The total share of mortgage loans in forbearance decreased from 6.93 percent of servicers’ portfolio volume to 6.87 percent during the week ending Sept. 20, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s latest forbearance and call volume survey.
The decline brings the total number of homeowners enrolled in forbearance plans to approximately 3.4 million, a level not seen since mid-April.
“The share of loans in forbearance continues to decline and is now at a level not seen since mid-April,” Mike Fratantoni, senior vice president and chief economist at MBA, said in a press statement. “Many homeowners with GSE loans are exiting forbearance into a deferral plan and resuming their original mortgage payment, but waiting to pay the forborne amount until the end of the loan.”
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans in forbearance continued to drop for the 16th week in a row to 4.46 percent down from 4.55 percent.
Both Ginnie Mae and portfolio and private-label securities (PLS) loans in forbearance remained steady from the previous week at 9.15 percent and 10.52 percent, respectively.
Depository servicer loans in forbearance decreased from 7.18 percent to 7.11 percent while loans in forbearance for independent mortgage bank (IMB) servicers also declined from 7.26 percent to 7.23 percent.
Still, total weekly forbearance requests as a percentage of servicing portfolio volume increased from 0.10 percent the week before to 0.11 percent. Out of the total loans in forbearance, 30.26 percent are in the initial forbearance plan stage, 68.37 percent are in a forbearance extension and 1.37 percent are forbearance re-entries.
“However, the overall picture is still somewhat of a mixed bag,” Fratantoni added. “The recent uptick in forbearance requests, particularly for those with FHA or VA loans, is leaving the Ginnie Mae share elevated, as the pace of new requests meets or exceeds the pace of exits. The continued churn in the job market is likely keeping many homeowners who have been in forbearance reluctant to exit, given the level of economic uncertainty.”