3 ways Danish mortgage market trumps U.S.

Denmark's flag. Photo courtesy Per Palmkvist Knudsen.

Editor's note: This is Part 5 of a seven-part series.

The housing finance system of the U.S., once viewed by many as a model, is now a shambles. The underwriting rules applicable to nine of every 10 mortgage loans, stipulating who is and who is not eligible for the loan, are dictated by an arm of the federal government: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA and USDA. The sliver of the market not touched by those agencies is dominated by a small group of too-large-to-fail bank holding companies.

Before the crisis, the nonfederalized part of the market was much larger because it was supported by a private secondary market. Lenders originating loans that did not meet the requirements of any of the federal agencies could sell them in the private secondary market. But that market collapsed in 2007 and has yet to reopen.

One result has been a sharp widening of the yield spread between conventional loans that can be sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and those that can't. Today, the spread between a $417,000 loan purchasable by the agencies and a $418,000 loan that isn't purchasable by them, but which is otherwise identical, is almost 1 percent. Before the crisis, it was 1/4 percent to 3/8 percent.

The key to an effective redesign of the housing finance system is the development of an effective private secondary market, but not the kind of market we had before. That market was markedly inferior to the Danish model, which could easily be transplanted here.

Structural stability: The U.S. market had a structural defect that made it extremely vulnerable to a contagious loss of confidence. Every individual mortgage security was a standalone entity secured by whatever reserves or insurance protections were embedded in that security.

If these reserves turned out to be superfluous, as they always were before the crisis, they were paid out to investors who owned a residual claim to them. These were often the firms that had issued the security. While these firms had the right to remove unneeded reserves, they were under no obligation to provide additional reserves if this proved necessary.

Since the surpluses on one security were not available to meet deficiencies on others, and since no one was obliged to provide additional reserves if this became necessary, the entire market was a house of cards. When some securities did run into trouble and were downgraded by the credit rating agencies, fears about the status of others ran rampant and the entire house collapsed.

In the Danish model, in contrast, every mortgage security is a bond that is a liability of the firm issuing it. The Danish mortgage banks issue multiple bonds, and if one of them experiences a high loss rate, all the resources of the bank are available to deal with it. There has never been a default on a Danish mortgage bond in more than 200 years. During the very worst months of the financial crisis, it was business as usual in the Danish mortgage bond market.

Linkages to primary markets: In the U.S. model, the secondary market and the primary market where loans are made to borrowers are distinct, connected only through transfers of ownership over a period of time. For example, a loan closed by a small ("correspondent") lender is sold to a larger wholesale lender who sells it to an investment bank who places it in a new mortgage security. Months may pass between the date when the loan is closed and the date when the loan becomes collateral for a security. ...CONTINUED

All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.