The Mortgage Credit Channel of Macroeconomic Transmission

Transcription

1 The Mortgage Credit Channel of Macroeconomic Transmission Daniel L. Greenwald November 23, 216 Abstract I investigate how the structure of the mortgage market influences macroeconomic dynamics, using a general equilibrium framework with prepayable debt and a limit on the ratio of mortgage payments to income. This realistic environment amplifies transmission from interest rates into debt, house prices, and economic activity. Monetary policy can more easily stabilize inflation due to this amplification, but contributes to larger fluctuations in credit growth. A relaxation of payment-to-income standards appears essential to the recent boom. A cap on payment-to-income ratios, not loan-to-value ratios, is the more effective macroprudential policy for limiting boom-bust cycles. 1 Introduction Mortgage debt is central to the workings of the modern macroeconomy. The sharp rise in residential mortgage debt at the start of the twenty-first century in the US and countries around the world has been credited with fueling a dramatic boom in house prices and consumer spending. At the same time, high levels of mortgage debt and household leverage have been blamed for the severity of the subsequent bust. Since mortgage credit evolves endogenously in response to economic conditions, its critical position in the macroeconomy raises a number of important questions. How, if at all, This paper is a revised version of Chapter 1 of my Ph.D. dissertation at NYU. I am extremely grateful to my thesis advisors Sydney Ludvigson, Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, and Gianluca Violante for their invaluable guidance and support. The paper benefited greatly from conversations with Andreas Fuster, Mark Gertler, Andy Haughwout, Malin Hu, Virgiliu Midrigan, Jonathan Parker, Johannes Stroebel, among many others, conference discussions by Amir Sufi, Paul Willen, and Hongjun Yan, and numerous insightful comments from seminar audiences. I thank embs for their generous provision of data, and NYU and the Becker-Friedman Institute for financial support. Sloan School of Management, MIT, 1 Main Street, Cambridge, MA, dlg@mit.edu. 1

2 does mortgage credit growth propagate and amplify macroeconomic fluctuations in general equilibrium? How does mortgage finance affect the ability of monetary policy to influence economic activity? Finally, what role did changing credit standards play in the boom, and how might regulation have limited the resulting bust? These questions all center on what I will call the mortgage credit channel of macroeconomic transmission: the path from primitive shocks, through mortgage credit issuance, to the rest of the economy. Characterizing this channel is challenging due to the complex links between mortgage debt and the macroeconomy. Large numbers of heterogeneous households participate in mortgage markets, both as borrowers and savers, trading history-dependent streams of cash flows that differ widely in interest rates. Mortgage contracts are specified in nominal terms, so that real mortgage payments are influenced by inflation. Taking out new mortgage debt is a costly process that typically requires prepayment of existing debt. Household decisions about whether and when to prepay existing mortgages respond endogenously to economic conditions as interest rates and house prices change. New borrowing is constrained by multiple limits determined by endogenous variables such as house prices and borrower incomes. In this paper I develop a tractable modeling framework that embeds these features in a New Keynesian dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) environment. The framework centers on two key mechanisms that define the mortgage credit channel. First, at the intensive margin, new borrowing is limited by two factors: the ratio of the size of the loan to the value of the underlying collateral ( loan-to-value or LTV ), and the ratio of the mortgage payment to the borrower s income ( paymentto-income or PTI ). 1 While a vast literature documents the impact of LTV constraints on debt dynamics, the influence of PTI limits on the macroeconomy remains relatively unstudied, despite their central role in underwriting in the US and abroad. As I will show, PTI limits fundamentally alter the dynamics of mortgage credit growth, played an essential part in the boom and bust, and are likely to increase further in importance as an important feature of new mortgage regulation. Since in a heterogeneous population an endogenous and time-varying fraction of individuals will be limited by each constraint, I develop an aggregation procedure to capture these dynamics at the macro level and calibrate them to match loan-level microdata. 1 The payment-to-income ratio is also commonly known as the debt-to-income or DTI ratio. I use the term payment-to-income for clarity, since under either name the ratio measures the flow of payments relative to a borrower s income, not the stock of debt relative to a borrower s income. 2

3 Second, at the extensive margin, borrowers choose whether to prepay their existing loans and replace them with new loans, a process that incurs a transaction cost. This mechanism is designed to capture two empirical facts: only a small minority of borrowers obtain new loans in a given quarter, but the fraction that choose to do so is volatile and highly responsive to interest rate incentives. 2 These dynamics stand in sharp contrast to traditional macro-housing models, in which debt levels mechanically track credit limits, and do not respond independently to interest rate incentives. 3 I develop a method to tractably aggregate over the discrete prepayment decision, which I calibrate to match estimates from a workhorse prepayment model, and show that the endogenous response of prepayment to interest rates is of first-order importance for credit dynamics and transmission. This framework generates two main sets of findings. The first set relate to interest rate transmission, where I find that the novel features of the model, when calibrated to US mortgage microdata, greatly amplify the influence of nominal interest rates on debt, house prices, and economic activity. The initial step in the transmission chain is that PTI limits are themselves highly sensitive to nominal interest rates, with an elasticity near 8. But because only a minority of borrowers are constrained by PTI at equilibrium, this would not by itself generate large aggregate effects. Instead, the key is the constraint switching effect, a novel propagation mechanism through which changes in which of the two constraints is binding for borrowers translate into large movements in house prices. This effect is quantitatively powerful, causing price-rent ratios to rise by more than 4% in response to a 1% fall in nominal rates. Rising house prices in turn loosen borrowing constraints for the LTV-constrained majority of the population, leading to more than twice the increase of credit growth relative to an alternative economy with an LTV constraint alone. For transmission into output, borrowers option to prepay their loans turns out to be critical, due to its influence on the timing of credit growth. When borrowers can choose to prepay, a fall in rates leads to a wave of prepayments, new issuance, and new spending on impact, generating a large output response a phenomenon I call the frontloading effect. Quantitatively, this effect amplifies the impact of a 1% technology shock on output by nearly 6%. Alternative economies without endogenous prepayment generate much slower issuance of credit with virtually zero effect on output, 2 See Figure A.4 in the appendix. 3 Traditional models use one-period debt and assume that borrowers are always at their constraints, so that debt is equal to the debt limit at all times. Improvements to add persistence to debt limits or account for ratchet effects, as in Justiniano, Primiceri, and Tambalotti (215), are more realistic but still imply that debt is a mechanical function of past debt limits. 3

4 despite a similar increase in debt limits. These results on transmission have important consequences for monetary policy, which is more effective at stabilizing inflation due to these forces, but contributes to larger swings in credit growth, posing a potential trade-off for central bankers concerned with stabilizing both markets. The second set of findings relate to credit standards and the sources of the recent boom and bust, where I find that a relaxation of PTI limits was essential. While existing models that ignore the PTI constraint are able to produce large booms by loosening LTV limits, I find that a relaxation of LTV standards alone could not have created the observed boom if PTI limits had been held fixed at their historical standards. In contrast, an experiment calibrated to empirical evidence showing massive relaxation of PTI standards generates a realistic boom accounting for nearly half of the observed increase in price-rent and debt-household income ratios. While a liberalization of PTI constraints is partially sufficient for explaining the boom, it also appears necessary for other factors to have played as large a role as they did. A simultaneous relaxation of PTI more than doubles the contribution of LTV liberalization to debt-household income growth, and causes LTV liberalization to increase, rather than decrease, price-rent ratios. For an alternative benchmark, an expected increase to housing utility that can generate virtually the entire boom when PTI limits are absent is severly dampened when PTI limits are present, cutting the rise in debthousehold income ratios by a factor of four. These results have important implications for macroprudential regulation, implying that a cap on PTI ratios, not LTV ratios, is the more effective policy for limiting boom-bust cycles. This paper builds on several existing strands of the literature. 4 On the empirical side, it relates to a large and growing body of work demonstrating important links among mortgage credit, house prices, and economic activity, and documenting patterns of credit growth in the boom. 5 Particularly relevant is Boldin (1993), who finds econometric evidence that changes in mortgage affordability due to movements in interest rates have strong effects on housing demand. My study complements these works by analyzing the theoretical mechanisms behind these links in general equilibrium. Turning to theoretical models, the literature can be broadly split into two camps. The first comprises heterogeneous agent models, which often include rich specifica- 4 See Davis and Van Nieuwerburgh (214) for a survey of the recent literature on housing, mortgages, and the macroeconomy. 5 See e.g., Aladangady (214), Mian and Sufi (214), Adelino, Schoar, and Severino (215), Di Maggio and Kermani (215), Favara and Imbs (215), Foote, Loewenstein, and Willen (216), Mian and Sufi (216). 4

5 tions of idiosyncratic risk, costly financial transactions, and long-term mortgage contracts, but cannot tractably incorporate inflation, monetary policy, and endogenous output in general equilibrium. 6 In contrast, a set of monetary DSGE models with housing and collateralized debt can easily handle these macroeconomic features, but use simplified loan structures that rule out important features of debt dynamics. 7 In this paper I seek to combine these two approaches, embedding a realistic mortgage structure in a tractable general equilibrium environment. Moreover, to my knowledge, Corbae and Quintin (213) offer the only other macroeconomic model that incorporates a PTI constraint and uses its relaxation as a proxy for the housing boom. However, these authors use the PTI constraint to explore the relationship between endogenously priced default risk and credit growth in a model with exogenous house prices. While their setup delivers important findings regarding default and foreclosure, both absent from my model, these authors do not study the implications of the PTI constraint for interest rate transmission, or, through its influence on house prices, on the LTV constraint the key to the results of this paper. This work is also related to research connecting a relaxation of credit standards to the recent boom-bust. 8 My findings largely support the importance of credit liberalization in the boom, with the specific twist that a relaxation of PTI constraints appears key. Of particular relevance is Justiniano et al. (215), who find that the interaction of an LTV constraint with an exogenous lending limit can generate strong effects of movements in the non-ltv constraint on debt and house prices a result echoed in many of the findings of this paper. By utilizing an endogenous PTI constraint in place of an exogenous fixed limit on lending, I am able to connect these dynamics to interest rate transmission, calibrate to observed relaxations of PTI standards in the data, and analyze the effects of the regulatory cap on PTI limits imposed by Dodd-Frank. Finally, this paper parallels research on the redistribution channel of monetary policy. 9 When borrowers hold adjustable-rate mortgages, changes in interest rates lead to changes in payments on the existing stock of debt, influencing borrower spending. This channel is separate from, and complementary to, the mortgage credit channel, 6 See e.g., Chen, Michaux, and Roussanov (213), Corbae and Quintin (213), Khandani, Lo, and Merton (213), Laufer (213), Guler (214), Beraja, Fuster, Hurst, and Vavra (215), Campbell and Cocco (215), Chatterjee and Eyigungor (215), Gorea and Midrigan (215), Landvoigt (215), Wong (215), Elenev, Landvoigt, and Van Nieuwerburgh (216). 7 See e.g., Iacoviello (25), Monacelli (28), Iacoviello and Neri (21), Ghent (212), Liu, Wang, and Zha (213), Rognlie, Shleifer, and Simsek (214). 8 See e.g., Campbell and Hercowitz (25), Kermani (212), Iacoviello and Pavan (213), Favilukis, Ludvigson, and Van Nieuwerburgh (215). 9 See e.g., Rubio (211), Calza, Monacelli, and Stracca (213), Auclert (215), Garriga, Kydland, and Sustek (215). 5

6 which operates instead through the flow of new credit driven by changes in borrowing constraints. Interestingly, while allowing borrowers to prepay their loans does allow for substantial changes in payments when interest rates fall, and therefore large redistributions between borrowers and savers, the redistribution channel is nonetheless weak in my framework, leading to very small aggregate stimulus. The key difference is in the timing: under fixed-rate mortgages, changes in interest payments occur too slowly to influence output. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a simple example and presents facts from the data. Section 3 constructs the theoretical model, while Section 4 describes the calibration. Section 5 presents the results on interest rate transmission, and the consequences for monetary policy. Section 6 discusses the role of credit standards in the boom-bust, and the implications for macroprudential policy. Section 7 concludes. Additional results and extensions can be found in the appendix. 2 Background: LTV and PTI Constraints This section presents a simple numerical example, and demonstrates the empirical properties of LTV and PTI limits in the data. 2.1 Simple Numerical Example To provide intuition for model s core mechanisms, I present a simplified example from an individual borrower s perspective. Consider a prospective home-buyer who prefers to pay as little as possible in cash today, perhaps because she must save for the down payment and delaying purchase is costly. This borrower s annual income is $5k, and she faces a 28% PTI limit, meaning that she can put at most $1.2k per month toward her mortgage payment. 1 At an interest rate of 6%, this maximum payment is associated with a loan size of $16k, which is the most she can borrow subject to her PTI limit. Her maximum LTV ratio is 8% so that, including the minimum 2% down payment, she reaches her maximum loan size at at a house price of $2k. This $2k house price represents the threshold at which the borrower switches from being LTV-constrained to PTI-constrained. This creates a kink in the borrower s required down payment as a function of house price, shown as the solid blue line in Figure 1. Below this threshold price, the borrower is constrained by the value of her 1 For this example, I abstract from property taxes, insurance, and non-mortgage debt payments, and round quantities to the nearest $1k = $1,. 6

7 1 8 Down Payment Max PTI Price 1 8 Down Payment Max PTI Price Down Payment 6 4 Down Payment House Price House Price (a) Interest Rate or PTI Ratio (b) LTV Ratio Figure 1: Simple Example: House Price vs. Down Payment collateral. In this region, increasing her house value by $1 allows her to borrow an additional 8 cents, requiring her to pay only 2 cents more in down payment. But above the kink, she is constrained by her income, cannot obtain any additional debt no matter how valuable her collateral, and must pay for any additional housing in cash. This discrete change around the kink implies that a corner solution price of exactly $2k is a likely optimum for this borrower, and for the sake of the example, let us assume that this is indeed her choice. From this starting point, imagine that the mortgage interest rate now falls from 6% to 5%, displayed as the dashed lines in Figure 1a. While the borrower s maximum monthly payment has not changed, at a lower interest rate this $1.2k payment is now associated with a larger loan of $178k. But because of her LTV constraint, the borrower can only take advantage of this larger loan limit if she obtains a more valuable house as collateral. This shifts the kink in the down payment function to the right, with the threshold price now occurring at $223k an 11% increase. If the borrower once again chooses her threshold house size, the result is a substantial increase in demand, potentially contributing to a large rise in house prices if others do the same. Note that this result depends crucially on the interaction of the LTV and PTI constraints, and would not be present under either constraint in isolation. This example can also be used to analyze changes in credit standards. First, consider an increase in allowed PTI ratios. Since this intervention increases the maximum PTI loan size, the impact on the down payment function is the same as if the interest rate had fallen. Specifically, a rise from a 28% to a 31% PTI ratio exactly replicates the change in Figure 1a, once again raising the threshold house price, and potentially 7

8 boosting housing demand. In contrast, an increase in the maximum LTV ratio from 8% to 9%, shown in Figure 1b, has a starkly different impact. In this case, the borrower s maximum loan size given her income is unchanged, at $16k. But with only a 1% down payment, the house price associated with this loan falls to $178k, an 11% decrease. If the borrower once again follows her corner solution, the result is a decrease in her housing demand, potentially contributing to a decline in house prices. To understand this result, note that prior to the LTV loosening, moving from a $2k house to a $178k house would have let the borrower keep only $4.4k in cash, since she would have been forced to cut her loan size. But after the relaxation, the borrower can keep the entire $22k difference in cash, making the less expensive house much more tempting. Alternatively, note that a relaxation of the LTV limit increases the supply of collateral, since each unit of housing can collateralize more debt, but not the demand for collateral, since the borrower s overall loan size cannot increase, leading to a fall in the price of collateral. This result reverses the implications of models in which borrowers face only an LTV constraint, where lower down payments typically increase housing demand and house prices. 2.2 LTV and PTI in the Data This section considers the empirical properties of the LTV and PTI constraints. Figure 2 shows the distribution of combined LTV (CLTV) and PTI on newly issued conventional fixed-rate mortgages securitized by Fannie Mae for two points in time: the height of the boom (26 Q1) and a recent post-crash date (214 Q3). 11 The CLTV plots display two patterns of interest. First, the influence of LTV limits is obvious, with the majority of borrowers grouped in large spikes at known institutional limits. 12 Second, the cross-sectional distribution of CLTV changes little between 26 and 214, showing no major change in credit standards between the boom and post-crash environment. Turning to the PTI plots, we observe markedly different patterns. While the distributions do not display large individual spikes as in the CLTV case, the clear influence of the institutional limit (45%) can be seen in the 214 data, as the distributions build toward this limit before undergoing nearly complete truncation. The appearance of this smooth shape, rather than a single spike, likely stems from search frictions. Many 11 Combined LTV is the ratio of total mortgage debt to the value of the house, summing if necessary over multiple mortgages against the same property. Identical plots using Freddie Mac data can be seen in Figure A.1 in the appendix. 12 The largest spikes occur at 8%, where borrowers must start paying for private mortgage insurance. 8

9 (a) CLTV: Purchases (214 Q3) (b) CLTV: Cash-Outs (214 Q3) (c) PTI: Purchases (214 Q3) (d) PTI: Cash-Outs (214 Q3) (e) CLTV: Purchases (26 Q1) (f) CLTV: Cash-Outs (26 Q1) (g) PTI: Purchases (26 Q1) (h) PTI: Cash-Outs (26 Q1) Figure 2: Fannie Mae Data: CLTV and PTI on Newly Originated Mortgages Note: Histograms are weighted by loan balance. Source: Fannie Mae Single Family Dataset. 9

10 borrowers may prefer the threshold price described in Section 2.1, but are unable to find a house at precisely this value. If borrowers are willing to buy a house below but not above the threshold price, the joint pattern of LTV spikes and a truncated PTI distribution will emerge naturally. 13 The distribution of cash-out refinances where borrowers remain in their existing homes and do not search bolsters this argument, displaying much more PTI concentration near the institutional limit, but less bunching in CLTV. As a result, the 214 data indicate that a nontrivial minority of borrowers are influenced by PTI limits. In sharp contrast, the 26 data display no evidence of a PTI limit at any level. Instead, the PTI histogram displays a smooth shape until 65% of pre-tax borrower income is committed to recurring debt payments, at which point the data are topcoded by the provider. While pre-boom data is not yet publicly available, this pattern is consistent with a massive loosening of PTI limits, which should have been much tighter before the boom than in 214, due to a lower standard limit (36% instead of 45%) and higher interest rates. 14 Comparison with the evolution of CLTV distributions implies that PTI standards likely experienced the more dramatic liberalization during the boom Model This section constructs the model and shows its key equilibrium conditions. 3.1 Demographics and Preferences The economy consists of two families, each populated by a continuum of infinitelylived households. The households in each family differ in their preferences: one family contains relatively impatient households named borrowers, denoted with subscript b, while the other family contains relatively patient households named savers, de- 13 Bank preapproval letters often cap the price at which a buyer can make an offer to exactly this threshold price by default, potentially explaining this asymmetry. 14 The public data goes back only to 2, at which point loose enforcement of PTI limits is already observed. The liberalization of PTI limits likely occurred over the mid-199s due to changes in federal GSE policy, such as the GSE Act of 1992, while the boom in price-rent ratios begins in 1997 Q3. 15 Further evidence for this shift in PTI standards can be found in Figure A.5 of the appendix, which shows the evolution of quantiles of the PTI ratios on purchase loans for the period Using Fannie Mae data, Pinto (211) calculates that the 75th percentile of the PTI distribution over the period was below 36%. Figure A.5d shows that by 2, the 75th percentile has already reached 42%, and eventually peaks at 49%. In contrast, CLTV ratios are flat or falling over the boom, again suggesting a smaller change in LTV standards relative to PTI standards. 1

11 noted with subscript s. The measures of the two populations are χ b and χ s = 1 χ b, respectively. Households trade a complete set of contracts for consumption and housing services within their own family, providing perfect insurance against idiosyncratic risk, but cannot trade these securities with members of the other family. Both types supply perfectly substitutable labor. Each agent of type j {b, s} maximizes expected lifetime utility over nondurable consumption c j,t, housing services h j,t, and labor supply n j,t E t k= β k j u(c j,t+k, h j,t+k, n j,t+k ) (1) where utility takes the separable form u(c, n, h) = log(c) + ξ log(h) η n1+ϕ 1 + ϕ. (2) Preference parameters are identical across types with the exception that β b < β s, so that borrowers are less patient than savers. For notation, define the marginal utility and stochastic discount factor for each type by u c j,t = u(c j,t, n j,t, h j,t ) c j,t Λ j,t+1 = β j u c j,t+1 u c j,t with symmetric expressions for u n j,t and uh j,t. 3.2 Asset Technology For notation, stars (e.g., q t ) differentiate values for newly originated loans from the corresponding values for existing loans in the economy a distinction necessary under long-term fixed-rate debt. The symbol $ before a quantity indicates that it is measured in nominal terms. The essential financial asset in the paper, and the only source of borrowing in the model economy, is the mortgage contract, whose balances (long for the saver, short for the borrower) are denoted m. The mortgage is a nominal perpetuity with geometrically declining payments, as in Chatterjee and Eyigungor (215). I consider a fixed-rate mortgage contract, which is the predominant contract in the US, but extend the model for the case of adjustable-rate mortgages in the appendix. Under the fixedrate mortgage contract, the saver gives the borrower $1 at origination. In exchange, 11

12 the saver receives $(1 ν) k q t at time t + k, for all k > until prepayment, where q t is the equilibrium coupon rate at origination, and ν is the fraction of principal paid each period. As is standard in the US, mortgage debt is prepayable, meaning that the borrower can choose to repay the principal balance on a loan at any time, which cancels all future payments of the loan. If a borrower chooses to prepay her loan, she may choose a new loan size mi,t subject to her credit limits (defined below). Obtaining a new loan incurs a transaction cost κ i,t mi,t, where κ i,t is drawn i.i.d. across individual members of the family and across time from a distribution with c.d.f. Γ κ. This heterogeneity is needed to match the data, as otherwise identical model borrowers must make different prepayment decisions so that only an endogenous fraction prepay in each period. The borrower s optimal policy is to prepay the loan if and only if her cost κ i,t is below some threshold value κ t, which therefore completely characterizes prepayment policy. To allow for aggregation, I make a simplifying assumption: as part of the mortgage contract, borrowers must precommit to a prepayment rule for κ t that depends only on aggregate states and the cost draw κ i,t, and not on the characteristics of their individual loans. This implies that the unconditional probability of prepayment (prior to the draws of κ i,t ) is constant across borrowers at any single point in time. While this structure abstracts from cross-sectional dynamics, the prepayment rate will still endogenously respond to key macroeconomic conditions such as the average difference in rates between existing and new loans, the amount of home equity available to be extracted, and forward looking expectations of all aggregate variables. 16 Turning to credit limits, a new loan for borrower i must satisfy both an LTV and a PTI constraint, defined by m i,t p h t h i,t θ ltv (q t + α)m i,t w t n i,t e i,t + ω θ pti where m i,t is the balance on the new loan, and θltv and θ pti are the maximum LTV and PTI ratios, respectively. These constraints are treated as institutional, and are not the outcome of any formal lender optimization problem. 17 The LTV ratio divides the loan balance by the borrower s house value, given by the product of house price p h t and the 16 Since I calibrate to match the average prepayment rate and prepayment sensitivity to interest rates, I should be able to eliminate bias in prepayment rates due to this assumption on average. As a result, bias should only arise from ignoring time variation in the shape of the distribution of interest rates and maturities. 17 This choice is motivated by the observation that industry standards for these ratios have persisted for decades, despite large changes in economic conditions. 12

13 quantity of housing purchased hi,t. For the PTI ratio, the numerator is the borrower s initial payment, where α is an adjustment for property taxes, insurance, and servicing costs, while the denominator is the borrower s labor income, equal to the product of the wage w t, labor supply n i,t, and an idiosyncratic labor efficiency shock e i,t, drawn i.i.d. across borrowers and time with mean equal to unity and c.d.f. Γ e. This income shock serves to generate variation among borrowers, so that an endogenous fraction is limited by each constraint at equilibrium. 18 Finally, the offsetting term ω adjusts for the convention that the numerator of PTI typically includes payments on all recurring debt, including car loans, student loans, etc, by assuming that these payments require a fixed fraction of borrower income. 19 These expressions imply the maximum debt balances m i,t ltv = θ ltv pt h hi,t m pti i,t = (θpti ω)w t n i,t e i,t q t + α consistent with each of the two constraints. Since the borrower must satisfy both constraints, her overall debt limit is m t m i,t = min( m ltv i,t, mpti i,t ). This constraint is applied at origination of the loan only, so that borrowers are not forced to delever if they violate these constraints later on. At equilibrium, this constraint will bind for newly issued loans, consistent with Figure 2, which shows few unconstrained borrowers at origination. However, households typically go years between prepayments in the model, during which time they are typically away from their borrowing constraints and accumulating home equity. In addition to mortgages, households can trade a one-period nominal bond, whose balances are denoted b t. One unit of this bond costs $1 at time t and pays $R t with certainty at time t + 1. This bond is in zero net supply, and is used by the monetary authority as a policy instrument. Since the focus of the paper is on mortgage debt, I assume that positions in the one-period bond must be non-negative, so that it is traded by savers only at equilibrium. The final asset in the economy is housing, which produces a service flow each period equal to its stock, and can be owned by both types. A constant fraction δ of house value must be paid as a maintenance cost at the start of each period. Borrower and saver stocks of housing are denoted h b,t and h s,t, respectively. To simplify the 18 While I model e i,t as an income shock, it could stand in for any shock that varies the house price to income ratio in the population. Without variation in this ratio, all borrowers would be limited by the same constraint in a given period. 19 Since the dynamics of other debt are beyond the scope of this paper, I assume this debt is owed to other borrowers, so that it has no other influence beyond this constraint. 13

14 analysis, I fix the total housing stock to be H, which implies that the price of housing fully characterizes the state of the housing market. 2 To focus on the use of housing as a collateral asset, I assume that saver demand is fixed at h s,t = H s, so that a borrower is always the marginal buyer of housing. 21 Finally, as is standard in the US, each loan is linked to a specific house, so that only prepaying households can adjust their housing holdings. 3.3 Taxation Both types are subject to proportional taxation of labor income at rate τ, which is returned in lump sum transfers T b,t and T s,t equal to the amount paid by that type. Borrower interest payments, defined as (q i,t 1 ν)m i,t 1, are tax deductible. 3.4 Representative Borrower s Problem I show in the appendix that this individual borrower s problem aggregates to the problem of a single representative borrower. The endogenous state variables for the representative borrower s problem are the total start-of-period debt balance m t 1, the total promised payment on existing debt x t 1 q t 1 m t 1, and total start-of-period borrower housing h b,t 1. If we define ρ t = Γ κ ( κ t ) to be the fraction of loans prepaid, then the laws of motion for these state variables are defined by m t = ρ t m t + (1 ρ t )(1 ν)π 1 t m t 1 (3) x t = ρ t q t m t + (1 ρ t )(1 ν)π 1 t x t 1 (4) h b,t = ρ t h b,t + (1 ρ t)h b,t 1 (5) The representative borrower chooses consumption c b,t, labor supply n b,t, the size of newly purchased houses h b,t, the face value of newly issued mortgages m t, and the 2 The assumption that the housing stock is fixed abstracts from the important role played by residential investment in the economy, and implies that house price responses are likely overstated. But from the perspective of credit growth, the key variable is total collateral value: the product of price and quantity. Under a flexible housing supply, smaller movements in price are compensated by larger movements in quantity, leading to similar overall effects. Finally, my numerical results focus on pricerent ratios, which should not be strongly affected by this choice. 21 This assumption is useful under divisible housing to prevent excessive flows of housing between the two groups, which would otherwise occur unrealistically along the intensive margin of house size. 14

15 fraction of loans to prepay ρ t, to maximize (1) using the aggregate utility function u(c b,t, h b,t 1, n b,t ) = log(c b,t /χ b ) + ξ log(h b,t 1 /χ b ) η (n b,t/χ b ) 1+ϕ subject to the budget constraint 1 + ϕ c b,t (1 τ)w t n }{{ b,t π 1 ( t (1 τ)xt 1 + τνm t 1 ) ) ( ) + ρ t m t (1 ν)πt 1 m t 1 }}{{}}{{} labor income payment net of deduction new issuance δpt h h }{{ b,t 1 ρ t p h ( ) t h } b,t h b,t 1 (Ψ(ρ t ) Ψ t ) m t +T }{{}}{{} b,t maintenance housing purchases transaction costs the debt constraint m t m t = m pti ēt t ei dγ e (e i ) }{{} PTI Constrained and the laws of motion (3) - (5), where + m ltv t (1 Γ e (ē t )). }{{} LTV Constrained (6) m ltv t = θ ltv pt h h b,t m pti t = (θpti ω)w t n b,t q t + α are the population average LTV and PTI limits, ē t = m ltv t / m pti t is the threshold value of the income shock e i,t so that for e i,t < ē t, borrowers are constrained by PTI, Γ 1 (ρ t ) Ψ(ρ t ) = κdγκ (κ) is the average transaction cost per unit of issued debt, and Ψ t is a proportional rebate that returns these transaction costs to borrowers Representative Saver s Problem Just as in the borrower case, the individual saver s problem aggregates to the problem of a representative saver. The representative saver chooses consumption c s,t, labor supply n s,t, and the face value of newly issued mortgages m t to maximize (1) using 22 I choose to rebate these costs to borrowers, as they likely stand in for non-monetary frictions such as inertia. 15

16 the utility function u(c s,t, n s,t ) = log(c s,t /χ s ) + ξ log( H s /χ s ) η (n s,t/χ s ) 1+ϕ subject to the budget constraint c s,t Π t + (1 τ)w t n s,t ρ t (m t (1 ν)π 1 t δp h t H s R 1 t b t + b t 1 + T s,t 1 + ϕ m t 1 ) + πt 1 x t 1 and the laws of motion (3), (4), where Π t are intermediate firm profits. 3.6 Productive Technology The production side of the economy is populated by a competitive final good producer and a continuum of intermediate goods producers owned by the saver. The final good producer solves the static problem [ ] λ max P t y t (i) λ 1 λ 1 λ di y t (i) P t (i)y t (i) di where each input y t (i) is purchased from an intermediate good producer at price P t (i), and P t is the price of the final good. The producer of intermediate good i chooses price P t (i) and operates the linear production function y t (i) = a t n t (i) to meet the final good producer s demand, where n t (i) is labor hours and a t is total factor productivity, which evolves according to log a t+1 = (1 φ a )µ a + φ a log a t + ε a,t+1, ε a,t N(, σ 2 a ). Intermediate good producers are subject to price stickiness of the Calvo-Yun form with indexation. Specifically, a fraction 1 ζ of firms are able to adjust their price each period, while the remaining fraction ζ update their existing price by the rate of steady state inflation. 16

17 3.7 Monetary Authority The monetary authority follows a Taylor rule, similar to that of Smets and Wouters (27), of the form log R t = log π t + φ r (log R t 1 log π t 1 ) [ ] (7) + (1 φ r ) (log R ss log π ss ) + ψ π (log π t log π t ) where the subscript ss refers to steady state values, where π t is a time-varying inflation target defined by log π t = (1 ψ π ) log π ss + ψ π log π t 1 + ε π,t, ε π,t N(, σ 2 π). These shocks to the inflation target are near-permanent shocks to monetary policy that, as in Garriga et al. (215), can be interpreted as level factor shocks that shift the entire term structure of nominal interest rates. In the simple bond-pricing environment of this paper, with no important source of term premia or risk premia, these shifts in long-run inflation expectations are needed for monetary policy to move long rates, but it should be kept in mind that movements in these premia would also activate the mortgage credit channel. In the limit ψ π, the rule (7) collapses to π t = π t (8) corresponding to the case of perfect inflation stabilization, which implicitly defines the value of R t needed to attain equality. 3.8 Equilibrium A competitive equilibrium in this model is defined as a sequence of endogenous states (m t 1, x t 1 ), allocations (c j,t, n j,t ), mortgage and housing market quantities (h b,t, m t, ρ t), and prices (π t, w t, pt h, R t, q t ) that satisfy borrower, saver, and firm optimality, and the market clearing conditions: Resources: c b,t + c s,t + δpt h Bonds: b s,t = Housing: h b,t + H s = H. H = y t 17

18 3.9 Model Solution In this section, I present two optimality conditions that summarize the main innovations of the model: simultaneous LTV and PTI constraints, and long-term debt with endogenous prepayment. The remaining optimality conditions can be found in the appendix. The influence of the constraint structure appears most strongly in the borrower s first order condition for housing, which requires the equilibrium house price to satisfy p h t = E t {u h b,t+1 /uc b,t+1 + Λ b,t+1p h t+1 1 C t [1 δ (1 ρ t+1 )C t+1 ]} where C t = µ t Ft ltv θ ltv, µ t is the multiplier on the borrowing constraint, and Ft ltv = 1 Γ e (ē t ) is the fraction of new borrowers constrained by LTV. The term C t is the marginal collateral value of housing: the benefit to the borrower from the relaxation in her borrowing constraint due to an additional dollar of housing. Division by 1 C t reflects a collateral premium for housing, raising the price of housing when collateral demand is high. 23 In a model with an LTV constraint only, C t would equal µ t θ ltv, the product of the amount by which the constraint is relaxed (θ ltv ) and the rate at which the borrower values the relaxation (µ t ). But since the debt limits of PTI-constrained borrowers are not altered by an additional unit of housing, only LTV-constrained households actually receive this collateral benefit, leading to the scaling by Ft ltv. As a result, any macroeconomic forces that shift the fraction of borrowers who are LTV-constrained will also influence collateral values, translating into movements in prices. I call this mechanism through which changes in which constraint is binding for borrowers translate into movements in house prices the constraint switching effect. The influence of long-term prepayable debt can be seen in the optimality condition 23 In contrast, the appearance of C t+1 in the numerator of (3.9) occurs because, with probability 1 ρ t+1, the borrower will not prepay her loan. In these states of the world, the borrower will not use her housing holdings to collateralize a new loan, and does not receive the collateral benefit of housing. 18

19 for prepayment, which sets the fraction of prepaid loans to ρ t = Γ κ ( (1 Ω m b,t ) ( 1 (1 ν)π 1 t m t m t 1 ) }{{} Ω x b,t ( new debt incentive q (1 ν)πt 1 t q t 1 m t m t 1 } {{ } interest rate incentive )) (9) where Ω m b,t and Ωx b,t are the marginal continuation costs to the borrower of an additional unit of face-value debt, and of promised payment, respectively (see appendix). The term inside the c.d.f. Γ κ represents the marginal benefit to prepaying an additional unit of debt, which can be decomposed into two terms reflecting borrowers motivations to prepay. The first term represents the incentive to take on new debt: the product of the net benefit of an additional dollar of debt ($1 today minus continuation cost Ω m b,t ) and the net increase in debt per dollar of face value, since a fraction of the new loan must go to prepaying the old debt. The second term reflects the borrower s interest rate incentive: under fixed-rate debt, prepayment is more beneficial when the interest rate on new debt (q t ) is low relative to the rate on existing debt (q t 1). These forces will drive the frontloading effect in Section 5.2 that is key to transmission into output. 4 Calibration The calibrated parameter values are presented in Table 1. While many parameters can be set to standard values, given the wealth of previous work on New Keynesian DSGE models, several parameters relate to features that are new to the literature, and are calibrated directly to microdata. For the income shock distribution Γ e, I parameterize the distribution to be lognormal, with log e i,t N ( σe 2 /2, σe 2 ), which implies ēt ( log ēt σ ei dγ e (e i ) = 2 ) e /2 Φ facilitating the computation of (6). In reality, unlike in the model, borrowers may differ both in their incomes and in the size of the house that they purchase. As a result, I set σ e to match the standard deviation of log house value-income ratios for new borrowers σ e 19

20 Table 1: Parameter Values: Baseline Calibration Parameter Name Value Internal Target/Source Demographics and Preferences Fraction of borrowers χ b.319 N 1998 SCF Income dispersion σ e.411 N Fannie Mae Borr. discount factor β b.95 N Standard Saver discount factor β s.993 Y R ss /π ss = 1.3 (ann.) Borr. housing preference ξ.3 Y 1998 SCF Disutility of labor scale η Y n ss = 1/3 Inv. Frisch elasticity ϕ 1. N Standard Housing and Mortgages Mortgage amortization ν 1/12 N 3-year duration Tax rate τ.24 N Elenev et al. (216) Max PTI ratio θ pti.36 N See text Max LTV ratio θ ltv.85 N See text Issuance cost mean µ κ.183 Y ρ ss = 4.5% Issuance cost scale s κ.26 Y See text PTI offset (taxes, etc.) α.5 Y q ss + α = 1.6% (ann.) PTI offset (other debt) ω.8 N See text Log housing stock log H Y pss h = 1 Log saver housing stock log H s 2.88 Y See text Productive Technology Productivity (mean) µ a 1.99 Y y ss = 1 Productivity (pers.) φ a.9641 N Garriga et al. (215) Variety elasticity λ 6. N Standard Price stickiness ζ.75 N Standard Monetary Policy Steady state inflation π ss 1.75 N π ss = 1.3 (ann.) Taylor rule (inflation) ψ π 1.5 N Standard Taylor rule (smoothing) φ r.89 N Campbell et al. (214) Trend infl (pers.) φ π.994 N Garriga et al. (215) 2

21 in loan-level data from Fannie Mae, averaged over all quarters from 2 to I calibrate the fraction of borrowers χ b and the housing preference parameter ξ to match moments from the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finances. I classify borrower households in the data to be those with a house and mortgage, but less than two months income in liquid assets, corresponding to χ b = I calibrate the housing preference parameter ξ to.3, so that the steady state ratio of borrower house value to income, p h t h b,t/w t n b,t, matches the 1998 SCF (8.89 quarterly). Next, I calibrate the prepayment cost distribution to match Fannie Mae MBS prepayment data. The first step is to choose a functional form for Γ κ. In the data, the fraction of loans prepaid in a single quarter varies from a minimum of 1.% to a maximum of 2.8%, despite a wide range of interest rate and housing market conditions. With an upper bound so far below unity, the fit is improved by choosing Γ κ to be a mixture, such that with 1/4 probability, κ is drawn from a logistic distribution, and with 3/4 probability, κ =, in which case borrowers never prepay, delivering Γ κ (κ) = ( ). 1 + exp κ µ κ s κ This functional form is parameterized by a location parameter µ κ and a scale parameter s κ. For a given value of s κ, the parameter µ κ is chosen to match the mean prepayment rate on fixed-rate mortgages over the sample (source: embs). 26 For the parameter s κ, I run a prepayment regression logit(cpr i,t ) = γ,t + γ 1 (q t q i,t 1 ) + e i,t (1) using monthly MBS data from with a wide range of coupon bins at each point in time, where i varies across coupon bins, cpr i,t is the annualized prepayment rate, q t is the weighted average coupon rate on newly issued MBS, and q i,t 1 is the 24 Results using loan-level data from Freddie Mac are nearly identical. 25 Although 45.3% of those households that hold more than two months liquid assets also hold a mortgage in the data, I still categorize them as savers as they do not appear to be liquidity-constrained, and therefore should not be sensitive to changes in their debt limits or transitory changes to income. In the model, savers can trade mortgages (and any other financial contracts) within the saver family. A small fraction of borrowers have home equity lines of credit and may not be credit constrained; excluding these households would yield a borrower share of While ρ t in the model is the rate at which borrowers prepay for the purpose of extracting equity, the data includes prepayments by the entire population (both borrowers and savers ) as well as rate refinances, which change the interest rate, but not the balance on the loan. The assumption for this calibration is that the rate at which borrowers prepay to extract equity is the same as the total population prepayment rate. 21

22 weighted average coupon rate on loans in the bin at the start of the period. 27 incorporating the time dummies γ,t I am able to control for variation in aggregate economic conditions, so that γ 1 is identified only from cross-sectional variation over existing coupon rates within the same period. For the model equivalent, applying the logistic assumption for Γ κ and rearranging (9) yields logit( cpr t ) = γ,t Ωx b,t s κ ( q (1 ν)πt 1 t q t 1 m t m t 1 where cpr t = 4ρ t is the approximate annualized prepayment rate, and where γ,t captures all terms not depending on q t or q t 1. Given the symmetry between (1) and (11), I calibrate s κ so that at steady state we have Ω x b /s κ = ˆγ 1, matching the sensitivities of prepayment to interest rate incentives in the model and in the regression. This procedure yields the values s κ =.26 and µ κ = For the LTV limit, θ ltv ) By (11) =.85 is close to the mean LTV at origination over the sample, and is chosen as a compromise between the mass constrained at 8%, and the masses constrained at higher institutional limits such as 9% or 95%. For the PTI limit, I choose θ pti =.36 to match the pre-boom standard and ω =.8 to match the traditional PTI limit excluding other debt (.28). It is worth noting, however, that since the recent housing crash, the main constraint on new loans appears to be not 36% but 45%, while going forward, the relevant ratio is likely to be the Dodd-Frank limit of 43%. 29 Results using this value are similar, and can be found in the appendix. I calibrate the offset term α in the PTI constraint so that q t + α is equal to 1.6% (annualized) at steady state, which is the interest and principal payment on a loan with an 8% interest rate (typical in the mid-199s) under the exact amortization scheme for a fixed-rate mortgage, plus 1.75% annually for taxes and insurance. Since the simpler geometrically decaying coupons in the model apply too much principal repayment at the start of the loan, this calibration ensures that the higher initial payments do not imply unrealistically tight PTI limits. For the remaining parameters, I set β s =.993 and π ss = 1.75 so that steady state real rates and inflation rates are each 3%, and set β b =.95. I set the tax rate τ follow- 27 Regression results are reported in Table A.1 in the appendix. Cross-sectional variation is obtained in the form of 35 different coupon bins ranging from 2% to 17%. 28 These parameters imply high costs. At steady state, the threshold borrower pays 13.8% in costs, and the average cost among prepaying borrowers is 11%. These values greatly exceed standard closing costs on a new loan, matching evidence that borrowers often do not prepay even when financially advantageous (see e.g., Andersen, Campbell, Nielsen, and Ramadorai (214), Keys, Pope, and Pope (214)). 29 The 43% limit is scheduled to take effect beginning in