Since the election of Donald Trump, the legitimacy and very survival of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now front and center. The agency is in peril after an Oct. 11 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that ruled, for the first time, that an independent agency established by the legislative branch of government is unconstitutional.
Where was the commentary about how the lending industry is making the mortgage process easier for customers by embracing digital technology? What about compliments to mortgage lenders who are trying to streamline a difficult process?
If the underlying goal is to provide less negative ammunition for media outlets and improve the industry's image, it is counterproductive for lenders to speak against those regulations protecting the consumers.
The CFPB is currently paying close attention to the individuals/small players, as well as the larger institutional mortgage companies. With respect to the small players, the CFPB is looking at the loan officer, real estate agent and developer. A common violation that these smaller firms or individuals commit, in addition to possible violations resulting from social media posts, stems from agreements among themselves.
Build to rent allows investors to buy newly built homes and rent them out instead of selling them. Because the homes are new, investors are able to charge higher rent prices and tenants often stay in the home for longer periods of time. But the question remains: Why would builders move into the rental market during a time when homes are selling quickly and at higher prices than any time in the past decade?
Today the average student debt resulting from a four-year degree stands at $30,000. According to a report released by American Student Assistance in 2015, 71% of non-homeowners surveyed who carry student debt say the burden of monthly payments has kept them from purchasing a home. More than half of those say their student debt loads will likely prevent home ownership for another five years.
Currently, institutional investors control approximately 170,000 properties (a relatively small portion of the overall SFR space, which is dominated by smaller investors, and estimated to include 11 to 13 million properties). KBRA reports that 105,000 properties have been included in the 26 single-borrower deals done to date, which suggests there are somewhere north of 60,000 properties that could still be securitized.