If you live in San Diego and want help putting together a financial plan, managing your investments, planning for taxes, or valuable insights on other parts of your personal finances, a financial advisor could be right for you.
Things have really changed over the past decade: more and more people are hiring financial advisors because they’ve got the financial savvy and experience that most of us don’t have to vastly improve our financial situation.
The best financial advisors in San Diego offer high levels of customer service when helping you make the best financial decisions. Here are the best financial advisors in San Diego you may want to consider for your financial advising needs.
What’s Ahead:
Overview of the best financial advisors in San Diego
Bull Oak Capital
Bull Oak Capital is a firm recognized with multiple awards and high ratings across many review platforms. The fee-only, fiduciary financial advising firm focuses on financial planning and portfolio management.
According to the Bull Oak Capital website, the firm works with working professionals, soon-to-be and current retirees, and business owners, among other clients. Led by Ryan Hughes, this small team brought in excellent reviews on Yelp, Facebook, Angie’s List, and Google. To start with Bull Oak Capital, you’ll need at least $1 million in investable assets not including real estate.
Address: 4747 Executive Dr Suite 1010, San Diego, CA 92121.
Phone number: 858-999-3550.
Creative Capital Management
Creative Capital Management is a fee-only, fiduciary advisor with a focus on business owners, working professionals, individuals, and families. The firm offers a range of planning and portfolio management services including estate planning, insurance, and tax planning.
While the firm doesn’t have a ton of online reviews from customers, those it has earned are generally very positive. The firm has a strong track record with more than 35 years in business.
Address: 8880 Rio San Diego Dr #1150, San Diego, CA 92108.
Phone number: 619-298-3993.
Define Financial
Led by Taylor Schulte, Define Financial is a fee-only, fiduciary financial planning firm. This unique advising firm works exclusively with adults 50 and older with a focus on retirement planning. That includes a look at investments, taxes, and cash flow in retirement.
Define Financial has won awards from reputable publications including Investopedia, San Diego Magazine, and Financial Advisor Magazine. The firm earns great reviews on Yelp, Google, and Facebook and holds a top A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau.
Specialty: Retirement planning for ages 50 and older.
Address: 12526 High Bluff Dr #238, San Diego, CA 92130.
Phone number: 858-345-1197.
Dowling & Yahnke Wealth Advisors
Dowling & Yahnke is one of the largest asset managers in San Diego when measured by assets under management. Trusted with more than $4.7 billion in client funds, the company offers a very wide range of financial services including investment management, financial planning, charitable giving, and retirement planning.
Founded in 1991, Dowling & Yahnke has more than 1,200 clients and operates as a fee-only, fiduciary advisor. It earns excellent reviews on Yelp, Google, and other platforms.
Address: 12265 El Camino Real UNIT 300, San Diego, CA 92130.
Phone number: 858-509-9500.
GuidedChoice Asset Management
GuidedChioce is the largest investment manager in San Diego with over $14 billion in assets under management. The financial planning and portfolio management firm offers digital apps and tools to help you manage your investments.
Many end-customers of GuidedChoice have their assets at GuidedChoice held through an employer-sponsored retirement plan. The high tech firm has placeholders on its website for new financial advising products launching very soon. Founded in 1999, GuidedChoice works with clients nationwide.
Specialty: Retirement planning.
Address: 8910 University Center Ln #700, San Diego, CA 92122.
Phone number: 888-675-4532.
Physician Wealth Services
Led by Ryan Inman, Physician Wealth Services is a financial advisor with a focus on doctors and the medical community. While the team is based in San Diego, they work with doctors nationwide.
The fee-only, fiduciary financial planning firm offers a roadmap for first-year clients to get a grasp on their finances before building a long-term financial plan. The firm holds more than $11 million in client assets under management.
Specialty: Medical professionals.
Address: Virtual/online-only.
Phone number: 619-304-0777.
Pure Financial Advisors
Pure Financial Advisors is one of the largest financial advising firms in San Diego with more than $2.2 billion in assets under management. Pure Financial Advisors offers investment management and financial planning services with a focus on financial education for its clients. The large fiduciary, fee-only planning firm has four locations across Southern California and runs regular events and classes to help you upgrade your financial IQ.
Address: 3131 Camino Del Rio N #1550, San Diego, CA 92108.
Phone number: 619-814-4100.
Rowling & Associates
When looking for reputable financial advisors in San Diego, you’re sure to come across Rowling & Associates. The fee-only, fiduciary planning firm offers wealth management, financial planning, and tax planning and preparation services.
The firm offers several specialized services including sustainable investment advising, estate planning, life insurance advice, planning for stock options, and tax planning for charitable giving.
Investors with at least $187,500 in investable assets.
Rowling & Associates
Investments, taxes, financial planning
Families and professionals looking for a sustainable (ESG) investment portfolio
How I came up with this list
There are many high-quality financial advisors in San Diego. This list is based on a combination of sources and factors. Major areas reviewed include customer reviews, assets under management, and services offered.
Fee-only, fiduciary financial planners
All advisors on this list offer fee-only financial planning services and act in a fiduciary capacity. That means you know exactly what you’ll be charged, there are no conflicts on interest due to commissions from third-party investment companies, and the advisor agrees to always work with your best interests in mind.
Strong reviews and positive customer feedback
While many factors of financial planning and investment advising are subjective, consistently positive customer reviews are a good indicator of a high-quality firm. I looked at reviews on Yelp, Facebook, Angie’s List, Google, and the Better Business Bureau, among other sources. I also read many top advisor lists and award winners from both local and national publications.
Broad services offered for diverse backgrounds
Whether you have just a small nest egg or millions of dollars to invest, there’s a financial advisor in San Diego that could meet your needs.
What questions should you ask a financial advisor?
Financial advisors are paid professionals who help people manage their money. Through financial planning, wealth and investment management, tax planning and preparation, and other services, financial advisors play an important role in the finances of many households. If you are unsure about your investments, need help reaching financial goals, or just want a second set of eyes to confirm you’re making wise financial choices, a financial advisor could be right for you.
How can you help me improve my personal finances and investments?
Financial advisors may offer some specialized services or take a more general approach to your finances. Here are some of the most common financial advising services you’ll find:
Investment management – Investment management, sometimes called wealth management, is a service where advisors pick investments for you or help create your investment strategy.
Financial planning – With this service, advisors help you review your finances and create a plan for savings, investments, and spending to help you reach your financial goals.
Tax preparation – Some financial advisors offer tax services including planning to minimize taxes and preparation so you don’t have to worry about it yourself.
Are you a fiduciary advisor who avoids conflicts of interest?
Fiduciary duty means a financial advisor (or other professional) is obligated to put your best interests above their own. That means they are required to give you the best financial advice even if they make less money. As discussed above, working with a fee-only advisor helps avoid these conflicts. Choosing an advisor that also acts as a fiduciary helps ensure your needs are taken care of in the best way possible.
What are the costs of hiring a financial advisor?
Financial advisors can charge in several ways. The best type of advisor is a fee-only financial advisor. That means they are only paid predictable fees by you. In some cases, advisors can be paid in a way that creates a conflict of interest.
Some financial advisors receive commissions from investment or insurance companies for selling their products. While this could line-up with client needs some of the time, advisors under this model have an incentive to put your money into funds that might not be the best for your financial goals.
A fee-only financial advisor only charges client fees as an income source. Advisors under this pricing model avoid the conflicts of interest and can genuinely put your financial needs first.
Fee-only advisors often charge fees per meeting, per hour, or annual or monthly fees for ongoing support and services. For investments, many advisors charge a fee based on total assets under management.
Summary
Financial advisors are not required, but many people feel better or get a positive experience from working with a financial professional. While you don’t need an MBA or finance degree to manage your finances, many people simply feel more comfortable knowing a financial professional is looking out for their money.
The best financial advisor in San Diego is someone who will help you make the right financial choices, feel confident that your money is working for you, and answer all of your money questions. This list of the top financial advisors in San Diego is the best place to get started.
The Jefferson Avenue commercial district in Buffalo, New York, is anchored by a supermarket.
There are dozens of other businesses and services along the 12-block corridor — a couple of bank branches, a library, a coffee shop, gas stations, a small plaza with a dollar store and a primary care clinic and a business incubator for entrepreneurs of color.
But Tops Friendly Markets, the only grocery store on Buffalo’s vast East Side, is the center of activity. More than just a place to buy food, pick up medications and use an ATM, the store is a communal gathering space in a predominantly Black neighborhood that, for generations, has been segregated, isolated and disenfranchised from the wealthier — and whiter — parts of the city.
Which explains how it came to be the site of a mass shooting on a spring day in May of last year. On that Saturday, a gunman, who lived 200 miles away in another part of the state, drove to Jefferson Avenue and went into Tops, and in just a few minutes killed 10 people, injured three and inflicted mass trauma across the community.
It is a scenario that has sadly, and repeatedly, played out in other parts of the country that have experienced mass shootings. But this one came with a twist: The gunman’s intention was to kill as many Black people as possible.
To achieve that, he specifically targeted a ZIP code with one of the highest percentages of Black residents in New York state. All 10 who died that day were Black.
“The mere fact that someone can research, ‘Where will the greatest number of Black people be … on a Saturday morning,’ that’s not by chance,” said Franchelle Parker, a community organizer and executive director of Open Buffalo, a nonprofit focused on racial, economic and ecological justice. “That’s not a mistake. It’s a community that’s been deeply segregated for decades.”
The day of the shooting, Parker, who grew up in nearby Niagara Falls, was driving to Tops, where she planned to buy a donut and an unsweetened iced tea before heading into the Open Buffalo office, which is located a block away from Tops. The mother of two had intended to complete the mundane task of cleaning up her desk — “old coffee cups and stuff” — after a busy week.
She saw the news on Twitter and didn’t know if she should keep driving to Jefferson Avenue or turn around and go back home. She eventually picked the latter.
When she showed up the next day, there were thousands of people grieving in the streets. “The only way that I could explain my feeling, it was almost like watching an old war movie when a bomb had gone off and someone’s in, like, shell shock. That’s how it felt,” said Parker, vividly recounting the community’s collective trauma in a meeting room tucked inside of Open Buffalo’s second-story office on Jefferson Avenue.
Almost immediately following the May 14, 2022, massacre, which was the second-deadliest mass shooting in the United States last year, conversations locally and nationally turned to the harsh realities of the East Side and how long-standing factors that affect the daily life of residents — racism, poverty and inequity — made the community an ideal target for a white supremacist.
Now, more than a year after the tragedy, there is growing concern that not enough is being done fast enough to begin to dismantle those factors. And amid those conversations, there are mounting calls for the banking industry — whose historical policies and practices helped cement the racial segregation and disinvestment that ultimately shaped the East Side — to leverage its collective power and influence to band together in an effort to create systemic change.
The ideas about how banks should support the East Side and better embed themselves in the neighborhood vary by people and organizations. But the basic argument is the same: Banks, in their role as financiers and because of the industry’s history of lending discrimination, are obligated to bring forth economic prosperity in disinvested communities like the East Side.
I know banks are often looked upon sort of like a panacea, but I don’t particularly see it that way. I think others have a role to play in all of this.
Chiwuike Owunwanne, corporate responsibility officer at KeyBank
“Banks have been very good at providing charitable contributions to the Black community. They get an ‘A’ for that,” said The Rev. George Nicholas, an East Side pastor who is also CEO of the Buffalo Center for Health Equity, a four-year-old enterprise focused on racial, geographic and economic health disparities. “But doing the things that banks can do in terms of being a catalyst for revitalization and investment in this community, they have not done that.”
To be sure, banks’ ability to reverse the course of the community isn’t guaranteed — and there is no formula to determine how much accountability they should hold to fix deeply entrenched problems like racism. Several Buffalo-area bankers said that while the Tops shooting heightened the urgency to help the East Side, the industry itself cannot be the sole driver of change.
“There are a lot of institutions … that can certainly play a part in reversing the challenges that we see today,” said Chiwuike “Chi-Chi” Owunwanne, a corporate responsibility officer at KeyBank, the second-largest bank by deposits in Buffalo. “I know banks are often looked upon sort of like a panacea, but I don’t particularly see it that way. I think others have a role to play in all of this.”
A long history of segregation
How the East Side — and the Tops store on Jefferson Avenue — became the destination for a racially motivated mass murderer is a story about racism, segregation and disinvestment.
Even as it bears the nickname “the city of good neighbors,” Buffalo has long been one of the most racially segregated cities in the United States. Of the 114,965 residents who live on the East Side, 59% are Black, according to data from the 2021 U.S. Census American Community Survey. The percentage is even higher in the 14208 ZIP code, where the Tops store is located. In that ZIP code, among 11,029 total residents, nearly 76% are Black, the census data shows.
The city’s path toward racial segregation started in the early 20th century when a small number of job-seeking Black Americans migrated north to Buffalo, a former steel and auto manufacturing hub at the far northwestern end of New York state. Initially, they moved into the same neighborhoods as many of the city’s poorer immigrants and lived just east of what is today the city’s downtown district. As the number of Blacks arriving in Buffalo swelled in the 1940s, they were increasingly confronted with various housing challenges, including racist zoning laws and restrictive deed covenants that kept them from buying homes in more affluent white areas.
Black Buffalonians also faced housing discrimination in the form of redlining, the practice of restricting the flow of capital into minority communities. In 1933, as the Great Depression roiled the economy, a temporary federal agency known as the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation used government bonds to buy out and refinance mortgages of properties that were facing or already in foreclosure. The point was to try to stabilize the nation’s real estate market.
As part of its program, HOLC created maps of American cities, including Buffalo, that used a color coding scheme — green, blue, yellow and red — to convey the perceived riskiness of making loans in certain neighborhoods. Green was considered minimally risky; other areas that were largely populated by immigrant, Black or Latino residents were labeled red and thus determined to be “hazardous.”
“The goal was to free up mortgage capital by going to cities and giving banks a way to unload mortgages, so they could turn around and make more mortgage loans,” said Jason Richardson, senior director of research at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, an association of more than 750 community-based organizations that advocates for fair lending. “It was kind of a radical concept and it has evolved over the decades into our modern mortgage finance system.”
The Federal Housing Administration, which was established as a permanent agency in 1934, used similar methods to map urban areas and labeled neighborhoods from “A” to “D,” with “A” considered to be the most financially stable and “D” considered the least. Neighborhoods that were largely Black, even relatively stable ones, were put in the “D” category.
The result was that banks, which wanted to be able to sell mortgage loans to the FHA, were largely dissuaded from making loans in “risky” areas. And Buffalo’s East Side, where the majority of Blacks were settling, was deemed risky. Unable to get loans, Blacks couldn’t buy homes, start businesses or build equity. At the same time, large industrial factories on the East Side were closing or moving away, limiting job opportunities and contributing to rising poverty levels.
“Today what we’re left with is the residue of this process where we’ve enshrined … a pattern of economic segregation that favors neighborhoods that had fewer Black people in them and generally ignores neighborhoods that had African Americans living in them,” Richardson said.
Case in point: Research by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition shows that three-quarters of neighborhoods that were once redlined are low- to moderate-income neighborhoods today, and two-thirds of them are majority minority communities.
Adding to the division between Blacks and whites in Buffalo was the construction of a highway called the Kensington Expressway. Built during the 1960s, the below-grade, limited-access highway proved to be a speedy way for suburban workers to get to their downtown jobs. But its construction cut off the already-segregated East Side even more from other parts of the city, displacing residents, devaluing houses and destroying neighborhoods and small businesses.
As a result of those factors and more, many Black residents have become “trapped” on the East Side, according to Dr. Henry Louis Taylor Jr., a professor of urban and regional planning at the University at Buffalo. In 1987, Taylor founded the UB Center for Urban Studies, a research, neighborhood planning and community development institute that works on eliminating inequality in cities and metropolitan regions. In September 2021, eight months before the Tops shooting, the Center for Urban Studies published a report that compared the state of Black Buffalo in 1990 to present-day conditions. The conclusion: Nothing had changed for Blacks over 31 years.
As of 2019, the Black unemployment rate was 11%, the average household income was $42,000 and about 35% of Blacks had incomes that fell below the poverty line, the report said. It also noted that just 32% of Blacks own their homes and that most Blacks in the area live on the East Side.
“Those figures remain virtually unchanged while the actual, physical conditions that existed inside of the community worsened,” Taylor told American Banker in an interview in his sun-filled office at the center, located on the University at Buffalo’s city campus. “When we looked upstream to see what was causing it, it was clear: It was systemic, structural racism.”
Banks’ moral obligations
As the East Side struggled over the decades with rampant poverty, dilapidated housing, vacant lots and disintegrating infrastructure, banks kept a physical presence in the community, albeit a shrinking one. In mid-2000, there were at least 20 bank branches scattered across the East Side, but by mid-2022, the number had fallen to around 14, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s deposit market share data. The 14 include four new branches that have opened since early 2019 — Northwest Bank, KeyBank, Evans Bank and BankOnBuffalo.
The first two branches, operated by Northwest in Columbus, Ohio, and KeyBank, the banking subsidiary of KeyCorp in Cleveland, were requirements of community benefits agreements negotiated between each bank and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. In both cases, Northwest and KeyBank agreed to open an office in an underserved community.
Evans Bank opened its first East Side branch in the fall of 2021. The office is located in the basement of an $84 million affordable senior housing building that was financed by Evans, a $2.1 billion-asset community bank headquartered south of Buffalo in Angola, New York.
Banks have been very good at providing charitable contributions to the Black community. They get an ‘A’ for that. But doing the things that banks can do in terms of being a catalyst for revitalization and investment in this community, they have not done that.
The Rev. George Nicholas, an East Side pastor who is also CEO of the Buffalo Center for Health Equity
On the community and economic development front, banks have had varying levels of participation. Buffalo-based M&T Bank, which holds a whopping 64% of all deposits in the Buffalo market and is one of the largest private employers in the region, has made consistent investments in the East Side by supporting Westminster Community Charter School, a kindergarten through eighth-grade school, and the Buffalo Promise Neighborhood, a nonprofit organization focused on improving access to education in the city’s 14215 ZIP code.
Currently, Buffalo Promise Neighborhood operates four schools. In addition to Westminster, it runs Highgate Heights Elementary, also K-8, as well as two academies that serve children ages six weeks through pre-kindergarten. Twelve M&T employees are dedicated to the program, according to the Buffalo Promise Neighborhood website. The bank has invested $31.5 million into the program since its 2010 launch, a spokesperson said.
Other banks are making contributions in other ways. In addition to the Jefferson Avenue branch and as part of its community benefits plan, Northwest Bank, a $14.2 billion-asset bank, supports a financial education center through a partnership with Belmont Housing Resources of Western New York. Meanwhile, the $198 billion-asset KeyBank gave $30 million for bridge and construction financing for Northland Workforce Training Center, a $100 million redevelopment project at a former manufacturing complex on the East Side that was partially funded by the state.
BankOnBuffalo’s East Side branch is located inside the center, which offers KeyBank training in advanced manufacturing and clean energy technology careers. A subsidiary of $5.6 billion-asset CNB Financial in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, BankOnBuffalo’s office opened a month after the shooting. The timing was coincidental, but important, said Michael Noah, president of BankOnBuffalo.
“I think it just cemented the point that this is a place we need to be, to be able to be part of these communities and this community specifically, and be able to build this community up,” Noah said.
In terms of public-private collaboration, some banks have been involved in a deeper way. In 2019, New York state, which had already been pouring $1 billion into Buffalo to help revitalize the economy, announced a $65 million economic development fund for the East Side. The initiative is focused on stabilizing neighborhoods, increasing homeownership, redeveloping commercial corridors including Jefferson Avenue, improving historical assets, expanding workforce training and development and supporting small businesses and entrepreneurship.
In conjunction with the funding, a public-private partnership called East Side Avenues was created to provide capital and organizational support to the projects happening along four East Side commercial corridors. Six banks — Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, the second-largest bank in the nation with $2.5 trillion of assets; M&T, which has $203 billion of assets; KeyBank; Warsaw, New York-based Five Star Bank, which has about $6 billion of assets; Northwest and Evans — are among the 14 private and philanthropic organizations that pledged a combined $8.4 million to pay for five years’ worth of operational support, governance and finance, fundraising and technical assistance to support the nonprofits doing the work.
Laura Quebral, director of the University at Buffalo Regional Institute, which is managing East Side Avenues, said the banks were the first corporations to step up to the request for help, and since then have provided loans and other products and education to keep the program moving.
Their participation “is a signal to the community that banks cared and were invested and were willing to collaborate around something,” Quebral said. “Being at the table was so meaningful.”
Richard Hamister is Northwest’s New York regional president and former co-chair of East Side Avenues. Hamister, who is based in Buffalo, said banks are a “community asset” that have a responsibility to lift up all communities, including those where conditions have arisen that allow it to be a target of racism like the East Side.
“We operate under federal charters, so we have an obligation to the community to not only provide products and services they need but also support when you go through a tragedy like that,” Hamister said. “We also have a moral obligation to try to help when things are broken … and to do what we can. We can’t fix everything, but we’ve got to fix our piece and try to help where we can.”
In the wake of a tragedy
After the massacre, there was a flurry of activity within banks and other organizations, local and out-of-town, to respond to the immediate needs of East Side residents. With the community’s only supermarket closed indefinitely, much of the response centered around food collection and distribution. Three of M&T’s five East Side branches, including the Jefferson Avenue branch across the street from Tops, became food distribution sites for weeks after the shooting. On two consecutive Fridays, Northwest provided around 200 free lunches to the community, using a neighborhood caterer who is also the bank’s customer. And BankOnBuffalo collected employee donations that amounted to more than 20 boxes of toiletries and other items that were distributed to a nonprofit.
At the same time, M&T, KeyBank and other banks began financial donations to organizations that could support the immediate needs of the community. KeyBank provided a van that delivered food and took people to nearby grocery stores. Providence, Rhode Island-based Citizens Financial Group, whose ATM inside Tops was inaccessible during the store’s temporary closure, installed a fee-free ATM near a community center located about a half-mile north of Tops, and later put a permanent ATM inside the center that remains there today. And M&T rolled out a short-term loan program to provide capital to East Side small-business owners.
One of the funds that benefited from banks’ support was the Buffalo Together Community Response Fund, which has raised $6.2 million to address the long-term needs of the East Side.
Bank of America and Evans Bank each donated $100,000 to the fund, whose list of major sponsors includes four other banks — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, M&T and KeyBank. Thomas Beauford Jr., a former banker who is co-chair of the response fund, said banks, by and large, directed their resources into organizations where the dollars would have an immediate impact.
“Banks said, ‘Hey, you know … it doesn’t make sense for us to try to build something right now. … We will fund you in the work you’re doing,'” said Beauford, who has been president and CEO of the Buffalo Urban League since the fall of 2020. “I would say banks showed up in a big way.”
Fourteen months later, banks say they are committed to playing a positive role on the East Side. For the second year, KeyBank is sponsoring a farmers’ market on the East Side, an attempt to help fill the food desert in the community. Last fall, BankOnBuffalo launched a mobile “bank on wheels” truck that’s stationed on the East Side every Wednesday. The 34-foot-long truck, which is staffed by two people and includes an ATM and a printer to make debit cards, was in the works before the shooting, and will eventually make four stops per week around the Buffalo area.
Evans has partnered with the city of Buffalo to construct seven market-rate single family homes on vacant lots on the East Side. The relationship with the city is an example of how banks can pair up with other entities to create something meaningful and lasting, more than they might be able to do on their own, said Evans President and CEO David Nasca.
The bank has “picked areas” where it can use its resources to make a difference, Nasca said.
“I don’t think the root causes can be ameliorated” by banks alone, he said. “We can’t just grant money. It has to be within our construct of a financial institution that invests and supports the public-private partnership. … All the oars [need to be] pulling together or this doesn’t work.”
‘Little or no engagement with minorities’
All of these efforts are, of course, welcomed by the community, but there is still criticism that banks haven’t done enough to make up for their past contributions to segregating the city. And perhaps more importantly, some of that criticism centers on banks failing to do their most basic function in society — provide credit.
In 2021, the New York State Department of Financial Services issued a report about redlining in Buffalo. The regulator looked at banks and nonbank lenders and found that loans made to minorities in the Buffalo metro area made up 9.74% of total loans in Buffalo. Overall, Black residents comprise about 33% of Buffalo’s total population of more than 276,000, census data shows.
The department said its investigation showed the lower percentage was not due to “excessive denials of loan applications based on race or ethnicity,” but rather that “these companies had little or no engagement with minorities and generally made scant effort to do so.”
“The unsurprising result of this has been that few minority customers or individuals seeking homes in majority-minority neighborhoods have made loan applications … in the first instance.”
Furthermore, accusations of redlining persist today, even though the practice of discriminating in housing based on race was outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
In 2014, Evans was accused of redlining by the New York State Attorney General, which said the community bank was specifically avoiding making mortgage loans on the East Side. The bank, which at the time had $874 million of assets, agreed to pay $825,000 to settle the case, but Nasca maintains that the charges were unfounded. He points to the fact that the bank never had a fair lending or fair housing violation, no specific incidents were ever claimed and that the bank’s Community Reinvestment Act exam never found evidence of discriminatory or illegal credit practices.
The bank has a greater presence on the East Side today, but that’s because it has grown in size, not because it is trying to make up for previous accusations of redlining, he said.
“Ten years ago, our involvement [on the East Side] certainly wasn’t what you’re seeing today,” Nasca said. “We were looking to participate more, but we were participating within our means and our reach. As we have grown, we have built more resources to be able to do more.”
Shortly after accusations were made against Evans, Five Star Bank, the banking arm of Financial Institutions in Warsaw, New York, was also accused of redlining by the state Attorney General. Five Star, which has been growing its presence in the Buffalo market for several years, wound up settling the charges for $900,000 and agreeing to open two branches in the city of Rochester.
KeyBank is currently being accused of redlining by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. In a 2022 report, the group said that KeyBank is engaging in systemic redlining by making very few home purchase loans in certain neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Black. Buffalo is one of several cities where the bank’s mortgage lending “effectively wall[ed] out Black neighborhoods,” especially parts of the East Side, the report said.
KeyBank denied the allegations. In March, the coalition asked regulators to investigate the bank’s mortgage lending practices.
Beyond providing more credit, some community members believe that banks should be playing a larger role in addressing other needs on the East Side. And the list of needs runs the gamut from more grocery stores to safe, affordable housing to infrastructure improvements such as street and sidewalk repairs.
Alexander Wright is founder of the African Heritage Food Co-op, an initiative launched in 2016 to address the dearth of grocery store options on the East Side, where he grew up. Wright said that while banks’ philanthropic efforts are important, banks in general “need to be in a place of remediation” to fix underlying issues that the industry, as a whole, helped create. (After publication of this story, Wright left his job as CEO of the African Heritage Food Co-Op.)
Aside from charitable donations, banks should be finding more ways to work directly with East Side business owners and entrepreneurs, helping them with capital-building support along the way, Wright said. One place to start would be technical assistance by way of bank volunteers.
“Banks are always looking to volunteer. ‘Hey, want to come out and paint a fence? Want to come out and do a garden?'” Wright said. “No. Come out here and help Keshia with bookkeeping. Come out here and do QuickBooks classes for folks. Bring out tax experts. Because these are things that befuddle a lot of small businesses. Who is your marketing person? Bring that person out here. Because those are the things that are going to build the business to self-sufficiency.
“Anything short of the capacity-building … that will allow folks to rise to the occasion and be self-sufficient I think is almost a waste,” Wright added. “We don’t need them to lead the plan. What we need them to do is be in the community and [be] hearing the plan and supporting it.”
Parker, of Open Buffalo, has similar thoughts about the role that banks should play. One day, soon after the massacre, an ATM appeared down the street from Tops, next to the library that sits across the street from Parker’s office. Soon after the ATM was installed, Parker began fielding questions from area residents who were skeptical of the machine and wanted to know if it was legitimate. But Parker didn’t have any information to share with them. “There was no outreach. There was no community engagement. So I’m like, ‘Let me investigate,'” she said. “I think that’s a symptom of how investment is done in Black communities, even though it may be well-intentioned.”
As it turns out, the temporary ATM belonged to JPMorgan Chase. The megabank has had a commercial banking presence in Buffalo for years, but it didn’t operate a retail branch in the region until last year. Today it has four branches in operation and plans to open another two by the end of the year, a spokesperson said.
After the Tops shooting, the governor’s office reached out to Chase asking if the bank could help in some way, the spokesperson said in response to the skepticism. The spokesperson said that while the Chase retail brand is new to the Buffalo region, the company has been active in the market for decades by way of commercial banking, private banking, credit card lending, home lending and other businesses.
In addition to the ATM, the bank provided funding to local organizations including FeedMore Western New York, which distributes food throughout the region.
“We are committed to continuing our support for Buffalo and helping the community increase access to opportunities that build wealth and economic empowerment,” the spokesperson said in an email.
In the year since the massacre, there has been some progress by banks in terms of their interest in listening to the East Side community and learning about its needs, said Nicholas. But he hasn’t felt an air of urgency from the banking community to tackle the issues right now.
“I do experience banks being a little more open to figuring out what their role is, but it’s slow. It’s slow,” said Nicholas. The senior pastor of the Lincoln Memorial United Methodist Church, located about a mile north from Tops, Nicholas is part of a 13-member local advisory committee for the New York arm of Local Initiatives Support Coalition, or LISC. The group is focused on mobilizing resources, including banks, to address affordable housing in Western New York, specifically in the inner city, as well as training minority developers and connecting them to potential investors, Nicholas said.
Of the 13 members, seven are from banks — one each from M&T, Bank of America, BankOnBuffalo, Evans and KeyBank, and two members from Citizens Financial Group. One of the priorities of LISC NY is health equity, and the fact that banks are becoming more engaged in looking at health disparities is promising, Nicholas said. Still, they have more work to do, he said.
“I need them to think more on how to strengthen and build the economy on the East Side and provide leadership around that, not only to provide charitable things, but using sound business and banking and community development principles to say, ‘OK, if we’re going to invest in this community, these are the types of things that need to happen in this community,’ and then encourage their partners and other people they work with … to come fully in on the East Side.”
Some bankers agree with the community activists.
“Putting a branch in is great. Having a bank on wheels is great,” said Noah of BankOnBuffalo. “But if you’re not embedded in the community, listening to the community and trying to improve it, you’re not creating that wealth and creating a better lifestyle for everyone.”
What could make a substantial difference in terms of banks’ impact on the community is a combination of collaboration and leadership, said Taylor. He supports the idea of banks leading the charge on the creation of a comprehensive redevelopment and reinvestment plan for the East Side, and then investing accordingly and collaboratively through their charitable foundations.
“All of them have these foundations,” Taylor said. “You can either spend that money in a strategic and intentional way designed to develop a community for the existing population, or you can spend that money alone in piecemeal, siloed, sectorial fashion that will look good on an annual report, but won’t generate transformational and generational changes inside a community.”
Banks might be incentivized to work together because it could mean two things for them, according to Taylor: First, they’d have an opportunity to spend money in a way that would have maximum impact on the East Side, and second, if done right, the city and the banks could become a model of the way to create high levels of diversity, equity and inclusion in an urban area.
“If you prove how to do that, all that does is open up other markets of consumption all over the country because people want to figure out how to do that same thing,” Taylor said.
Some of that is already happening, at least on a bank-by-bank case, said KeyBank’s Owunwanne. Through the KeyBank Foundation, the company is able to leverage different relationships that connect nonprofits to other entities and corporations that can provide help.
“I see this as an opportunity for us to make not just incremental changes, but monumental changes … as part of a larger group,” Owunwanne said “Again, I say that not to absolve the bank of any responsibility, but just as a larger group.”
Downstairs from Parker’s office, Golden Cup Coffee, a roastery and cafe run by a husband and wife team, and some other Jefferson Avenue businesses are trying to build up a business association for existing and potential Jefferson-area businesses. Parker imagined what the group could accomplish if one of the banks could provide someone on a part-time basis to facilitate conversations, provide administrative support and coordinate marketing efforts.
“In the grand scheme of things, when we’re talking about a multimillion dollar [bank], a part-time employee specifically dedicated to relationship-building and building out coalitions, it sounds like a small thing,” Parker said. “But that’s transformational.”
Buying a home is never easy. It’s expensive, confusing and loaded with paperwork under the best circumstances. It’s even harder these days when the average price of a home is over $400,000 in the U.S., and higher interest rates are making homes that much more expensive.
That’s why it’s so curious that federal regulators might write rules to make homebuying even tougher, however unintentionally, for lower- and middle-income families with modest credit.
Currently, banks must look at three different credit reports from the major credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) when a consumer applies for a conventional mortgage. It’s what’s known as a “tri-merge” requirement, and it makes sure every homebuyer has three opportunities to prove their creditworthiness and put their best foot forward.
One writer for Rocket Mortgage said it’s “the most comprehensive look at their borrowers’ credit history,” and that’s a good thing. But last year, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) proposed to move away from the “tri-merge” system and require only two credit reports, not three — or what’s known as a “bi-merge” system.
That change barely got noticed at all until members of the House Financial Services Committee — Democrats and Republicans — started raising concerns at an FHFA oversight hearing in May. Congressman David Scott, Democrat of Georgia, had this to say: “My concern is that by removing one of the reports from a lender’s review, FHFA is potentially leaving out predictive and positive credit history … this action could have serious implications for consumers planning to purchase a home.”
FHFA no doubt has its reasons. In truth, a bi-merge might be just fine for consumers with perfect credit. But for low- to moderate-income borrowers, it could be a big deal.
Let’s face it: Sometimes, bills get overlooked. Imagine a consumer with a recent bill in collections. If that collection shows up on one of their three credit reports — and it happens to be the one their bank pulls for a loan — the consumer only has one more opportunity in a bi-merge system to demonstrate their creditworthiness instead of two.
The opposite scenario plays out for rent. Not all landlords send a history of on-time rental payments to a credit bureau, which means renters don’t always get (literal) credit for paying their rent on time.
But what if a consumer lives somewhere that does share those on-time payments with a credit bureau? Under a bi-merge system, homebuyers only get credit for the rental payments if the bank where they’re seeking a loan uses the credit report that lists those rental payments. If they pull one of the other two, that homebuyer could be out of luck.
The same is true if a potential homebuyer has a credit card through a local bank. If that bank only shares data with one of the three credit bureaus — instead of all three, like some bigger banks — the consumer may appear “credit invisible” when they go to get a mortgage at a competing bank if the bi-merge report used for that mortgage doesn’t include the “right” credit report.
That’s unfair to the consumer and reduces the incentive to use a small or community bank — good institutions that know the people they serve and play an indispensable role in suburban and rural areas.
Finally, there’s the question of equity. We all know who gets left out when financial opportunities narrow; consumers from historically disadvantaged communities are more likely to have modest credit.
Those potential homebuyers should have every opportunity to represent themselves wholly and completely when they apply for a loan. That’s exactly what the tri-merge represents, and it’s exactly why it should stay in place.
Something that’s simple and straightforward today becomes a roll of the dice in a bi-merge system. That means fewer choices for borrowers who want to shop around and a higher likelihood of missing out on the loan.
Here’s the good news: FHFA’s director, Sandra Thompson, is a smart leader with good intentions. The bi-merge idea is a simple oversight from an office working daily to support homebuyers, including those in disadvantaged communities.
Even better news: There’s still time to turn it back. That’s exactly what FHFA should do.
Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) are a category of investment funds designed to both streamline and safeguard investment transactions. UCITS are usually structured like traditional mutual funds, exchange traded funds, or a money market fund.
The European Union (EU) regulates UCITs, but they are widely available to non-EU investors. U.S. investors, for example, can buy shares of UCITS through U.S.-based fund managers, although local, EU-based money managers run the funds. Because they undergo a high level of regulatory scrutiny, many view UCITS as a relatively safe investment.
What Is a UCITS Fund?
UCITS funds are a type of mutual fund that complies with European Union regulations and holds securities from throughout the region. They emerged as part of an effort by the European Union to consolidate disparate European financial investments into one central sector, governed by the EU, with a “marketing passport,” that enables financial services firms across the EU to invest in multiple countries under a common set of rules and regulations.
The EU launched UCITS for two primary reasons:
1. To structure a single financial services entity under the EU umbrella that allowed for the cross-sale of mutual funds across the EU, and across the globe.
2. To better regulate investment asset transactions among all 28 EU member countries, giving investors inside and outside of the EU access to more tightly regulated investment funds.
Fundamentally, UCITS funds rules give EU regulators a powerful tool to centralize key financial services issues like types of investments allowed, asset liquidity, investment disclosures, and investor safeguards. By rolling the new rules and regulations into UCITS, EU regulators sought to make efficient and secure investment funds available to a broad swath of investors, primarily at the retail and institutional levels.
For investors, UCITS funds offer more flexibility and security. Not only are the funds widely viewed as safe and secure, but UCITS funds offer a diversified fund option to investors who might otherwise have to depend on single public companies for the bulk of their investment portfolios. 💡 Quick Tip: The best stock trading app? That’s a personal preference, of course. Generally speaking, though, a great app is one with an intuitive interface and powerful features to help make trades quickly and easily.
A Brief History of UCITS
The genesis of UCITS funds dates back to the mid-1980’s, with the rollout of the European Directive legislation, which set a new blueprint for financial markets across the continent. The new law introduced UCITS funds on an incremental basis and has been used as a way to regulate financial markets with regular updates and revisions over the past three decades.
In 2002, the EU issued a pair of new directives related to mutual fund sales — Directives 2001/107/EC and 2001/108/EC, which expanded the market for UCITS across the EU and loosened regulations on the sale of index funds in the region.
The fund initiative accelerated in 2009 and 2010, when the Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 clarified the use of UCITS in European investment markets, especially in coordination of all laws, regulations, and administrative oversight. The next year, the European Union reclassified UCITS w as investment funds regulated under Part 1 of the Law of 17 December 2010.
In recent years, “Alt UCITS” or alternative UCITS funds have grown in popularity, along with other types of alternative investments.
Get up to $1,000 in stock when you fund a new account.**
Access stock trading, options, auto investing, IRAs, and more. Get started in just a few minutes.
**Customer must fund their Active Invest account with at least $10 within 30 days of opening the account. Probability of customer receiving $1,000 is 0.028%. See full terms and conditions.
How Does a UCIT Fund Work?
Structurally, UCITS are built like mutual funds, with many of the same features, regulatory requirements, and marketing models.
Individual and institutional investors, who form a collective group of unit holders, put their money into a UCIT, which, in turn, owns investment securities (mostly stocks and bonds) and cash. For investors, the primary goal is to invest their money into the fund to capitalize on specific market conditions that favor the stocks or bonds that form the UCITS. UCTIS funds may provide one way for American investors to get more international diversification within their portfolios.
A professional money manager, or group of managers, run the fund, and they are singularly responsible for choosing the securities that make up the fund. The UCITS investor understands this agreement before investing in the fund, thus allowing the fund managers to choose investments on their behalf.
An investor may leave the fund at any point in time, and do so by liquidating their shares of the fund on the open market. American investors should know that the Internal Revenue Service may classify UCITS as passive foreign investment companies, which could trigger more onerous tax treatments, especially when compared to domestic mutual funds. 💡 Quick Tip: How to manage potential risk factors in a self directed investment account? Doing your research and employing strategies like dollar-cost averaging and diversification may help mitigate financial risk when trading stocks.
UCITS Rules and Regulations
UCITS do have some firm regulatory and operational requirements to abide by in the European Union, as follows:
• The fund and its management team are usually based on a tax-neutral EU country (Ireland would be a good example.)
• A UCITS operates under the laws mandated by the member state of its headquarters. After the fund is licensed in the EU state of origin, it can then be marketed to other EU states, and to investors around the world. The fund must provide proper legal notification to the state or nation where it wants to do business before being allowed to market the fund to investors.
• A UCITS must provide proper notice to investors in the form of a Key Investor Information Document, usually located on the fund’s website. The fund must also be approved.
• A UCITS must also provide a fund prospectus to investors (also normally found on the fund’s web site) and must file both annual and semiannual reports.
• Any time a UCITS issues, sells, or redeems fund shares, it must make pricing notification available to investors.
The Takeaway
As discussed, Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) are a category of investment funds designed to both streamline and safeguard investment transactions. Note that while UCITS are usually structured like traditional mutual funds, exchange traded funds, or a money market fund.
UCITS may be an interesting type of investment for U.S. investors looking to diversify their portfolios. As with any investment, investors must conduct thorough due diligence on the UCITS, which should include a review of fund holdings, past performance, management stability, fees, and tax consequences.
Ready to invest in your goals? It’s easy to get started when you open an investment account with SoFi Invest. You can invest in stocks, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and more. SoFi doesn’t charge commissions, but other fees apply (full fee disclosure here).
For a limited time, opening and funding an account gives you the opportunity to win up to $1,000 in the stock of your choice.
Photo credit: iStock/kupicoo
SoFi Invest® The information provided is not meant to provide investment or financial advice. Also, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investment decisions should be based on an individual’s specific financial needs, goals, and risk profile. SoFi can’t guarantee future financial performance. Advisory services offered through SoFi Wealth, LLC. SoFi Securities, LLC, member FINRA / SIPC . SoFi Invest refers to the three investment and trading platforms operated by Social Finance, Inc. and its affiliates (described below). Individual customer accounts may be subject to the terms applicable to one or more of the platforms below. 1) Automated Investing—The Automated Investing platform is owned by SoFi Wealth LLC, an SEC registered investment advisor (“Sofi Wealth“). Brokerage services are provided to SoFi Wealth LLC by SoFi Securities LLC, an affiliated SEC registered broker dealer and member FINRA/SIPC, (“Sofi Securities).
2) Active Investing—The Active Investing platform is owned by SoFi Securities LLC. Clearing and custody of all securities are provided by APEX Clearing Corporation.
3) Cryptocurrency is offered by SoFi Digital Assets, LLC, a FinCEN registered Money Service Business.
For additional disclosures related to the SoFi Invest platforms described above, including state licensure of Sofi Digital Assets, LLC, please visit www.sofi.com/legal.
Neither the Investment Advisor Representatives of SoFi Wealth, nor the Registered Representatives of SoFi Securities are compensated for the sale of any product or service sold through any SoFi Invest platform. Information related to lending products contained herein should not be construed as an offer or prequalification for any loan product offered by SoFi Bank, N.A.
Financial Tips & Strategies: The tips provided on this website are of a general nature and do not take into account your specific objectives, financial situation, and needs. You should always consider their appropriateness given your own circumstances.
Claw Promotion: Customer must fund their Active Invest account with at least $10 within 30 days of opening the account. Probability of customer receiving $1,000 is 0.028%. See full terms and conditions.
A new report released today by IHS Global Insight and PNC Financial Services Group revealed that the nation’s housing market as a whole is “slightly undervalued,” but said there was no sign of a bottom.
The so-called “House Prices in America” fourth quarter update found that home prices had fallen a collective 9.9 percent from their 2007 peak, although much more in sand states like California and Florida.
Home prices fell at an annualized rate of 13 percent nationwide and dropped in 92 percent of the nation’s metro areas, with the greatest declines of the current cycle seen in the fourth quarter.
Price contraction has been the worst in the Southwest and Southeast, areas of the country that were deemed the most overvalued.
“When the 330 metro areas were weighted by market value, the U.S. was 8.4% undervalued; when weighted by housing units, the nation was 10.2% undervalued,” the report said.
Extreme overvaluation was only present in one metro area, Atlantic City, NJ, compared to 52 metros that met that description three years earlier; the Pacific Northwest is the only remaining overvalued region.
“We expect prices to decline further through 2009 as consumers remain wary of taking on housing debt in these uncertain economic conditions,” said Jeannine Cataldi, senior economist and manager of IHS Global Insight’s Regional Real Estate Service.
“Markets where the boom was greatest, and the fall the hardest, will be watched carefully for any signals that may indicate a trend towards stability and potential growth.”
During 2008, statewide home price declines exceeded 20 percent in Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada and 10 percent in Maryland, Michigan, Georgia, and Virginia.
Home prices in five metros in California’s Central Valley have slipped to less than half their peaks, while 38 other metros have declined by more than 30 percent.
“In all, 119 metros, more than one third of the total, experienced price declines of more than 10%,” the report said.
IHS attributed the home price declines to a heavy inventory overhang, tight mortgage credit conditions, poor consumer confidence, and mounting job losses.
The study determines what house prices should be, accounting for differences in population density, relative income levels, and historically observed market premiums or discounts.
If you’re looking to stay abreast of the latest mortgage industry news, consider my free e-mail updates!
Have you ever held back from asking a question? Although you really want to know the answer, you might hold back because you are afraid that your question is stupid. But when it comes to personal finances – there is no such thing as a stupid question.
In fact, by holding off on asking simple questions, you could seriously jeopardize your financial future. On Ask A Stupid Question Day, I will share the questions that I thought were too stupid to ask when I started my personal finance journey.
Let’s dive right in!
What’s Ahead:
Ask A Stupid Question Day
Ask A Stupid Question Day is a holiday celebrated on September 28th in the United States. School teachers started the holiday in an effort to encourage students to ask more questions.
Although the holiday is traditionally celebrated in a classroom, you are never too old to ask questions. Asking questions is important for all aspects of life, but it is especially important in building a solid financial future.
No one is simply born with the answers to all the personal finance questions you might have along the way. Instead of guessing, it is important to seek out the answers to personal finance questions. With a little bit of knowledge, you can set yourself up for a bright financial future. Without taking the time to seek out the right answers for your financial situation, you may encounter a bumpy road ahead.
Why there aren’t any stupid questions when it comes to personal finance
When I started my own personal financial journey, I had so many questions that it was intimidating to even start asking. I often worried about whether or not my questions would be seen as silly. But I quickly realized that there is no such thing as a stupid question where finances are concerned. There are even financial advisors, like those found through The Paladin Registry, that specialize in helping you find answers. It is much better to ask the question than let it burn a hole in your brain – and potentially derail your financial future.
You can, and should, take the time to ask any questions that pop into your brain. As you start to approach your finances, you’ll encounter a litany of questions. That’s okay! If you have plenty of questions, that means that you are ready to take responsibility for your finances.
Don’t be afraid to seek out the answers to the money questions that are swirling around in your head. With more information, you will be better prepared to build a worry-free financial future.
Questions that helped me on my personal finance journey
As you first start making decisions that have financial ramifications, you will find that many questions will pop up. You’ll start wondering about things that you had truly never considered before.
I found that asking a series of basic questions over the years has helped me create a relatively secure financial position. I will share a few of the questions that have helped me over the years below.
How to set up a bank account that works with me?
If you are anything like me, then you likely opened up a bank account with a big bank to get you started. It seemed like the simplest option when I was 18 and needed a bank account to accept my direct deposited paychecks. But what I didn’t realize at the time was that the big bank that I had chosen would provide an account experience riddled with fees.
For a while, I simply accepted that fees were just a part of my banking experience. But then, I started to question my logic and look at what other banks had to offer. One financial app that I wish I had known about sooner is Chime®.* The online financial services app offers a completely no fee experience that can come in handy. 2
Chime allows you to manage your money without worrying about any fees along the way. With the help of automatic savings features, real-time alerts, and no minimum balances to hold you back, you’ll be ready to up your savings game in no time.
Instead of working against the endless stream of account fees with a bigger bank, why not look for a bank that won’t stand in the way of you reaching your financial goals?
* Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided by The Bancorp Bank, N.A. or Stride Bank, N.A., Members FDIC. 2 There’s no fee for the Chime Savings Account. Cash withdrawal and Third-party fees may apply to Chime Checking Accounts. You must have a Chime Checking Account to open a Chime Savings Account.
How can I avoid taking on too much debt?
When you are starting out, then the thought of paying for everything upfront can seem overwhelming. Especially when everything from school tuition to living expenses can be covered with a variety of loans. It can be very tempting to take on loans to cover your expenses. But taking on too much debt early in life can dramatically negatively impact your financial future.
It is no secret that a heavy debt burden can put a damper on your finances for years to come. But how can you avoid taking on too much debt? Consider living as cheaply as possible when you are faced with the option of taking on more debt. Do your best to limit extra expenses if you know that you cannot afford it at the moment.
If you can’t lower your expenses, then consider picking up a side hustle to make ends meet. Or if you are looking to cover educational costs, then seek out scholarships or work-study opportunities to lower your overall costs. If you are able to avoid taking on more debt, your future self will thank you!
How can I save more money?
As you likely know, saving money is important. But you might not know how you can keep more money in your wallet. After all, life can be expensive, and it can be all too easy to feel light on savings!
Luckily, there are many ways to save more money. Although you’ll likely need to get creative, it is likely possible to squirrel away more of your income. As you build your savings, stash them somewhere safe. Specifically, a high yield savings account is one of the best places to store your savings. Not only will you enjoy the protection of FDIC insurance, but also a relatively high return on your savings compared to traditional savings accounts.
One of the best available high yield savings accounts is the CIT Savings Builder. The account provides an APY of 1.00% if you have a balance of $25,000 or deposit $100 each month. See details here. With this account, you won’t need to worry about account fees cutting into your savings. Plus, the incentive of a higher APY will encourage you to build strong saving habits each month.
CIT Bank. Member FDIC.
What is my credit score and why does it matter?
As if the world of personal finance wasn’t confusing enough, you’ll eventually encounter your credit score. The three-digit number can have a big impact on your finances. But what does it even mean?
Your credit score is based on your credit history. Your credit history is a record of financial transactions that provides the details which determine your credit score. Generally, a clean report without any late payments or large outstanding balances will lead to a high credit score. With a high credit score, you can access credit opportunities more easily. For example, you could more easily obtain a mortgage with a low interest rate with a high credit score. On the flip side, a bad credit score could reflect a history of late payments or a high credit utilization rate.
Take some time to better understand how credit works today.
How can I start investing?
As you get your financial bearings, the call to invest money for your future will become stronger. The good news is that it can be fairly easy to get started investing. Even starting with a small amount of money can lead to big long term rewards.
The best place to get started is to seek out an investment platform that will allow you to work towards your goals.
If you want to learn more about the inner workings of building an investment portfolio, Public’s platform is designed to work with you beyond simply choosing your preferences. With Public, you’ll have access to helpful guidance and answers to all of your investment questions. Plus, you’ll enjoy the commission-free trading offered by Public.
Should I buy a house?
As you venture into adulthood, the question of where to live becomes more important every day. The big question is whether you should buy a place or continue renting for now. The answer to this question depends on your situation.
You’ll need to consider your current savings situation and your plans for the future. If you want to leave the area in a year or two, then renting might be easier. But if you are planning to stay for years, then owning a home might be the best economic approach.
Personally, I’ve chosen to buy a home with my husband. But only after asking many questions and listening to both sides of the debate. If you are struggling to determine the best solution, then check out MU30’s rent vs. buy calculator to help you crunch the numbers of this decision.
How can I maintain a budget and still have fun?
As you stare down your long term money goals, it can seem a bit overwhelming at first. After all, how are you supposed to have any fun while attempting to save every last penny? The answer is that you need to determine your spending priorities when creating a budget.
It is completely possible to enjoy your life and have fun while sticking to a budget. Although frugal fun will require some creativity, you can make it happen. But remember that it is important to find a balance between saving and spending. Both are important, so find a way to strike a balance that you can live with.
For me, this means allocating a substantial portion of my budget towards travel spending. But I still sock away a larger portion of my income to reach my long term financial goals. I could meet those goals sooner if I gave up my travel spending habits – but I’m not willing to sacrifice that balance.
A budgeting and savings app like Empower can help with that. Using Empower, I can set spending limits for each category in my budget. As I reach my limit, the app alerts me so that I know to cut back a little.
Best of all, after I tell Empower my savings targets, the app will automatically set a little money aside each week to help me reach my goals. And, if expenses are unusually high, Empower cuts back on what it sends to savings.
*Empower is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services provided by nbkc bank, Member FDIC.
Summary
I hope you’ve realized by now that the ‘stupid’ questions I asked about money weren’t stupid at all! As I continued to make decisions about my financial future, a curious mind has helped me seek out the best possible options for my situation.
As you continue making decisions about your personal finances, I strongly encourage you to ask all the questions that pop into your head. After all, it never hurts to ask the question – especially when the answer can help you reach your financial goals. Don’t let anything stand in your way from learning what you want to. Let the knowledge empower you to take charge of your finances and move in the direction you desire!
PennyMac Financial Services has room to grow in both the correspondent and wholesale channels, even as both of those reported higher production on a quarter-to-quarter and year-over-year basis.
However, its results were negatively impacted by a 51 cent per share reduction to its profits related to mortgage servicing rights as fair value gains were more than wiped out by hedging losses.
The company reported $58.3 million of net income for the second quarter, up from $30.4 million in the first quarter but well below the $128.2 billion earned in the second quarter of 2022.
“PennyMac Financial reported solid results in the second quarter, reflecting increased production volumes and profitability from the prior quarter as well as a continued strong contribution from our large and growing servicing business,” said Chairman and CEO David Spector in a press release. “Strong operating performance was partially offset by net valuation-related losses that resulted from the inverted yield curve and elevated hedge costs driven by multi-year highs in interest rate volatility.”
Total margins for loans originated (including correspondent loans produced for related company PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust) were higher across both the third party and consumer direct channels. The businesses are branded as Pennymac.
Its production segment pretax income of $24.4 million, compared with a pretax loss of $19.6 million in the prior quarter and pretax income of $9.7 million for the year ago period.
“Revenue per fallout adjusted lock for PFSI’s own account was 63 basis points in the second quarter, up from 49 basis points in the first quarter, driven primarily by higher overall volumes and margins,” said Dan Perotti, chief financial officer on a prerecorded call. “Additionally, segment profitability was negatively impacted by $2.9 million, caused by changes in [government-sponsored enterprise] pricing that did not come with pipeline protection as they historically have.
The correspondent channel (not including the PMT loans) had the highest margins, at 366 basis points for the most recent quarter, versus 323 basis points in the first quarter and 355 basis points a year ago.
PennyMac Financial was previously cited by industry observers as a beneficiary of Wells Fargo’s decision to close down its correspondent business.
In the quarter, it originated $21.2 billion of correspondent loans, compared with $20.2 billion in the first quarter and $21 billion one year prior. Fundings for PennyMac Mortgage Trust are included in that total; those fell to $3 billion from $6.6 billion and $10.3 billion respectively.
“First off, we moved a lot of the bulk business that we have been purchasing in PMT,” Spector said during a separate analysts call on Thursday afternoon. “PMT sold those loans to PFSI as a way for PMT to further diversify its investments between MSRs and credit-related investments.”
For the same time frame, the broker channel did $2.1 billion in volume versus $$1.5 billion and $2.0 billion.
“We are anticipating that the company will continue to take market share in the correspondent and broker direct channels, and grow its return on equity over time,” a Wedbush Securities report from Jay McCanless said.
Consumer direct volume of $1.6 billion for the second quarter was less than half of the $3.7 billion originated for the same period in 2022. In the first quarter, PennyMac Financial Services did just $1 billion.
Because of the MSR hit, servicing profitability was down to $46.5 billion from $57.4 million in the prior quarter and $167.6 million a year ago.
While PennyMac Financial realized $118.9 million in MSR fair value gains, it posted $155.1 million in hedging losses.
“Hedge losses…included $42 million in hedge costs, which were elevated due to the inverted yield curve and significant interest rate volatility,” Perotti said. “However, hedge costs were meaningfully lower in June and remain at lower levels in July.”
On the analysts call, Spector added that the company has adjusted its hedging strategy, opening up a little more exposure in a rising rate environment, and that has reduced those costs.
“We see both earnings and valuation upside connected to the evolving market landscape, where banks appear likely to continue ceding market share to non-banks in origination and servicing,” said a report from BTIG analyst Eric Hagen.
Keefe, Bruyette & Woods is modeling PennyMac Financial to have a 5.7% market share in both this year and next, up from 4.9%.
“We believe [gain on sale] margins have likely troughed, and the improved mortgage banking visibility gives us more confidence in the company’s earnings power in 2024,” said the report from Bose George, a KBW analyst.
PMT also released results after the market closed on Thursday.
The real estate investment trust earned $14.2 million in the second quarter, down from $50.3 million in the first quarter but an improvement versus the year ago loss of $81.2 million.
“While continued credit spread tightening led to fair value increases for PMT’s credit sensitive investments, the interest rate sensitive strategies were impacted by the inverted yield curve and elevated hedge costs driven by multi-year highs in interest rate volatility,” Spector, who is also chairman and CEO of this company, said in a separate release. “We continue to deploy capital towards opportunistic investments in both credit sensitive and interest rate sensitive strategies; and this quarter, we invested nearly $100 million in such investments, which we believe can generate strong, long-term risk-adjusted returns.”
You’ve heard how awesome Roth IRAs are and how starting one now can mean big bucks when you’re older. You’ve even done some research so you have a vague idea of how a Roth IRA works. Now what? How do you actually open a Roth IRA for yourself?
The good news is that it’s surprisingly easy to set up a retirement account and begin investing in your future. Here’s what to do…
How to open a Roth IRA
Decide where to open your Roth IRA account. Financial services providers such as Vanguard or Fidelity will have IRA products.
Gather your information.
Transfer money into your account.
Set up an automatic investment plan.
1. Where to Open a Roth IRA
One of the reasons people fret about opening a Roth IRA is because there are so many financial institutions offering IRA products. It’s important to search for a company that suits your needs, but how do you evaluate each company’s strengths and weaknesses?
Consider reputable Advice
If you already have an investment advisor, ask her for recommendations, but look at other options too. Some banks and credit unions also offer individual retirement accounts. My credit union, for example, has Roth accounts but they’re limited to certificates of deposit at 1.50%.
2. Gather Your Information
Gather all your information in one location when you are ready to begin. Most firms provide online applications, but some still require that you download forms and mail or fax them to the company. (If you’re opening an IRA through a brick-and-mortar bank or broker, take this information with you.)
From this point, it’s just a matter of answering simple questions. The entire process should take about an hour of uninterrupted time. (Actually, you’ll probably only need 15 minutes, but allocate more time just to be safe.) Before you begin the application, make sure you have all the documents listed below:
Here’s What You Need to Open an Account
Your social security number.
Your driver’s license or other photo I.D. like a passport.
Your bank account information — your bank’s routing number and your bank account number.
Your employment information — your employer’s name and address.
Some money. (Depending on where you choose to open your IRA, you may need $25 or as much as $3,000.)
Note: For each beneficiary you choose, you will need to supply their name, social security number, and date of birth as well.
3. Transfer Money Into Your Account
Once you’ve completed the application process, you will be asked to transfer money to your account. This money will probably earn interest in a money market fund until you choose an investment. [In Part 4 of this series, we’ll discuss good investment options for Roth IRAs.]
4. Set Up an Automatic Investment Plan.
I’m a big fan of automatic investment plans. Most of the companies mentioned later in this article offer some sort of program that will pull money from your bank account every month to invest in the stocks or mutual funds you designate. By setting aside $50 or $100 or $500 in this way, saving becomes a habit. You don’t notice the money is missing. It’s a regular expense that just becomes incorporated into your budget.
A final note: Opening a new account usually is quick and simple. However, be aware that it may take a few weeks before you can start trading. That’s because they will wait for checks you send to properly clear the bank.
Ongoing IRA account transactions at banks, brokerages or mutual fund families happen quickly, but they all take some time to activate a new account. In other words, don’t become impatient if you can’t buy things right away.
Related >> IRA Contribution Limits, Deadlines and Deductions
Before You Invest
There are two things you should take care of before opening a Roth IRA:
Tuck away at least $1,000 in a savings account for emergencies.
Pay off your credit card debt. At the very least, make a significant dent in your debt and have a plan for its elimination. (I chronicled my choice between debt and savings here.)
Related >> Which online high-yield savings account & money market is best?
Related >> Real-life choices: Retirement savings vs. debt reduction
An Excellent Way to Begin Your Retirement Savings
When you’ve finished paying off your debt, take the amount you were using for debt reduction each month and, instead of spending it, stick it into a retirement account.
You’ve already developed the habit of using the money to improve your financial life. This is just another way to do it!
Consider Taking a More Active Role
If you’re willing to make some decisions on your own, you can open a self-directed IRA through a mutual fund company or through an online discount brokerage.
In general, you have two choices:
A mutual fund family, like Vanguard or Fidelity, which will open an IRA account for free and sell you their funds for free. The benefit is that you pay no commissions, but the downside is you can only buy the funds they sell.
A brokerage, which allows you to pick any index fund, managed mutual fund, or individual stocks and/or bonds but may charge a commission on each trade. The major online brokerages (E-Trade, TD Ameritrade, etc.) usually have no fees to open an IRA but will charge around $10 or less per transaction for most transactions.
How to Evaluate a Roth IRA provider
Is there a minimum initial investment?
Does the company offer automatic contributions?
Are there minimum contributions?
What types of fees are assessed to the account?
What investment options are available — stocks? mutual funds? real estate?
Is it possible to download statements automatically to your money management program?
How reputable is the provider?
Mutual Fund Family
If you decide to go with a mutual fund family, many people recommend starting at one of the big three Vanguard, Fidelity, or T. Rowe Price because of the large variety of managed and indexed funds they offer. If mutual funds (indexed or managed) are the cornerstone of your investment strategy, it makes the most sense to go with one of the major fund families.
For those focusing on index funds, Vanguard is the most logical choice, because they specialize in index funds and offer the widest variety. They actually created index funds to begin with, and their costs tend to be the lowest. Click here to open a Roth IRA at Vanguard.
For those who prefer managed mutual funds over index funds, your best approach is to go to a review site like Morningstar or Zacks to see which of the funds that pursue what you have in mind (e.g., foreign stocks, domestic bonds, etc.) perform the best. Click here to open a Roth IRA with Fidelity.
All the major mutual fund families make it easy to open no-cost accounts. Simply go to their website and follow their instructions. But there are still other places that you can open a Roth IRA.
Click here to open an IRA at T. Rowe Price.
Discount Brokers
Discount brokers appeal to many people because they have a low barrier to entry. They offer lower fees than traditional brokers because they don’t have research departments and they don’t offer investment advice. They act purely as middlemen for trading in the market.
The primary benefit of using a broker is that you can pick from many different mutual funds or, if you prefer, individual stocks or bonds.
How to Bridge a Gap
Discount brokers are a good option if you are short on cash. Most of them will also offer a cash account, similar to a savings account. You can use that account to accumulate the money necessary to meet the minimum initial deposit.
Online discount brokers want your IRA business and, consequently, they make it very easy to open an account. You can compare their fine print details, but for the most part, their pricing is very similar.
The major players in the discount brokerage space are E-Trade, Scottrade, and TD Ameritrade. Simply visit their home page and look for the link offering a no-cost IRA account. Some have minimum deposits of $500 or so; but if you commit to a monthly automated contribution, many will waive that requirement.
Don’t Delay Because of These Misconceptions
I always believed opening a retirement account was difficult, but that’s all there is to it really. The most difficult part is deciding where to open your account. Set aside an hour or two some Saturday morning to explore your options over a cup of coffee. With some research, you should be able to find a company and program that fits your place in life.
I also used to think, I don’t have money to invest. Last year I forced myself to find the time and the cash to open a Roth IRA, and I can say that it has been one of the best financial decisions I’ve ever made.
The GRS Introduction to Roth IRA Series
Understanding how important it is to get started saving for retirement, check out the rest of our Roth IRA series to learn about how to start your Roth IRA, which investments are best, and other general questions about these great accounts.
Part 1: The extraordinary power of compound interest Part 2: What is a Roth IRA and why should you care? Part 3: How to open a Roth IRA (and where to do it) Part 4: Which investments are best for a Roth IRA? Part 5: Questions and answers about Roth IRAs
Mortgages are essential financial tools that create a pathway to homeownership for millions of Americans each year. In recent years, however, many homebuyers have struggled to obtain small mortgages to purchase low-cost homes, those priced under $150,000.1 This problem has garnered the attention of federal regulators, including the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), who view small mortgages as important tools to increase wealth-building and homeownership opportunities in financially undeserved communities.2
Research has explored mortgage access at different loan amounts, such as below $100,000 or $70,000, and found that small mortgages are scarce relative to larger home loans. Those analyses show that applications for small mortgages are more likely to be denied than those for larger loans, even when applicants have similar credit scores.3 Although the existing research has identified several possible contributing factors to the shortage of small mortgages, the full spectrum of causes and their relative influence are not well understood.4
The Pew Charitable Trusts set out to fill that gap by examining the availability of small mortgages nationwide, the factors that impede small mortgage lending, and the options available to borrowers who cannot access these loans. Pew researchers compared real estate transaction and mortgage origination data from 2018 to 2021 in 1,440 counties across the U.S.; looked at homeownership statistics; and reviewed the results from Pew’s 2022 survey of homebuyers who have used alternative financing methods, such as land contracts and rent-to-own agreements.5 (See the separate appendices document for more details.) This examination found that:
Small mortgages became less common from 2004 to 2021. Nationally, much of the decline in small mortgage lending is the result of home price appreciation, which continually pushes properties above the price threshold at which small mortgages could finance them. However, even after accounting for price changes, small mortgages are less available nationwide than they were two decades ago, although the decline varies by geography.
Most low-cost home purchases do not involve a mortgage. Despite rising prices, sales of low-cost homesremain common nationwide, accounting for more than a quarter of total sales from 2018 to 2021. However, just 26% of properties that sold for less than $150,000 were financed using a mortgage, compared with 71% of higher-cost homes.
Borrowers who cannot access small mortgages typically experience one of three undesirable outcomes. Some households cannot achieve homeownership, which deprives them of one of this nation’s key wealth-building opportunities. Others pay for their home purchase using cash, though this option is challenging for all but the most well-resourced households and is almost never available to first-time homebuyers. And, finally, some resort to alternative financing arrangements, which tend to be riskier and costlier than mortgages, because in most states they are poorly defined and not subject to robust—or sometimes any—consumer protections.
Structural and regulatory barriers limit the profitability of small mortgage lending. The most significant of these barriers is that the fixed costs of originating a mortgage are disproportionally high for smaller loans. Federal policymakers can help address these challenges by identifying opportunities to modernize certain regulations in ways that reduce lenders’ costs without compromising borrower protections.
Mortgages are the main pathway to homeownership
In the United States, homeownership remains a priority for most families: In one nationally representative survey, 74% of respondents said owning a home is an integral part of the American Dream.6 Some Americans value homeownership for personal reasons, citing it as a better option for their family, their sense of safety and security, and their privacy.7 Still others emphasized homeownership’s financial benefits, noting that owning makes more economic sense than renting, enables them to take advantage of their home’s resale value, and can provide substantial tax benefits.8
But regardless of their reasons for buying homes, most American families rely on mortgages to gain access to homeownership because they cannot afford to purchase a home with cash. According to a survey conducted from July 2021 to June 2022, 78% of homebuyers financed their purchases with mortgages, most of which were fixed-rate loans. Mortgages are even more prevalent among first-time homebuyers: 97% used a mortgage to purchase their starter home.9 Given the predominance of mortgages, it is no surprise that changes in mortgage availability have closely correlated with shifts in the nation’s homeownership rate over the past two decades.10 (See Figure 1.)
Mortgages not only enable homeownership, but they also enhance its financial benefits. In most cases, these loans help borrowers purchase larger or more valuable homes than they could otherwise afford. Fixed-rate mortgages also serve as a hedge against inflation and offer borrowers housing cost certainty in the form of a predictable schedule of payments for the duration of the loan.
In addition, mortgages are subject to robust consumer protections. Most mortgages include inspection and appraisal contingencies, which ensure that homes meet minimum habitability standards and that the sale price reflects the home’s true market value, respectively.11 Further, real estate transactions involving mortgages typically include a clear process for transferring the property’s title from seller to buyer, which is a crucial step in guaranteeing that borrowers can demonstrate ownership of their property. And in the event of default, CFPB rules contain clear foreclosure and delinquency processes that give mortgage borrowers an opportunity to make any missed payments and retain their homes.12
Because of these advantages, financing a home purchase with a mortgage is almost always in buyers’ best interest. However, homebuyers seeking loans under $150,000 are often unable to find a mortgage and so are deprived of the benefits of homeownership, of mortgages, or both.
Small mortgages are scarce
Small mortgages are less common today than they were before the Great Recession, when lenders issued small and large mortgages in roughly equal measure. In 2004, for example, lenders originated 2.7 million mortgages for less than $150,000 (in 2004 dollars) and 2.9 million large mortgages—those of $150,000 or more. But Pew estimates that from 2004 to 2021, small mortgage lending fell by nearly 70% to 830,000 loans a year, while large mortgage lending grew by 52% to 4.4 million loans annually. The decline was more acute in certain parts of the country. For instance, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that small mortgages declined by only 28% in Pennsylvania and Delaware from 2019 to 2021 but fell by 43% in New Jersey over the same span.13
Some of the decrease in small mortgage lending can be explained by rising home prices. As homes become more expensive, fewer properties can be purchased using a small mortgage. And the issue of housing affordability has grown more acute over the past two decades. According to the Zillow Home Value Index, single-family home prices rose faster than the rate of inflation from 2004 to 2021. Furthermore, those increases were largest among lower-priced homes.14 Still, home price appreciation does not fully account for the decline in small mortgage lending. (See Figure 2.)
Although low-cost properties are scarcer than they once were, they continue to be bought and sold in large numbers across the country. But the share of those homes purchased with a mortgage is far lower than that for higher-priced properties. From 2018 to 2021, the 1,440 counties Pew studied collectively recorded about 20 million home sales, of which 5.3 million were for less than $150,000. Although the share of low-cost properties varied based on local market conditions, every county in this analysis recorded at least one low-cost sale. During the same period, lenders originated about 12.1 million mortgages in the counties Pew studied, including roughly 1.4 million for purchases under $150,000.15 Based on these mortgage origination and home sale figures, Pew estimates that about 71% of homes priced at $150,000 or more were financed using a mortgage, compared with just 26% of lower-cost homes. (See Figure 3.) This amounts to a financing gap of 44 percentage points, or about 560,000 home purchases that were not financed with small mortgages.
Importantly, however, this analysis probably overstates the magnitude of the financing gap for two key reasons. First, Pew is unable to observe the physical quality of the homes purchased in the studied counties. Evidence suggests that low-cost homes are more likely than higher-cost homes to have structural deficiencies that disqualify them from mortgage financing. Second, even if small mortgages are readily available, many sellers, and probably some buyers, are likely to prefer cash transactions. (See “Cash purchases” below for more details.) Still, these factors do not fully account for the gap in small mortgage financing.
What happens when people cannot get a small mortgage?
When prospective buyers of low-cost homes cannot access a small mortgage, they typically have three options: turn to alternative forms of financing such as land contracts, lease-purchases, or personal property loans; purchase their home using cash; or forgo owning a home and instead rent or live with family or friends. Each of these outcomes has significant disadvantages relative to buying a home using a small mortgage.
Alternative financing
Many alternative financing arrangements are made directly between a seller and a buyer to finance the sale of a home and are generally costlier and riskier than mortgages.16 For example, personal property loans—an alternative arrangement that finances manufactured homes exclusive of the land beneath them—have median interest rates that are nearly 4 percentage points higher than the typical mortgage issued for a manufactured home purchase.17 Further, research in six Midwestern states found that interest rates for land contracts—arrangements in which the buyer pays regular installments to the seller, often for an agreed upon period of time—ranged from zero to 50%, with most above the prime mortgage rate.18 And unlike mortgages, which are subject to a robust set of federal regulations, alternative arrangements are governed by a weak patchwork of state and federal laws that vary widely in their definitions and protections.19
But despite the risks, millions of homebuyers continue to turn to alternative financing. Pew’s first-of-its-kind survey, fielded in 2021, found that 36 million people use or have used some type of alternative home financing arrangement.20 And a 2022 follow-up survey on homebuyers’ experiences with alternative financing found that these arrangements are particularly prevalent among buyers of low-cost homes. From 2000 to 2022, 50% of borrowers who used these arrangements purchased homes under $150,000. (See the separate appendices document for survey toplines.)
Further, the 2022 survey found that about half of alternative financing borrowers applied—and most reported being approved or preapproved—for a mortgage before entering into an alternative arrangement. Pew’s surveys of borrowers, interviews with legal aid experts, and review of research on alternative financing shed some light on the advantages of alternative financing—despite its added costs and risks—compared with mortgages for some homebuyers:
Convenience. Alternative financing borrowers do not have to submit or sign as many documents as they would for a mortgage, and in some instances, the purchase might close more quickly.21 For example, Pew’s 2022 survey found that just 67% of respondents said they had to provide their lender with bank statements, pay stubs, or other income verification and only 60% had to furnish a credit report, credit score, or other credit check, all of which are standard requirements for mortgage transactions.
Upfront costs. Some alternative financing arrangements have lower down payment requirements than do traditional mortgages.22 Borrowers who are unable to afford a substantial down payment or who want small monthly payments may find alternative financing more appealing than mortgages, even if those arrangements cost more over the long term. For example, in Pew’s 2022 survey, 23% of respondents said they did not pay a down payment, deposit, or option fee. And among those who did have a down payment, 75% put down less than 20% of the home price, compared with 59% of mortgage borrowers in 2021.23
Specifics of a home. Borrowers who prioritize the location or amenities of a specific home over the type, convenience, and cost of financing they use might agree to an alternative arrangement if the seller insists on it, rather than forgo purchasing the home.
Familiarity with seller. Borrowers buying a home from family or friends might agree to a transaction that is preferable to the seller because they trust that family or friends will give them a fair deal, perhaps one that is even better than they would get from a mortgage lender.
However, regardless of a borrower’s reasons, the use of alternative financing is cause for concern because it is disproportionately used—and thus the risks and costs are inequitably borne—by racial and ethnic minorities, low-income households, and owners of manufactured homes. Among Americans who have financed a home purchase, 34% of Hispanic and 23% of Black households have used alternative financing at least once, compared with just 19% of White borrowers. (See Figure 4.) Further, families earning less than $50,000 are seven times more likely to use alternative financing than those earning more than $50,000. And nearly half of surveyed manufactured home owners reported using a personal property loan.24 In all of these cases, expanding access to small mortgages could help reduce historically underserved communities’ reliance on risky alternative financing arrangements.
Cash purchases
Other homebuyers who fail to obtain a small mortgage instead choose to pay cash for their homes. In 2021, about a quarter of all home sales were cash purchases, and that share grew in 2022 amid an increasingly competitive housing market.25 The share of cash purchases is larger among low-cost than higher-cost property sales, which may partly be a consequence of the lack of small mortgages.26 However, although cash purchases are appealing to some homebuyers and offer some structural advantages, especially in competitive markets, they are not economically viable for the vast majority of first-time homebuyers, 97% of whom use mortgages.27
Purchasing a house with cash gives buyers a competitive advantage, compared with using a mortgage. Sellers often prefer to work with cash buyers over those with financing because payment is guaranteed, and the buyer does not need time to secure a mortgage. Cash purchases also enable simpler, faster, and cheaper sales compared with financed purchases by avoiding lender requirements such as home inspections and appraisals. In essence, cash sales eliminate “financing risk” for sellers by removing the uncertainties and delays that can accompany mortgage-financed sales. Indeed, as the housing supply has tightened and competition for the few available homes has increased, purchase offers with financing contingencies have become less attractive to sellers. As a result, some financing companies have stepped in to make cash offers on behalf of buyers, enabling those borrowers to be more competitive but often saddling them with additional costs and fees.
However, most Americans do not have the financial resources to pay cash for a home. In 2019, the median home price was $258,000, but the median U.S. renter had just $15,750 in total assets—far less than would be necessary to buy a house.28 Even households with cash on hand may be financially destabilized by a cash purchase because investing a substantial sum of money into a home could severely limit the amount of money they have available for other needs, such as emergencies or everyday expenses. Perhaps because of the financial challenges, homes purchased with cash tend to be smaller and cheaper than homes bought using a mortgage.29
These challenging economic factors limit the types of homebuyers who pursue cash purchases. Investors—both individual and institutional—make up a large share of the cash-purchase market, and are more likely than other buyers to purchase low-cost homes and then return the homes to the market as rental units.30
Researchers have questioned whether cash purchases are truly an alternative to mortgage financing or whether they fundamentally change the composition of homebuyers. One study conducted in 2016 determined that tight credit standards enacted in the aftermath of the 2008 housing market crash resulted in a large uptick in cash purchases, mostly by investor-buyers.31 More recent evidence from 2020 through 2021 suggests that investor purchases are more common in areas with elevated mortgage denial rates, low home values, and below-average homeownership rates.32 In each of these cases, a lack of mortgage access tended to benefit investors, possibly at the expense of homeowners.
No homeownership
Some prospective homebuyers who are unable to access a small mortgage simply forgo homeownership entirely. Instead of buying, these families may choose to rent or live with friends or family. And although these are not necessarily bad outcomes, they lack the financial advantages of homeownership.
On average, homeowners have a net worth that is more than 40 times that of renters, largely because of the equity they accrue from paying down their mortgage balances and from their homes’ appreciation over time.33 In 2019, the median homeowner had $225,000 of equity, accounting for almost 90% of their overall net worth.34
Further, in rental markets with few vacancies and commensurately high costs, owning a home can cost less per month than renting. Recent evidence suggests that, particularly when mortgage interest rates are low, a mortgage payment for a three-bedroom house can be cheaper than the monthly rent for a three-bedroom apartment.35 Likewise, some evidence suggests that buying an inexpensive starter home costs less than renting in some metropolitan areas in the South and Midwest.36
Importantly, the financial benefits of homeownership are not shared equally throughout the country. Historical patterns of discrimination in mortgage lending and government policy have prevented Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous households from accessing homeownership at the same rate as White households. And many of those structural barriers persist, as evidenced by the Black-White homeownership gap, which was wider in 2020 than it was in 1970.37
Mortgage Denials Play a Small Role in Low Access to Credit
Lenders deny applications for small mortgages more often than those for larger loans. From 2018 to 2021, lenders received about 700,000 small mortgage applications per year for site-built single-family homes, of which they denied 11.8%. In contrast, lenders denied just 7.8% of the roughly 3.6 million applications submitted annually for larger mortgages during the same period.
These differences do not entirely reflect applicants’ creditworthiness, as measured by debt-to-income ratio (a person’s monthly debt divided by their income), loan-to-value ratio (dollar amount of a mortgage as a share of the subject property’s appraised value), or credit scores. Research demonstrates that, even for applicants with similar credit profiles, denial rates are much higher for small mortgages than large ones.38 Pew’s analysis confirms these findings. Lenders denied small mortgage applicants with low debt-to-income ratios (36% and below) 8.8% of the time, compared with 4.7% of the time for larger loan applicants with a similar profile. Likewise, applicants with loan-to-value ratios under 80% were more likely to be denied for a small mortgage than a large one.
However, mortgage denials are not the primary cause of the small mortgage shortage. Pew’s analysis found that if lenders denied applications for small mortgages at the same rate as those for larger mortgages, they would originate about 31,000 more small mortgages each year. Although thousands of borrowers would benefit from lower small mortgage denial rates, those additional loans would increase the share of low-cost properties financed with a mortgage by only about 3 percentage points. These findings suggest that lowering the denial rate is not sufficient to increase access to safe and affordable mortgage financing and that regulators need to do more to improve incentives for lenders to originate small mortgages and boost awareness among borrowers.
Small mortgage lending is not profitable for lenders
Policymakers, consumer advocates, and industry agree that increasing the supply of small mortgages could boost homeownership—especially in underserved, low-cost communities.39 But many mortgage lenders simply do not offer small home loans to borrowers. Of the more than 5,000 lenders that originated mortgages from 2018 to 2021, 38% did not issue a single small mortgage.40
In conversations with Pew, lenders, consumer advocates, and government officials identified several potential structural and regulatory obstacles to small mortgage lending. These include the high fixed cost of origination, commission-based compensation for loan officers, the poor physical quality of many low-cost housing units, and various rules and regulations that help protect consumers but may add cost or complexity to the origination process and could be updated to maintain safety at lower cost to lenders.
Structural barriers
Lenders have repeatedly identified the high fixed cost of mortgage originations as a barrier to small mortgage lending because origination costs are roughly constant regardless of loan amount, but revenue varies by loan size. As a result, small mortgages cost lenders about as much to originate as large ones but produce much less revenue, making them unprofitable. Further, lenders have reported an increase in mortgage origination costs in recent years: $8,243 in 2020, $8,664 in 2021, and $10,624 in 2022.41 In conversations with Pew, lenders indicated that many of these costs stem from factors that do not vary based on loan size, including staff salaries, technology, compliance, and appraisal fees.
Lenders typically charge mortgage borrowers an origination fee of 0.5% to 1.0% of the total loan balance as well as closing costs of roughly 3% to 6% of the home purchase price.42 Therefore, more expensive homes—and the larger loans usually used to purchase them—produce higher revenue for lenders than do small mortgages for low-cost homes.
In addition, standard industry compensation practices for loan officers may limit the availability of small mortgages. Lenders typically employ loan officers to help borrowers choose a loan product, collect relevant financial documents, and submit mortgage applications—and pay them wholly or partly on commission.43 And because larger loans yield greater compensation, loan officers may focus on originating larger loans at the expense of smaller ones, reducing the availability of small mortgages.
Finally, lenders must contend with an aging and deteriorating stock of low-cost homes, many of which need extensive repairs. Data from the American Housing Survey shows that 6.7% of homes valued under $150,000 (1.1 million properties) do not meet the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s definition of “adequacy,” compared with just 2.6% of homes valued at $150,000 or more (1.7 million properties).44 The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia estimates that, despite some improvement in housing quality overall, the total cost of remediating physical deficiencies in the nation’s housing stock nevertheless increased from $126.2 billion in 2018 to $149.3 billion in 2022.45
The poor physical quality of many low-cost properties can limit lenders’ ability to originate small mortgages for the purchase of those homes. For instance, physical deficiencies threaten a home’s present and future value, which makes the property less likely to qualify as loan collateral. And poor housing quality can render many low-cost homes ineligible for federal loan programs because the properties cannot meet those programs’ strict habitability standards.
Regulatory barriers
Regulations enacted in the wake of the Great Recession vastly improved the safety of mortgage lending for borrowers and lenders. But despite this success, some stakeholders have called for streamlining of regulations that affect the cost of mortgage origination to make small mortgages more viable. The most commonly cited of these are certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act), the Qualified Mortgage rule (QM rule), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), and parts of the CFPB’s Loan Originator Compensation rule.46
The Dodd-Frank Act requires creditors to make a reasonable, good-faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay a mortgage. This provision has significantly increased the safety of the mortgage market and protected borrowers from unfair and abusive loan terms—such as unnecessarily high interest rates and fees—as well as terms that could strip borrowers of their equity. Lenders can meet Dodd-Frank’s requirements by originating a “qualified mortgage” (QM), which is a loan that meets the CFPB’s minimum borrower safety standards, including limits on the points, fees, and annual percentage rate (APR) the lender can charge.47 In return for originating mortgages under this provision, known as the QM rule, the act provides protection for lenders from any claims by borrowers that they failed to verify the borrower’s ability to repay and so are liable for monetary damages in the event that the borrower defaults and loses the home.
Some lenders and researchers have suggested that the QM rule has increased the cost of mortgage origination because lenders had to establish new processes to verify borrowers’ ability to repay and adhere to stricter compliance requirements.48 In addition, lenders who cannot keep their charges within the QM rule limits often have to offer credits to lower the borrower-facing fees, which can result in lenders originating the loan at a loss.49 And although 2020 revisions to the QM rule gave lenders more flexibility in calculating a borrower’s ability to repay, the extent to which those changes help lenders keep origination costs in check remains unclear.
Another regulation that lenders and researchers have cited as possibly raising the cost of origination is the CFPB’s Loan Originator Compensation rule. The rule protects consumers by reducing loan officers’ incentives to steer borrowers into products with excessively high interest rates and fees. However, lenders say that by prohibiting compensation adjustments based on a loan’s terms or conditions, the rule prevents them from lowering costs for small mortgages, especially in underserved markets. For example, when making small, discounted, or reduced-interest rate products for the benefit of consumers, lenders earn less revenue than they do from other mortgages, but because the rule entitles loan officers to still receive full compensation, those smaller loans become relatively more expensive for lenders to originate. Lenders have suggested that more flexibility in the rule would allow them to reduce loan officer compensation in such cases.50 However, regulators and researchers should closely examine the effects of this adjustment on lender and borrower costs and credit availability. Although such changes would lower lenders’ costs to originate small mortgages for underserved borrowers, they also could further disincline loan officers from serving this segment of the market and so potentially do little to address the small mortgage shortage.
Lastly, some lenders have identified HOEPA as another deterrent to small mortgage lending. The law, enacted in 1994, protects consumers by establishing limits on the APR, points and fees, and prepayment penalties that lenders can charge borrowers on a wide range of loans. Any mortgage that exceeds a HOEPA threshold is deemed a “high-cost mortgage,” which requires lenders to make additional disclosures to the borrower, use prescribed methods to assess the borrower’s ability to repay, and avoid certain loan terms. Changes to the HOEPA rule made in 2013 strengthened the APR and points and fees standards, further protecting consumers but also limiting lenders’ ability to earn revenue on many types of loans. Additionally, the 2013 revision increased the high-cost mortgage thresholds, revised disclosure requirements, restricted certain loan terms for high-cost mortgages, and imposed homeownership counseling requirements.
Many lenders say the 2013 changes to HOEPA increased their costs and compliance obligations and exposed them to legal and reputational risk. However, research has shown that the changes did not significantly affect the overall loan supply but have been effective in discouraging lenders from originating loans that fall above the high-cost thresholds.51 More research is needed to understand how the rule affects small mortgages.
Regulators and lenders have taken some action to expand access to small mortgages
A diverse array of stakeholders, including regulators, consumer advocates, lenders, and researchers, support policy changes to safely encourage more small mortgage lending.52 And policymakers have begun looking at various regulations to identify any that may inadvertently limit borrowers’ access to credit, especially small mortgages, and to address those issues without compromising consumer protections.
Some regulators have already introduced changes that could benefit the small mortgage market by reducing the cost of mortgage origination. For example, in 2022, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced that to promote sustainable and equitable access to housing, it would eliminate guarantee fees (G-fees)—annual fees that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge lenders when purchasing mortgages—for loans issued to certain first-time, low-income, and otherwise underserved homebuyers.53 Researchers, advocates, and the mortgage industry have long expressed concern about the effect of G-fees on the cost of mortgages for borrowers, and FHFA’s change may lower costs for buyers who are most likely to use small mortgages.54
Similarly, FHFA’s decision to expand the use of desktop appraisals, in which a professional appraiser uses publicly available data instead of a site visit to determine a property’s value, has probably cut the amount of time it takes to close a mortgage as well as appraisal costs for certain loans, which in turn should reduce the cost of originating small loans without materially increasing the risk of defaults.55
At the same time, some lenders have been exploring the use of special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) to increase access to mortgage financing for low-cost homebuyers from historically disadvantaged communities.56 SPCPs allow lenders to design loan products that address the unique needs of borrowers of color, manufactured home buyers, and residents of areas where alternative financing is prevalent, all of whom have typically been underserved by the mortgage industry.
Other entities, such as nonprofit organizations and community development financial institutions (CDFIs), are also developing and offering small mortgage products that use simpler, more flexible underwriting methods than other mortgages, thus reducing origination costs.57 Where these products are available, they have increased access to small mortgages and homeownership, especially for low-income families and homebuyers of color.
Although these initiatives are encouraging, high fixed costs are likely to continue making small mortgage origination difficult, and the extent to which regulations governing loan origination affect—or might be safely modified to lower—these costs is uncertain. Unless policymakers address the major challenges—high fixed costs and their drivers—lenders and regulators will have difficulty bringing innovative solutions to scale to improve access to small mortgages. Future research should continue to explore ways to reduce costs for lenders and borrowers and align regulations with a streamlined mortgage origination process, all while protecting borrowers and maintaining market stability.
Solutions to small mortgage challenges in underserved communities
Structural barriers such as high fixed origination costs, rising home prices, and poor home quality partly explain the shortage of small mortgages. But borrowers also face other obstacles, such as high denial rates, difficulty making down payments, and competition in housing markets flooded with investors and other cash purchasers. And although small mortgages have been declining overall, the lack of credit access affects some communities more than others, driving certain buyers into riskier alternative financing arrangements or excluding them from homeownership entirely.
To better support communities where small mortgages are scarce, policymakers should keep the needs of the most underserved populations in mind when designing and implementing policies to increase access to credit and homeownership. No single policy can improve small mortgage access in every community, but Pew’s work suggests that structural barriers are a primary driver of the small mortgage shortage and that federal policymakers can target a few key areas to make a meaningful impact:
Drivers of mortgage origination costs. Policymakers should evaluate federal government compliance requirements to determine how they affect costs and identify ways to streamline those mandates without increasing risk, particularly through new financial technology. As FHFA Director Sandra L. Thompson stated in April 2023: “Over the past decade, mortgage origination costs have doubled, while delivery times have remained largely unchanged. When used responsibly, technology has the potential to improve borrowers’ experiences by reducing barriers, increasing efficiencies, and lowering costs.”58
Incentives that encourage origination of larger rather than smaller mortgages. Policymakers can look for ways to discourage compensation structures that drive loan officers to prioritize larger-balance loans, such as calculating loan officers’ commissions based on individual loan values or total lending volume.
The balance between systemic risk and access to credit. Although advocates and industry stakeholders agree that regulators should continue to protect borrowers from the types of irresponsible lending practices that contributed to the collapse of the housing market from 2005 to 2007, underwriting standards today prevent too many customers from accessing mortgages.59 A more risk-tolerant stance from the federal government could unlock access to small mortgages and homeownership for more Americans. For example, the decision by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (known collectively as the Government Sponsored Enterprises, or GSEs) and FHA to include a positive rent payment record—as well as Freddie Mac’s move to allow lenders to use a borrower’s positive monthly bank account cash-flow data—in their underwriting processes will help expand access to credit to a wider pool of borrowers.60
Habitability of existing low-cost housing and funding for repairs. Restoring low-cost homes could provide more opportunities for borrowers—and the homes they wish to purchase—to qualify for small mortgages. However, more analysis is needed to determine how to improve the existing housing stock without increasing loan costs for lenders or borrowers.
In addition to reducing structural and regulatory barriers to small mortgage lending, a robust policy response on home financing should focus on borrowers who are acutely affected by the lack of small mortgages. Federal policymakers should look for opportunities to expand existing programs and policies for communities that have historically been excluded from homeownership and mortgage access, particularly:
The Duty to Serve rule, which directs the GSEs to improve access to mortgage financing for borrowers of modest means in three underserved markets: manufactured housing, rural communities, and areas requiring funds to preserve affordable housing. Homebuyers in these markets often require a small mortgage to purchase a home, so the GSEs could seek to link their Duty to Serve obligations with small mortgage lending in these markets.
Equitable Housing Finance Plans, which are three-year strategies that the GSEs develop to promote equitable access to affordable and sustainable housing for disadvantaged groups, particularly Black and Hispanic communities. People in these communities are less likely to own a home and more likely to use alternative financing than the overall population, which probably indicates an unmet demand for mortgages. The GSE leadership should consider adding an objective to their plans related to refinancing alternative financing arrangements—which the plans’ target communities disproportionally use—into mortgages.
SPCPs, which can help lenders better serve specific populations that would otherwise be denied credit or receive it on less favorable terms. Policymakers should encourage the creation and use of these programs for underserved populations in low-cost areas where there is a special need for small mortgages and measure the impacts.
Future Pew research will explore not only important questions about the barriers to small mortgage origination but also the strategies that policymakers can use to expand the nation’s affordable housing stock, improve the habitability of existing low-cost homes, and ensure that small mortgages are more accessible and competitive in the marketplace.
Conclusion
Mortgages are vital financial tools that enable homeownership and wealth-building opportunities for millions of Americans each year. However, the scarcity of small mortgages deprives some prospective borrowers of homeownership opportunities and drives others to buy their homes with cash or risky alternative financing arrangements.
To address this problem, policymakers should aim to expand mortgage access and the overall safety of financing for low-cost homes by reducing the structural and regulatory constraints that increase lenders’ costs and make small mortgages unprofitable, and establishing strong consumer protections for alternative arrangements. In addition, federal agencies and lawmakers can reduce racial disparities in mortgage lending by prioritizing Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous households in the development and implementation of small mortgage and alternative financing programs. Together, these initiatives would help bring homeownership opportunities to more Americans.
This brief also benefited from the valuable insights of Dan Gorin, lead supervisory policy analyst, Federal Reserve Board of Governors; Roberto Quercia, professor, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Craig Richardson, professor, Winston-Salem State University; and Sabiha Zainulbhai, senior policy analyst, New America. Although they reviewed drafts of the brief, neither they nor their institutions necessarily endorse the findings or conclusions.
This brief was researched and written by Pew staff members Tracy Maguze, Tara Roche, and Adam Staveski. The project team thanks current and former colleagues Nick Bourke, Ryan Canavan, Jennifer V. Doctors, David East, Anne Holmes, Alex Horowitz, Dave Lam, Omar Antonio Martínez, Cindy Murphy-Tofig, Tricia Olszewski, Reagan Ortiz, Travis Plunkett, Andy Qualls, Ryland Staples, Drew Swinburne, and Mark Wolff for providing important communications, creative, editorial, and research support for this work.
Endnotes
Pew defines small mortgages as loans under $150,000. For the purposes of this study, loan values are adjusted for inflation to reflect 2021 dollars unless otherwise noted. This value is based on conversations with mortgage lenders and on an observed decline in lending below that threshold over the past decade. Additionally, for the purposes of this paper, low-cost homes are those priced at less than $150,000, also in 2021 dollars. This price range is consistent with the majority of purchases financed with small mortgages. The median down payment among small mortgage borrowers is just 5%, and as a result, 75% of small mortgages are used to purchase a home under $157,500, although some borrowers do pair small mortgages with larger down payments to purchase higher-cost homes.
Request for Information Regarding Small Mortgage Lending, 87 Fed. Reg. 60186-87 (Oct. 4, 2022); Request for Information Regarding Mortgage Refinances and Forbearances, 87 Fed. Reg. 58487-92 (Sept. 27, 2022).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Financing Lower-Priced Homes: Small Mortgage Loans” (2022), https://www.huduser.gov/portal/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Financing-Lower-Priced-Homes-Small-Mortgage-Loans.pdf.
S. Zainulbhai et al., “The Lending Hole at the Bottom of the Homeownership Market” (New America, 2021), https://www.newamerica.org/future-land-housing/reports/the-lending-hole-at-the-bottom-of-the-homeownership-market/; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Financing Lower-Priced Homes”; A. McCargo et al., “Small-Dollar Mortgages for Single-Family Residential Properties” (Urban Institute, 2018), https://www.urban.org/research/publication/small-dollar-mortgages-single-family-residential-properties; E. Goldstein and K. DeMaria, “Small-Dollar Mortgage Lending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware” (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 2022), https://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/credit-and-capital/small-dollar-mortgage-lending-in-pennsylvania-new-jersey-and-delaware; L. Goodman, B. Bai, and W. Li, “Real Denial Rates: A Better Way to Look at Who Is Receiving Mortgage Credit” (working paper, Urban Institute, 2018), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98823/real_denial_rates_1.pdf; A. McCargo, B. Bai, and S. Strochak, “Small-Dollar Mortgages: A Loan Performance Analysis” (Urban Institute, 2019), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99906/ small_dollar_mortgages_a_loan_performance_analysis_2.pdf.
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 2018-2021, https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/data-browser/; Zillow Group Inc., Zillow Transaction and Assessment Database, 2018-21, https://www.zillow.com/research/ztrax/. This analysis uses data on mortgage transactions from the HMDA database, the most comprehensive source of information on mortgage lending in the United States. Mortgage lenders report application-level information directly to the CFPB, which compiles and republishes the data for public use. Data on home sales was provided by Zillow through Zillow’s Transaction and Assessment Database (ZTRAX). More information on accessing the data can be found at https://www.zillow.com/research/ztrax/. The results and opinions are those of the authors and do not reflect the position of Zillow Group.
Bankrate, “Nearly Two-Thirds Say Affordability Factors Are Holding Them Back From Homeownership” (Bankrate.com, 2022), https://www.bankrate.com/pdfs/pr/20220330-march-fsp.pdf.
D. Sackett and K. Handel, The Tarrance Group, letter to Woodrow Wilson Center, “Key Findings From National Survey of Voters,” May 21, 2012, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/article/keyfindingsfromsurvey.pdf.
Ibid.
National Association of Realtors, “Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers” (2022), https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-highlights-from-the-profile-of-home-buyers-and-sellers-report-11-03-2022_0.pdf.
A. Acolin, L. Goodman, and S.M. Wachter, “Accessing Homeownership With Credit Constraints,” Housing Policy Debate 29, no. 1 (2019): 108-25, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2018.1452042?casa_token=5ZjHGNxo1VoAAAAA%3AtLKWk_xn7JT3Uz2G7T_zziEuPZa0NlarhJ-tGl6m83DgxB6rq-IYSU7eZNI9mIwBAFx5o7BGbulINcjA.
N. Bourke, T. Roche, and C. Hatchett, “Homeowners With Risky Alternatives to Traditional Mortgages Eligible for COVID-19 Relief Money,” The Pew Charitable Trusts, Nov. 1, 2021, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2021/11/01/homeowners-with-risky-alternatives-to-traditional-mortgages-eligible-for-covid19-relief-money.
Goldstein and DeMaria, “Small-Dollar Mortgage Lending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.”
Zillow Group Inc., “Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI),” 2000-22, https://www.zillow.com/research/data/.
Some borrowers use small mortgages to purchase properties valued at more than $150,000, but Pew is primarily interested in expanding homeownership opportunities to underserved populations, so this analysis considers only low-cost properties.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “What Has Research Shown About Alternative Home Financing in the U.S.?” (2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2022/04/what-has-research-shown-about-alternative-home-financing-in-the-us.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Manufactured Housing Finance: New Insights From the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data” (2021), https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_manufactured-housing-finance-new-insights-hmda_report_2021-05.pdf.
A. Carpenter, T. George, and L. Nelson, “The American Dream or Just an Illusion? Understanding Land Contract Trends in the Midwest Pre- and Post-Crisis” (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2019), 9, https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/media/imp/harvard_jchs_housing_tenure_symposium_carpenter_george_nelson.pdf.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “What Has Research Shown?”; National Consumer Law Center, “Summary of State Land Contract Statutes” (2021), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/white-papers/2022/02/less-than-half-of-states-have-laws-governing-land-contracts.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Millions of Americans Have Used Risky Financing Arrangements to Buy Homes” (2022), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2022/04/millions-of-americans-have-used-risky-financing-arrangements-to-buy-homes.
H.K. Way, “Informal Homeownership in the United States and the Law,” Saint Louis University Public Law Review XXIX, no. 113 (2010): 113-92, https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/hway/informal-homeownership.pdf.
Ibid.
HMDA data for 2022 was not available at time of publication.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Millions of Americans Have Used Risky Financing Arrangements to Buy Homes.”
National Association of Realtors, “Realtors Confidence Index Survey” (2022), https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-09-realtors-confidence-index-10-20-2022.pdf; D. Anderson, “Share of Homes Bought With All Cash Hits Highest Level Since 2014,” Redfin, https://www.redfin.com/news/all-cash-home-purchases-fha-loans-october-2022/.
T. Malone, “Single-Family Investor Activity Bounces Back in the First Quarter of 2022” (CoreLogic, 2022), https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/single-family-investor-activity-bounces-back-in-the-first-quarter-of-2022/.
Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances, 1989-2019, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scf/dataviz/scf/table/#series:Transaction_Accounts;demographic:agecl;population:all;units:median. In 2019, the median balance in the checking and savings accounts of Americans younger than 35 was just $3,240; it jumps to $5,620 for accountholders ages 55 to 64.
Ibid.
S. Riley, A. Freeman, and J. Dorrance, “Alternatives to Mortgage Financing for Manufactured Housing” (The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Center for Community Capital, 2021), https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2022/03/alternatives-to-mortgage-financing-for-manufactured-housing.pdf.
L. Goodman, J. Zhu, and B. Bai, “Overly Tight Credit Killed 1.1 Million Mortgages in 2015,” Urban Wire (blog), Urban Institute, Nov. 21, 2016, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/overly-tight-credit-killed-11-million-mortgages-2015.
E. Dowdall et al., “Investor Home Purchases and the Rising Threat to Owners and Renters: Tales From 3 Cities” (Nowak Metro Finance Lab, 2022), https://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/nowak-lab/220923_InvestorHomePurchases_Final.ashx?la=en.
Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances, 2019, https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm.
Ibid.
ATTOM Data Solutions, “Owning a Home More Affordable Than Renting in Nearly Two Thirds of U.S. Housing Markets,” Jan 7, 2021, https://www.attomdata.com/news/market-trends/home-sales-prices/attom-data-solutions-2021-rental-affordability-report/.
D. Olick, “Here’s Where Owning a Home Is Cheaper Than Renting One,” CNBC, Feb. 7, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/07/where-owning-a-home-is-cheaper-than-renting-one.html.
The Pew Charitable Trusts, “What Has Research Shown?,” 5.
Goodman, Bai, and Li, “Real Denial Rates.”
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Request for Information: Mortgage Refinances and Forbearances,” Sept. 27, 2022, https://www.regulations.gov/document/CFPB-2022-0059-0001/comment; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Request for Information Regarding Small Mortgage Lending,” Oct. 4, 2022, https://www.regulations.gov/docket/HUD-2022-0076/comments.
Alan S. Kaplinsky et al., “DOJ Fair Lending Focus Continues in Settlement of Case Challenging Lender’s Minimum Loan Amount Policy by the Consumer Financial Services and Mortgage Banking Groups,” Casetext, https://casetext.com/analysis/doj-fair-lending-focus-continues-in-settlement-of-case-challenging-lenders-minimum-loan-amount-policy-by-the-consumer-financial-services-and-mortgage-banking-groups. Although some lenders might not originate small mortgages mainly because they operate primarily in high-cost areas, others may require minimum loan sizes, either formally or informally, that exclude low-cost borrowers. The U.S. Department of Justice ruled in 2012 that setting minimum loan sizes of $400,000 or more violates the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, but whether minimum thresholds of $150,000 are unlawful remains unclear.
Mortgage Bankers Association, “Chart of the Week—July 23, 2021 Retail Production Channel: Cost to Originate ($ Per Closed Loan),” July 23, 2021, https://newslink.mba.org/mba-newslinks/2021/july/mba-newslink-monday-july-26-2021/mba-chart-of-the-week-july-23-2021-retail-production-channel-cost-to-originate/; Mortgage Bankers Association, “MBA: 2022 IMB Production Profits Fall to Series Low,” MBA Newslink, https://newslink.mba.org/mba-newslinks/2023/april/mba-2022-imb-production-profits-fall-to-series-low/.
K. Graham, “Mortgage Origination Fee: The Inside Scoop,” Rocket Mortgage LLC, https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/mortgage-origination-fee; M. Crace, “Closing Costs: What Are They, and How Much Will You Pay?,” Rocket Mortgage LLC, https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/closing-costs.
Zillow Inc., “How Is Your Loan Officer Paid?,” https://www.zillow.com/blog/how-is-your-loan-officer-paid-500/.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey (2021), https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/data/2021/ahs-2021-public-use-file–puf-/ahs-2021-national-public-use-file–puf-.html.
E. Divringi, “Updated Estimates of Home Repairs Needs and Costs and Spotlight on Weatherization Assistance” (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, 2023), https://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/housing-and-neighborhoods/updated-estimates-of-home-repairs-needs-and-costs-and-spotlight-on-weatherization-assistance.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “MBA Response to FHA RFI Regarding Small Mortgage Lending,” Dec. 5, 2022, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HUD-2022-0076-0025; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “New America and CSEM Response to Docket No FR-6342-N-01 on Small Mortgage Lending,” Dec. 5, 2022, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HUD-2022-0076-0015.
To qualify, loans must meet three criteria: They cannot have negative amortization, interest-only payments, or balloon payments; the total points and fees charged cannot exceed 3% of the loan amount; and the term must be 30 years or less. They also must satisfy at least one of the following three criteria: The borrower’s total monthly debt-to-income ratio must be 43% or less; the loan must be eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or insured by the FHA, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or U.S. Department of Agriculture; or the loan must be originated by insured depositories with total assets of less than $10 billion, but only if the mortgage is held in portfolio.
F. D’Acunto and A.G. Rossi, “Regressive Mortgage Credit Redistribution in the Post-Crisis Era,” The Review of Financial Studies 35, no. 1 (2022): 482-525, https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/35/1/482/6136188?redirectedFrom=fulltext; Freddie Mac, “Cost to Originate Study: How Digital Offerings Impact Loan Production Costs” (2021), https://sf.freddiemac.com/content/_assets/resources/pdf/report/cost-to-originate.pdf; T. Hogan, “Costs of Compliance With the Dodd-Frank Act” (Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, 2019), https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/dodd-frank-costs-compliance.
K. Berry, “Fed’s Rate Hikes Are Tanking the Mortgage Market,” American Banker, Oct. 24, 2022, https://www.americanbanker.com/news/feds-rate-hikes-are-tanking-the-mortgage-market.
Mortgage Bankers Association, “MBA Members Urge Bureau to Change Loan Originator Compensation Rule,” MBA Newslink, Oct. 24, 2018, https://newslink.mba.org/mba-newslinks/2018/october/mba-newslink-wednesday-10-24-18/mba-members-urge-bureau-to-change-loan-originator-compensation-rule/.
Y. Benzarti, “Playing Hide and Seek: How Lenders Respond to Borrower Protection,” TheReview of Economics and Statistics (2022): 1-25, https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01167/109257/Playing-Hide-and-Seek-How-Lenders-Respond-to?redirectedFrom=fulltext; Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Manufactured Housing Finance,” 25-27.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Request for Information: Mortgage Refinances and Forbearances.”
Federal Housing Finance Agency, “FHFA Announces Targeted Pricing Changes to Enterprise Pricing Framework,” news release, Oct. 24, 2022, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Targeted-Pricing-Changes-to-Enterprise-Pricing-Framework.aspx. G-fees are based on the individual mortgage’s product type and credit risk attributes and help Fannie and Freddie cover administrative costs and credit losses from borrower defaults. However, these fees also increase loan origination costs.
Americans for Financial Reform, “Joint Letter: FHFA RFI on PACE Loans,” March 16, 2020, https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2020/03/joint-letter-fhfa-rfi-pace-loans/; G. Kromrei, “Industry to Congress: G-Fees Aren’t Your ‘Piggybank,’” HousingWire, July 23, 2021, https://www.housingwire.com/articles/industry-to-congress-g-fees-arent-your-piggybank/; L. Goodman et al., “Guarantee Fees—an Art, Not a Science” (Urban Institute, 2014), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22841/413202-Guarantee-Fees-An-Art-Not-a-Science.PDF.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, “FHFA Announces Two Measures Advancing Housing Sustainability and Affordability,” news release, Oct. 18, 2021, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Two-Measures-Advancing-Housing-Sustainability-and-Affordability.aspx.
S. Lee, “How Mortgage, Housing Industries Tackled Affordability in 2022,” National Mortgage News, Dec. 29, 2022, https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/list/how-mortgage-housing-industries-tackled-affordability-in-2022; Wells Fargo, “Wells Fargo Announces Strategic Direction for Home Lending: A Smaller, Less Complex Business Focused on Bank Customers and Minority Communities,” news release, Jan. 10, 2023, https://newsroom.wf.com/English/news-releases/news-release-details/2023/Wells-Fargo-Announces-Strategic-Direction-for-Home-Lending-A-Smaller-Less-Complex-Business-Focused-on-Bank-Customers-and-Minority-Communities/default.aspx.
A. McCargo et al., “The MicroMortgage Marketplace Demonstration Project: Building a Framework for Viable Small-Dollar Mortgage Lending” (Urban Institute, 2020), https://www.urban.org/research/publication/micromortgage-marketplace-demonstration-project; Hurry Home, “A New Way to Be a Homeowner,” https://www.hurryhome.io/.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, “FHFA Announces Inaugural Housing Finance TechSprint,” news release, April 4, 2023, https://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-Inaugural-Housing-Finance-TechSprint.aspx.
L. Goodman, J. Zhu, and T. George, “Four Million Mortgage Loans Missing from 2009 to 2013 Due to Tight Credit Standards,” Urban Wire (blog), Urban Institute, April 2, 2015, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/four-million-mortgage-loans-missing-2009-2013-due-tight-credit-standards.
Fannie Mae, “Fannie Mae Introduces New Underwriting Innovation to Help More Renters Become Homeowners,” news release, Aug. 11, 2021, https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/fannie-mae-introduces-new-underwriting-innovation-help-more-renters-become-homeowners; Freddie Mac, “Freddie Mac Takes Further Action to Help Renters Achieve Homeownership,” news release, June 29, 2022, https://freddiemac.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/freddie-mac-takes-further-action-help-renters-achieve; Freddie Mac, “Freddie Mac Announces Underwriting Innovation to Help Lenders Qualify More Borrowers for a Mortgage,” news release, Oct. 17, 2022, https://freddiemac.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/freddie-mac-announces-underwriting-innovation-help-lenders; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Federal Housing Administration Expands Access to Homeownership for First-Time Homebuyers Who Have Positive Rental History,” news release, Sept. 27, 2022, https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/HUD_No_22_187.
Editor’s note: This brief was updated July 3, 2023, to recognize the peer reviewers and Pew staff members who contributed to its development.
California-based Pennymac Financial Services increased its profits by 92% in the second quarter of 2023 from the prior quarter. Although the performance was propelled by its servicing portfolio – as occurred in previous quarters – mortgage production returned to profitability.
The company reported on Thursday its net income came in at $58.3 million in Q2 2023, up from $30.4 million in Q1 2023 but down from $129.1 million in Q2 2022, per Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings.
“PFSI’s balanced business model continues to distinguish itself, with production returning to profitability due to higher volumes and margins, and strong operating performance in its servicing segment,” David Spector, chairman and CEO, said in a recorded earnings message.
Spector added: “Strong operating performance was partially offset by net valuation-related losses that resulted from the inverted yield curve and elevated hedge costs driven by multi-year highs in interest rate volatility.”
The servicing segment pretax income was $46.5 million in Q2 2023, down from $57.4 million in the prior quarter and $167.7 million in the same period of 2022. Servicing portfolio grew to $576.5 billion in unpaid principal balance (UPB) as of June 30, up 2% from March 31.
“MSR fair value changes and hedging results were negative $36 million, compared to negative $43 million in the prior quarter,” Dan Perotti, senior managing director and chief financial officer, said.
Loan production
Regarding the origination segment, Pennymac had $24.4 million in pretax income from April to June, compared to a $19.6 million loss in the prior quarter and a pretax income of $9.7 million in the same period of 2022.
Pennymac’s total loan acquisitions and originations reached $24.9 billion in UPB in Q2 2023, up 9% from the prior quarter but down 7% from the second quarter of 2022.
Consumer direct interest rate lock commitments (IRLCs) came in at $2.2 billion in UPB, down 2% quarter over quarter and 50% from the second quarter of 2022.
Meanwhile, in the broker direct channel, Pennymac’s commitments were at $2.8 billion in Q2 2023, up 11% quarter over quarter and 27% from the same period in 2022. Pennymac, which has a network of 3,300 approved brokers, said 90% of total originations in this channel during the second quarter were purchase loans.
The correspondent channel’s commitments reached $21.6 billion, down from $21.7 billion in the previous quarter. Executives said the channel tends to represent a larger percentage of total industry originations in a low-volume environment because liquidity becomes relevant for many sellers.
Throughout the quarter, Pennymac increased the number of approved correspondent seller relationships to 800, attracting sellers who had connections with commercial banks that pulled back from or recently exited the channel.
“Pennymac also stands to benefit as banks step back from the channel and increased capital requirements are introduced by bank regulators,” Perotti said.
Pennymac estimates that it represents 18.9% of the correspondent channel, 4.3% of the loan servicing market, 2.6% of the broker direct space, and 0.7% of the consumer direct segment.
Executives at Pennymac remain conservative with the market outlook, citing third-party forecasts for 2023 originations in the range of $1.6 trillion to $1.8 trillion, still well below normalized levels, as mortgage rates are currently near 7%.
“While industry origination volume in the second quarter was meaningfully higher than the first quarter, higher mortgage rates are driving borrowers to remain in their homes, leading to low inventory levels and continued home price appreciation,” Spector said. “Unit originations in 2023 are projected to total just 5 million, the lowest level since 1990, indicating the potential for industry consolidation if market conditions persist.”
In 2024, Spector expects the competitive environment to continue.
PFSI’s stock closed Thursday at $80.20, down 1.85%. The share remained unchanged in the aftermarket following the earnings publication.