evaluate correctly. That is the 

reason I started with Mr. Shear, and just wondered if you all had 

done any evaluation. I don’t know. 

Do you evaluate where this money goes? In other words, when 

the FHA or when HUD repossesses, when they go in and bail out, 

our figures are that when they resold properties that they have 

24

gone in and taken because they were not performing, that HUD 

lost 29.3 percent on those sales, an additional $2.1 billion. I do not 

mind what we are doing, but I think that we need to get our numbers on the table. We need to be a little bit objective and honest 

about what we are saying here. 

Mr. SHEAR. Okay. I appreciate the question. One of the studies 

that we are doing for this subcommittee is looking at questions of 

the MMI fund and in particular looking at some re-estimates that 

were done. 

With respect to your question, when beginning a new program, 

what does it cost? Certainly, we call the FHA program a negative 

subsidy program, but even if that negative subsidy in a sense becomes smaller and starts moving toward the subsidy disappearing, 

any new activity that it goes into if it leads to a lot of claims, there 

is a real cost on the fund. There is a real cost to the taxpayer. 

There is certainly an economic cost to that. And then you bring up 

the question, is it really serving the mission. 

So in terms of looking at this question, this is a program where 

we think there would be higher risks than maybe some of the other 

activities that FHA does. Those risks are really largely unknown. 

So one of the reasons to have a pilot is to see how well the program 

performs, because let’s say if you had a program and you did not 

limit and you found out that the experience from that program was 

one of very high claims, then it is very hard because those claims 

tend to evolve many times 3, 4, 5 years after a loan is originated 

or a group of loans is originated. 

So from a cost standpoint, there is a real cost to the program and 

it is a question of how do you manage a program where the risks 

are hard to determine. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I will wrap up with this point. I 

need to follow closely that discussion. I appreciate the responses 

from both the panelists. But the idea that we have to deal with is 

that if we are getting these kinds of over-valuations in one sector, 

I do not know exactly, we have to deal with that. We have to be 

aware that in small increments, and maybe a very small increment 

of instability is added into our overall financial market. 

If we get a small increment here and we get a small increment 

there, and a small increment from GSE’s and a small increment 

from wherever, I think that we need to be very aware of what we 

are doing and the different increments, and what instability that 

we are building in for ourselves. About 3 or 4 weeks ago I made 

the point that in some of our Basel work, we are not really changing the risk. We are exporting the risk outside the field of measurement of the formula and we are saying it is good. I am sorry. It 

is not good, and that has been kind of the direction I wanted to go 

in these questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TIBERI. [presiding] Thank you. 

Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry 

I could not be here earlier. It appears that we have more and more 

committees meeting at the same time. We are constantly running 

from one to the other to try and participate, even if in a small way. 

25

The legislation that we are discussing is familiar to us all because we voted on it before. We all appear to believe that there are 

people who work every day, who pay their bills, and who deserve 

to have a home, yet they cannot afford downpayments, just as we 

know there are people who work every day and they cannot afford 

the first and last month’s rent to get into rental units. 

Therefore, this bill speaks to what do you do about hard-working 

Americans who have a history basically of paying their bills, who 

are credit-eligible, who have good credit scores and a lot of other 

things, to get them into homeownership. So I am supportive of this. 

I suppose there is some disappointment about the fact that it is 

now narrowed to more of a pilot project rather than a program that 

we have faith in that we wish to put out there. 

Some of the questions that have been raised I suppose are legitimate, particularly those who feel that we are creating a kind of 

risk that we do not understand and somehow must be very cautious and very careful. I do not quite share that view. However, 

certainly if we cannot get the whole enchilada, we can take a piece 

of it and move forward to see if we can’t expand these homeownership opportunities. 

My question about this pilot is, how are we going to market it 

in ways that people have equal opportunity to have access to it? If 

we are only talking about, as I understand it, 50,000 in the pilot; 

is that what we are talking about? How do we propose to market 

the program? Who do we market to? How does it work? Does anybody know? I guess I am addressing it to the Chair. 

Mr. TIBERI. We determined, the sponsors determined that to 

move the bill forward, we would need to compromise. So one of the 

things that we hope to do through this process is figure out a way 

to work with FHA and the Government Accountability Office to 

prove that we are going to create a program that will be successful 

at the 50,000 mark level. One of the concerns that some have 

shared, Ms. Waters, is that, and maybe I can let the panelists 

speak, is that there is a larger risk to the zero-down borrower than 

any of the current programs, which I happen to disagree. I think 

you and I would share that. But nevertheless, that concern has 

been brought up. 

So by putting the 50,000 number on it, we have tried to compromise just to move the bill forward and demonstrate the fact that 

through our proposal that I, in fact, believe, and this is me personally, that by some of the safeguards in the measure that we can 

demonstrate that the foreclosure rate and the homeownership rate 

will be stronger, meaning there will be less foreclosures, higher 

homeownership, permanent homeownership, with the safeguards 

that we put in the bill, and that this will be a program directly 

through FHA, and that there will not be homes that are overvalued 

in the marketplace; that they will be valued at their appropriate 

level. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, I would like to thank the gentleman for his 

comments. I thank the panelists for showing up here today. Again, 

like I said, this is a political process where some concessions and 

compromises oftentimes have to be made to move new ideas forward. I do not like it, but I understand it, and we will just move 

forward. 

26

Thank you very much. 

Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Cleaver? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The issue that I am more concerned about is the foreclosure rate. 

I am wondering whether the bill addresses in any way a means by 

which we can address the foreclosure rate. If not, are there recommendations that you might have to strengthen the bill? 

Ms. BOWDLER. I believe that the legislation does include a provision by which a client or a borrower would be able to let the lender 

know the counseling agency that they have been working with. 

That counseling agency would take on some responsibility. The 

lender would agree to this idea and then in the event of 60-day delinquency, would notify the counseling agency which would get in 

touch with the borrower and try to help them rectify their situation. 

Mr. CLEAVER. But is there a way that we can strengthen the 

counseling provision in the bill? Do you think that it is already at 

maximum strength? 

Ms. BOWDLER. No. We made a couple of recommendations. One 

would be strengthening the counseling agencies and making sure 

that they have the capacity to deal with the volume of clients that 

they are likely to see in conjunction with the legislation. Also, 60-

day delinquency, by the time you are 60 days delinquent, there 

could be problems that are beyond repair. I would not even mind 

seeing 45-day delinquencies, getting in as early as possible. I know 

that is kind of a weird mark. Usually it is 30 and 60, but really 

the sooner that you can get in, especially with vulnerable families 

who are going to have very little equity in their homes, in fact 

probably no equity, especially if it is in within the first couple of 

years. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. The word ‘‘grace period,’’ you are saying it 

should be 45 days? 

Ms. BOWDLER. Well, I am saying, the way the legislation is now, 

if I am understanding it correctly, is a borrower can come to the 

table with their counseling agency. If the lender agrees, then the 

lender can send delinquency notice to the counseling agency, and 

allow them to contact the family. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. 

Ms. BOWDLER. What I am saying is that especially with an FHA 

loan and especially with a zero-down program, where you are going 

to have little to no equity that could cushion you in this kind of 

situation, the earlier that a counseling agency can help a family is 

always better. 

Mr. PETRIE. Congressman, FHA has a better mitigation of foreclosure than any other conventional-type loan. FHA has set up 

their loss mitigation to reduce foreclosures by special forbearance, 

modifications, so that you work with the borrower to make sure 

that they do not get foreclosed. That is why if you have a delinquency rate of 10.9 percent, but yet a foreclosure rate of less than 

1 percent, you have 9 percent that may be delinquent, but you are 

working with them so that they can stay in the home. That is one 

of the keys about FHA is their goal is to keep them in the home, 

not take it. So that is a key component of this program. 

27

The other part, as she stated, there is this counseling after the 

fact. If there is some difficulty, then the lender can work with the 

borrower through their counseling agency to help them with what 

we call post-purchase counseling if there are difficulties after the 

loan has been closed. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Is it automatic? Will the homeowner automatically 

be contacted, advised of the counseling service? 

Mr. PETRIE. It is currently voluntary, but you have to understand 

that if borrowers within FHA develop too high of a foreclosure rate, 

they go up on their credit watch and they then can be removed as 

FHA lenders. So the point would be, it is voluntary, but you would 

do everything you could to make sure that the person stays in the 

house, and therefore performs this loss mitigation. So it is not in 

the lender who does FHA loans best interest to have high foreclosure rates because their Credit Watch score then goes up and 

then HUD can then take them out of the program. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Ms. BOWDLER. I was just going to piggyback on Mr. Petrie’s comments and say that is why NCLR also recommended that the product only be offered through the FHA-approved lenders who are 

high performers in the Credit Watch program. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver. 

Ms. Bowdler, just to follow up a bit on your concern about no equity in the house. Would you have an equal concern if you did have 

equity, but the value of the home was actually lower than what the 

mortgage of the home was? 

Ms. BOWDLER. Right. I think if I understand the scenario that 

you are talking about, it is that if the true value of the home is, 

for example, at $100,000, but it was appraised at maybe $120,000, 

and your mortgage then reflects that amount. I would be equally 

concerned about that kind of situation, as I think most people 

would. I know that inflated appraisals are an issue in a lot of communities. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. 

Mr. Newman, you mentioned in your testimony about the credit 

score. Do you all apply that to your home borrowers? 

Mr. NEWMAN. No, we do not. It primarily goes back to my earlier 

comment that we depend on the lender. They do the qualification 

of the borrower and their credit-readiness and their ability to get 

into a home. So we do not put it on there. We depend tremendously 

on the lender. 

Going back to your other question, we would not support that either, the person going into the home with a value that is higher 

or a mortgage or a price that is higher than the actual value of the 

home. We do not support that. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. Do you have any program that tracks the borrowers that you help, the homebuyers that you help, to find out 

what percentage of them after 2 years or 3 years or whatever number of years are still in their home? Do you any kind of follow-up 

with people you put in the homes? 

Mr. NEWMAN. No. We have attempted to do that, primarily 

through working with FHA and with HUD to get some of that 

data. Some of the recent reports that were done, one of the things 

28

that were challenged about it was their inability to collect the data 

and to break it down in an appropriate manner. 

So that is why I mentioned earlier that we would look forward 

to being able to work with the new Commissioner to see if there 

is a way that we can actually get that data, parse it out, and be 

able to do that kind of analysis, to really be able to see how we 

do. Because as much as I support the downpayment assistance industry, I also know that we at AmeriDream do a lot more than a 

number of our colleagues in terms of loss mitigation and homebuyer counseling. They stay in touch with us and we stay in touch 

with them quite often. 

Mr. TIBERI. But you do not do homebuyer counseling for every 

homebuyer, do you? 

Mr. NEWMAN. No. 

Mr. TIBERI. Why is that? 

Mr. NEWMAN. Again, it is one of those things where the lender, 

we really depend on the lender. We make it available. We have it 

online. We also do workshops throughout the country. Anyone who 

does homebuyer education, and I really have to echo something 

that Mr. Petrie said, homebuyer education to a lot of people, as valuable as it is, is seen as an unnecessary obstacle even by the buyers themselves. So we may make available online to individuals in 

English and Spanish. We may have classes available free of charge, 

English and Spanish, in the various communities, but they do not 

attend. 

Giving up 4 hours or 8 hours to do a homebuyer education class 

that is not required by the lender or even the realtor is seen as an 

unnecessary step. I think every lender would be able to say the 

same thing, that sometimes if one lender says, I have to do it; and 

the other lender say, no you don’t; most likely that buyer is going 

to go with the lender that does not make that additional step in 

the process. We have been challenged with that. 

So we have made it available online and in person, but we really 

depend on the lender to qualify and to make a determination if 

that person actually needs it and it is an available source there if 

that person actually needs the homebuyer education. 

Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Petrie? 

Mr. PETRIE. I would just like to make one comment to kind of 

clarify something that Mr. Newman stated earlier when he pointed 

out the various players that are involved in this, the homebuilder, 

the appraiser and the lender. It is to me disingenuous when you 

create the rules for a game that people then play, and it has perverse effects, and say I am not responsible for those perverse results. The rules of the game can be changed to correct all of that 

if they want to do that. I think you are trying to with this legislation, and we support you with that. 

So we think that those rules could be changed if they wanted to, 

which may change some of those perverse effects, and we would be 

supportive if they would change the rules. But to stand back and 

say, we are not the ones doing it; it is the lender, the appraiser, 

the home builder; I think that is disingenuous when you have created the box by which they are playing. 

Thank you. 

Mr. TIBERI. I appreciate that. 

29

Mr. Newman, because I was going to have a follow-up, go ahead. 

Mr. NEWMAN. I would more than welcome finding out and working with Mr. Petrie, as well as anyone else, to find out when they 

talk about making the rules of the game. 

Mr. TIBERI. I was going to follow up on that. Thank you for 

bringing that up. 

The study that I talked about is an Ohio study that a major 

newspaper is working on. If it should come out in that study that, 

and I am not pointing to AmeriDream because obviously there are 

dozens of nonprofits around the country, dozens in Ohio actually, 

but if it should come out in the study that the high foreclosure rate 

is directly linked to nonprofit activity, do you think it is an obligation of this committee and this Congress to put some rules and regulations into effect? 

Let me give you an example from what a reporter told me, that 

she was working on that a homebuilder had told her in Ohio that 

they, in the first-time homebuyer market, are provided an opportunity to work with low-income, first-time homebuyers and essentially are providing the downpayments through nonprofits. But the 

fact of the matter is, their home prices are going up. So the point 

that I made before with respect to my neighbor who increased the 

cost of their home in exchange for downpayment assistance 

through a nonprofit, is happening not only with sellers, but is happening with homebuilders as well. 

Essentially, the homebuilders have a gun to their head because 

they have a buyer who is coming with a gift program in hand to 

the homebuilder. So one of the reasons why I have had homebuilders in Ohio support my program is because they essentially 

say, let’s take out the middleperson right now; the government is 

on the hook in the end for the foreclosures. You all, Members of 

Congress, are in charge of FHA, so why don’t you just tighten the 

program? 

We have the same goal in mind. You all could do that, in a sense, 

I think is what Mr. Petrie is saying, because you control the gift, 

in essence. You are the ones that are making it possible for the 

buyer to get into a home through the gift program because the seller cannot do it directly to the buyer, nor can the homebuilder do 

it directly to the buyer, unless FHA does it through a zero-down 

program. 

I think that is what Mr. Petrie was getting to. If this report 

comes out and says that the high delinquency rate is tied to nonprofits, do you all have an obligation as the nonprofit industry to 

tighten the rules and regulations by which you all interact with appraisers, homebuilders and lenders? 

Mr. NEWMAN. I am going to get to that answer in a second, but 

I have to start off by, when we met, as you mentioned, and also 

in Ann Ashburn’s testimony last year, one of the things that we 

put in our testimony was to seek a public-private partnership with 

HUD to address a number of the issues that were there. We made 

follow-up letters and follow-up phone calls on that because we recognized that there are some of those limitations, some of those 

challenges. 

Quite candidly, if we as an entity, meaning AmeriDream, and I 

need to speak specifically about AmeriDream, were to put a lot of 

30

the safeguards that we can talk about that probably should be 

there, homebuyer education, most of the people we serve are firsttime homebuyers. I, on the record, say that homebuyer education 

is a critical component; loss mitigation services so that they know 

there is a place for them to go to, that if they run into some trouble 

making a payment, that there is a place for them to call, and that 

nonprofit is equipped and ready to be able to do that. 

We recognize that if we are going to help get people in to homes, 

we need to prepare them, as well as to help them stay in the 

homes. But if AmeriDream were to do that in and of itself, by 

itself, and no other downpayment assistance provider did that, the 

lenders would not use AmeriDream because putting those requirements on there would become friction in the process, and they 

would go to another downpayment provider who had no friction. 

So now I get to the answer is, if that is the case, and we recognize that reality, we seek to work with HUD to put to put in the 

right type of relationship and the right type of rules of the game 

that is across the board and is not just for one entity. In the same 

way that one lender would not just want to say, I am only going 

to do this deal, this transaction, with homebuyer education, knowing that the broker or the lender next door does not require it, they 

are putting themselves at a significant disadvantage. 

So the reality is, we know that there are issues and we know 

that there are problems. We have reached out on a number of occasions to try to work with the industry, to try to work with HUD 

and FHA to address some of those concerns. I would hope that they 

can be addressed within HUD and FHA without having to come to 

the subcommittee. That was our appeal and that is our goal. It 

would be the MBA, HUD, and the nonprofit organizations sitting 

down together to come to a viable solution that helps low-income 

homebuyers get in their home and stay in their home. 

Mr. TIBERI. Yes? 

Ms. BOWDLER. I just wanted to take an opportunity to stick up 

for the counseling process just a little bit. 

Mr. TIBERI. You do not have to with me. It is in the bill, required 

in the bill. 

[Laughter.] 

That is why I argue that this program is actually going to be 

stronger than the 3 percent down program. 

Ms. BOWDLER. Housing counseling really is not a hurdle to the 

process. I just want to give you an example of how this regularly 

plays out. One of our groups that works in Falls Church has been 

on a committee in Virginia. What happens is, a client comes in to 

see them; they sit down and see them face to face, and assess their 

situation. If they are mortgage-ready, then that initial interview 

may be anywhere between 1 and 2 hours. They walk them through 

the process; they explain everything they need to know; and then 

they are done. 

When it takes more time is if a client is in fact not mortgageready. Then a family is faced with a decision: Do I want to work 

through a counseling process or do I want to go get a less-thanquality product that will put me in a home right now? So that is 

the only time that it could potentially slow down a process, is if a 

client has a lot of issues. 

31

I just wanted to point out also that that is why your legislation 

is very smart and intuitive to put individual counseling into the bill 

because it is much quicker. It is going to help a client correctly 

identify their situation, if this product is for them, and it is going 

to do it a lot quicker, as opposed to group classes which may be 

offered once a quarter. They may take place over several weeks and 

are not as effective. 

Mr. TIBERI. I appreciate that. Just a comment in terms of downpayment being important. I know we all come from different communities. In Columbus, Ohio, which is the largest city in Ohio, the 

Columbus Urban League puts on a yearly home expo for first-time 

homebuyers, trying to promote homeownership. Year after year, 

their number one issue, barrier to homeownership, is lack of a 

downpayment. 

So while there are other issues, clearly in my community the 

downpayment is a significant problem, which has led to quite a bit 

of competition within the nonprofit community, not just 

AmeriDream and Nehemiah, but a number of others who are pretty active in Central Ohio. 

I appreciate everyone being here today. 

You look like, Mr. Shear, that you have a comment? Okay. You 

looked like you were poised to say something. 

Thank you all for coming today. This is an important issue. As 

I said earlier, I hope that we all can work together to promote 

something that we are all concerned about, and that is higher 

homeownership and protection for taxpayers at the same time. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to 

place the responses in the record. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(33)

A P P E N D I X

June 30, 2005

34


29459.001
35


29459.002
36


29459.003
37


29459.004
38


29459.005
39


29459.006
40


29459.007
41


29459.008
42


29459.009
43


29459.010
44


29459.011
45


29459.012
46


29459.013
47


29459.014
48


29459.015
49


29459.016
50


29459.017
51


29459.018
52


29459.019
53


29459.020
54


29459.021
55


29459.022
56


29459.023
57


29459.024
58


29459.025
59


29459.026
60


29459.027
61


29459.028
62


29459.029
63


29459.030
64


29459.031
65


29459.032
66


29459.033
67


29459.034
68


29459.035
69


29459.036
70


29459.037
71


29459.038
72


29459.039
73


29459.040
74


29459.041
75


29459.042
76


29459.043
77


29459.044
78


29459.045
79


29459.046
80


29459.047
81


29459.048
82


29459.049
83


29459.050
84


29459.051
85


29459.052
86


29459.053
87


29459.054
88


29459.055
89


29459.056
90


29459.057
91


29459.058
92


29459.059
93


29459.060