English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

While the recent decade of changing mortgage origination is well documented, loan pools assembled by MBS issuers have yet to be examined. To address this void in the literature, we provide an overview of the securitization process to connect institutions issuing securities to the origination process and clarify distinctions between GNMA as compared to FNMA and FHMLC in the MBS issuance process. Then, using a proprietary database of all MBS issuers approved by GNMA as of December 2016, we focus on the role of regulatory status in the risk of securitized loan pools for GNMA-guaranteed MBS. We find non-bank GNMA-approved issuers pool riskier mortgages with higher debt-to-income ratios, higher delinquency rates, higher gross margins, and slower prepayment than traditional depository institutions issuing MBS. Although the GNMA liquidity guarantee for MBS servicers protects MBS investors, our findings have long-run implications for U.S. taxpayers.

Risk in Loan Pools of GNMA-Guaranteed MBS: Evidence From Bank and Non-Bank Issuers