To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

Securitization and Mortgage Renegotiation: Evidence from the Great Depression

Review of Financial Studies 2011 24(6), 1814-1847
We use loan-level data from the New York City metropolitan area to examine the extent to which lenders attempted to prevent foreclosures with concessionary modifications during the Great Depression. We find no principal forgiveness in the sample and only a handful of concessionary mortgage modifications of other types. Far more mortgages terminated through foreclosure than received any sort of concessionary modification. The results indicate that there are significant impediments to renegotiation of residential mortgages beyond securitization. As such, less renegotiation seems unlikely to be a major cost of securitization of residential mortgages. The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]., Oxford University Press.

Recourse and Residential Mortgage Default: Evidence from US States

Review of Financial Studies 2011 24(9), 3139-3186
We quantify the effect of recourse on default and find that recourse affects default by lowering the borrower's sensitivity to negative equity. At the mean value of the default option for defaulted loans, borrowers are 30% more likely to default in non-recourse states. Furthermore, for homes appraised at $500,000 to $750,000, borrowers are twice as likely to default in non-recourse states. We also find that defaults are more likely to occur through a lender-friendly procedure, such as a deed in lieu, in states that allow deficiency judgments. We find no evidence that mortgage interest rates are lower in recourse states.

Informational Efficiency in Securitization after Dodd-Frank

Review of Financial Studies 2020 33(11), 5131-5172
We analyze how Dodd-Frank-mandated risk retention affects the information investors extract from issuers’ retention choices in the CMBS market. We show that the required retention level is both binding and stringent. Although this implies issuers cannot signal using the level of retention, we provide a model showing that signaling can occur by varying the retention structure. The model is consistent with spreads being empirically lower in deals with a purely first-loss retention structure. A stated concern of rulemakers is asymmetric information. However, we show that, post-crisis, the level of asymmetric information in this market is quite low.