为什么贷款人不重新协商更多的住房抵押贷款?重新默认,自我修复和证券化

Manuel Adelino, Kristopher Gerardi, P. Willen
{"title":"为什么贷款人不重新协商更多的住房抵押贷款?重新默认,自我修复和证券化","authors":"Manuel Adelino, Kristopher Gerardi, P. Willen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1433777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We document the fact that servicers have been reluctant to renegotiate mortgages since the foreclosure crisis started in 2007, having performed payment reducing modifications on only about 3 percent of seriously delinquent loans. We show that this reluctance does not result from securization: servicers renegotiate similarly small fractions of loans that they hold in their portfolios. Our results are robust to different definitions of renegotiation, including the one most likely to be affected by securitization, and to different definitions of delinquency. Our results are strongest in subsamples in which unobserved heterogeneity between portfolio and securitized loans is likely to be small and for subprime loans. We use a theoretical model to show that redefault risk, the possibility that a borrower will still default despite costly renegotiation, and self-cure risk, the possibility that a seriously delinquent borrower will become current without renegotiation, make renegotiation unattractive to investors.","PeriodicalId":315176,"journal":{"name":"Banking & Insurance","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"293","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Don't Lenders Renegotiate More Home Mortgages? Redefaults, Self-Cures, and Securitization\",\"authors\":\"Manuel Adelino, Kristopher Gerardi, P. Willen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1433777\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We document the fact that servicers have been reluctant to renegotiate mortgages since the foreclosure crisis started in 2007, having performed payment reducing modifications on only about 3 percent of seriously delinquent loans. We show that this reluctance does not result from securization: servicers renegotiate similarly small fractions of loans that they hold in their portfolios. Our results are robust to different definitions of renegotiation, including the one most likely to be affected by securitization, and to different definitions of delinquency. Our results are strongest in subsamples in which unobserved heterogeneity between portfolio and securitized loans is likely to be small and for subprime loans. We use a theoretical model to show that redefault risk, the possibility that a borrower will still default despite costly renegotiation, and self-cure risk, the possibility that a seriously delinquent borrower will become current without renegotiation, make renegotiation unattractive to investors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":315176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Banking & Insurance\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"293\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Banking & Insurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1433777\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Banking & Insurance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1433777","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 293

摘要

我们记录了这样一个事实,自2007年止赎危机开始以来,服务机构一直不愿重新协商抵押贷款,只对大约3%的严重拖欠贷款进行了减少付款的修改。我们表明,这种不情愿并非源于证券化:服务机构对其投资组合中持有的贷款进行了类似的小部分重新谈判。我们的结果对于重新谈判的不同定义(包括最可能受到证券化影响的定义)和拖欠的不同定义都是稳健的。我们的结果在子样本中最强,其中未观察到的投资组合和证券化贷款之间的异质性可能很小,并且对于次级贷款。我们使用一个理论模型来表明,再违约风险,即借款人在代价高昂的重新谈判后仍会违约的可能性,以及自我修复风险,即严重违约的借款人在没有重新谈判的情况下恢复原状的可能性,使得重新谈判对投资者没有吸引力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Don't Lenders Renegotiate More Home Mortgages? Redefaults, Self-Cures, and Securitization
We document the fact that servicers have been reluctant to renegotiate mortgages since the foreclosure crisis started in 2007, having performed payment reducing modifications on only about 3 percent of seriously delinquent loans. We show that this reluctance does not result from securization: servicers renegotiate similarly small fractions of loans that they hold in their portfolios. Our results are robust to different definitions of renegotiation, including the one most likely to be affected by securitization, and to different definitions of delinquency. Our results are strongest in subsamples in which unobserved heterogeneity between portfolio and securitized loans is likely to be small and for subprime loans. We use a theoretical model to show that redefault risk, the possibility that a borrower will still default despite costly renegotiation, and self-cure risk, the possibility that a seriously delinquent borrower will become current without renegotiation, make renegotiation unattractive to investors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信