抵押贷款延期是否惠及了合适的房主?2019冠状病毒病大流行期间房主收入和流动资产趋势

Diana Farrell, Fiona Greig, Chen Zhao
{"title":"抵押贷款延期是否惠及了合适的房主?2019冠状病毒病大流行期间房主收入和流动资产趋势","authors":"Diana Farrell, Fiona Greig, Chen Zhao","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3742332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 devastated the US labor market threatening homeowners’ ability to stay current on their mortgage. During the Great Recession, payment relief was more difficult to come by whereas the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided most impacted homeowners with up to 12 months of payment relief if they attested to COVID-related hardship. However, the CARES Act did not cover everyone—it was silent on non-federally backed mortgage holders and those experiencing non-COVID related hardship. Furthermore, many borrowers were either not aware of mortgage relief options and/or were worried about potential balloon payments after forbearance ends. How well did this widespread intervention work? Did it reach all those who might have benefitted? Is there evidence of widespread moral hazard? Using checking account data linked to loan-level mortgage servicing data, we explore these questions. We find that while a third of homeowners in forbearance made all payments to date, a small fraction of homeowners not in forbearance did miss payments. Also, we find little evidence of widespread moral hazard. Families using forbearance to miss mortgage payments showed larger drops in total income than other homeowners and experienced income changes similar to those who have gone delinquent without the protection of forbearance. Also, families in forbearance were more likely to have lost labor income and received UI than families not in forbearance. Finally, we find that forbearance helped families with low levels of liquid assets to maintain their cash buffers. Together these results suggest that CARES Act mortgage forbearance policies helped homeowners experiencing financial hardship in a material way by allowing them to miss payments without adversely affecting their credit scores and maintain their small cash buffers in a world with a lot more economic uncertainty. In addition, these benefits came with little evidence of material moral hazard. However, there is room for improvement in future legislation as a small fraction of homeowners facing hardship did not benefit from forbearance and one main impediment was confusion around balloon payments. All in all the CARES Act forbearance policies appear so far to have been a large step in the right direction relative to policies during the Great Recession.","PeriodicalId":20373,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Did Mortgage Forbearance Reach the Right Homeowners? Income and Liquid Assets Trends for Homeowners during the COVID-19 Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Diana Farrell, Fiona Greig, Chen Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3742332\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"COVID-19 devastated the US labor market threatening homeowners’ ability to stay current on their mortgage. During the Great Recession, payment relief was more difficult to come by whereas the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided most impacted homeowners with up to 12 months of payment relief if they attested to COVID-related hardship. However, the CARES Act did not cover everyone—it was silent on non-federally backed mortgage holders and those experiencing non-COVID related hardship. Furthermore, many borrowers were either not aware of mortgage relief options and/or were worried about potential balloon payments after forbearance ends. How well did this widespread intervention work? Did it reach all those who might have benefitted? Is there evidence of widespread moral hazard? Using checking account data linked to loan-level mortgage servicing data, we explore these questions. We find that while a third of homeowners in forbearance made all payments to date, a small fraction of homeowners not in forbearance did miss payments. Also, we find little evidence of widespread moral hazard. Families using forbearance to miss mortgage payments showed larger drops in total income than other homeowners and experienced income changes similar to those who have gone delinquent without the protection of forbearance. Also, families in forbearance were more likely to have lost labor income and received UI than families not in forbearance. Finally, we find that forbearance helped families with low levels of liquid assets to maintain their cash buffers. Together these results suggest that CARES Act mortgage forbearance policies helped homeowners experiencing financial hardship in a material way by allowing them to miss payments without adversely affecting their credit scores and maintain their small cash buffers in a world with a lot more economic uncertainty. In addition, these benefits came with little evidence of material moral hazard. However, there is room for improvement in future legislation as a small fraction of homeowners facing hardship did not benefit from forbearance and one main impediment was confusion around balloon payments. All in all the CARES Act forbearance policies appear so far to have been a large step in the right direction relative to policies during the Great Recession.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20373,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3742332\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Economy - Development: Health eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3742332","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

COVID-19摧毁了美国劳动力市场,威胁到房主继续偿还抵押贷款的能力。在大衰退期间,支付救济更难获得,而《冠状病毒援助、救济和经济安全(关怀)法案》为受影响最严重的房主提供长达12个月的支付救济,前提是他们证明自己有与冠状病毒相关的困难。然而,《关怀法案》并没有涵盖所有人——它对非联邦支持的抵押贷款持有人和那些经历与covid无关的困难的人保持沉默。此外,许多借款人要么不知道抵押贷款减免的选择和/或担心潜在的气球支付后,宽限期结束。这种广泛的干预效果如何?所有可能受益的人都收到了吗?是否有证据表明存在广泛的道德风险?使用与贷款级抵押贷款服务数据相关联的支票账户数据,我们将探讨这些问题。我们发现,到目前为止,有三分之一的延期还贷的房主支付了所有的还款,而一小部分没有延期还贷的房主确实错过了还款。此外,我们几乎没有发现普遍存在道德风险的证据。与其他房主相比,使用缓期还贷的家庭总收入下降幅度更大,他们的收入变化与那些没有获得缓期还贷保护的家庭相似。同时,相对于非禁欲家庭,禁欲家庭更有可能失去劳动收入并领取失业救济金。最后,我们发现,忍耐有助于流动性资产水平较低的家庭维持其现金缓冲。总之,这些结果表明,《关怀法案》的抵押贷款延期政策帮助房主在物质上经历了经济困难,允许他们错过付款,而不会对他们的信用评分产生不利影响,并在一个经济不确定性大大增加的世界中保持他们的小额现金缓冲。此外,这些好处几乎没有证据表明存在实质性的道德风险。然而,未来的立法还有改进的空间,因为一小部分面临困境的房主没有从宽限中受益,一个主要障碍是对气球付款的困惑。总而言之,到目前为止,与大衰退时期的政策相比,《关怀法案》的宽容政策似乎朝着正确的方向迈出了一大步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Did Mortgage Forbearance Reach the Right Homeowners? Income and Liquid Assets Trends for Homeowners during the COVID-19 Pandemic
COVID-19 devastated the US labor market threatening homeowners’ ability to stay current on their mortgage. During the Great Recession, payment relief was more difficult to come by whereas the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided most impacted homeowners with up to 12 months of payment relief if they attested to COVID-related hardship. However, the CARES Act did not cover everyone—it was silent on non-federally backed mortgage holders and those experiencing non-COVID related hardship. Furthermore, many borrowers were either not aware of mortgage relief options and/or were worried about potential balloon payments after forbearance ends. How well did this widespread intervention work? Did it reach all those who might have benefitted? Is there evidence of widespread moral hazard? Using checking account data linked to loan-level mortgage servicing data, we explore these questions. We find that while a third of homeowners in forbearance made all payments to date, a small fraction of homeowners not in forbearance did miss payments. Also, we find little evidence of widespread moral hazard. Families using forbearance to miss mortgage payments showed larger drops in total income than other homeowners and experienced income changes similar to those who have gone delinquent without the protection of forbearance. Also, families in forbearance were more likely to have lost labor income and received UI than families not in forbearance. Finally, we find that forbearance helped families with low levels of liquid assets to maintain their cash buffers. Together these results suggest that CARES Act mortgage forbearance policies helped homeowners experiencing financial hardship in a material way by allowing them to miss payments without adversely affecting their credit scores and maintain their small cash buffers in a world with a lot more economic uncertainty. In addition, these benefits came with little evidence of material moral hazard. However, there is room for improvement in future legislation as a small fraction of homeowners facing hardship did not benefit from forbearance and one main impediment was confusion around balloon payments. All in all the CARES Act forbearance policies appear so far to have been a large step in the right direction relative to policies during the Great Recession.
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