Thank you Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Waters for inviting me to be here
today to testify on the Administration’s proposed FHA Modernization Act.
The bill itself is really very simple, the proposal straightforward. It does just what
its name suggests: it modernizes the 72-year-old Federal Housing Administration and
restores the agency to its intended place in the mortgage market. Nothing more,
nothing less. Yet, the impact of this bill may be tremendous.
Let me explain. FHA was created in 1934 to serve as an innovator in the
mortgage market, to meet the needs of citizens otherwise underserved by the private
sector, to stabilize local and regional housing markets, and to support the national
economy. This mission is still very relevant, perhaps now more so than ever, and most
of us would agree that FHA can and should continue to play its important role.
Unfortunately, over the last few years, the housing agency that helped bring the
nation out of the Depression, the agency that helped our grandparents and our
parents buy their first homes, the agency that stood by the oil patch and rust belt
states in the 1980s when the entire real estate market sank in parts of California,
Texas, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania – that agency became an
almost invisible presence.
President Bush committed the federal government and the housing industry to
reach an additional five million minority homebuyers by the end of 2010, but the
agency most suited to reaching these families was falling behind.
FHA was falling behind for a variety of reasons, from outdated business practices
to cumbersome program requirements. Over the last six months, we have made
significant changes, streamlining and realigning FHA’s operating procedures. While
these changes are good and long overdue, they are not enough, a point that FHA’s
industry partners have clearly conveyed. Therefore, FHA is now requesting that we
amend the law to give FHA the flexibility it needs to fulfill its original mission in today’s
marketplace.
Over the last ten years, the industry changed dramatically. Reliance on automated
underwriting systems and risk-based pricing is standard operating procedure today. A
multitude of innovative new products were created. The secondary mortgage market
was transformed into an investors’ paradise, where the array of investment options
seemed endless.
While this transformation happened, FHA stayed the course; the world changed
and FHA remained the same. Simply put, the dynamic mortgage market passed FHA by.
For example, in Congressman Tiberi’s district, FHA’s volume has dropped from 3,096
loans in 2000 to 1,735 loans in 2005.
For Congresswoman Harris, during that same time period, FHA’s volume dropped from
2,354 to 621 loans. For Ranking Member Waters, FHA’s volume has all but shriveled
up from 2,207 loans in 2000 to just 34 loans in 2005.
And without a viable FHA, many homebuyers – first-time homebuyers, minority
homebuyers and homebuyers with less-than-perfect credit – were left with fewer safe
and affordable options. Hundreds of thousands of families heard the message that
homeownership helps families build wealth and brings stability to communities. They
wanted to share in the good times. Many of them were able to become homebuyers,
but many of them paid a steep price to do so.
Without a viable FHA alternative, many homebuyers turned to high-cost
financing and nontraditional loan products to afford their first homes. While low initial
monthly payments seemed like a good thing, the reset rates on some interest-only
loans are substantial and many families are unable to keep pace when the payments
increase.
In addition, prepayment penalties make refinancing cost-prohibitive. According to
Moody’s Economy.com, more than $2 trillion of U.S. mortgage debt, or about a quarter
of all mortgage loans outstanding, comes up for interest rate resets in 2006 and 2007.
While some borrowers will make the higher payments, many will struggle. Some will be
forced to sell or lose their homes to foreclosure.
The foreclosure rate for subprime loans is twice that of prime loans. And I think we
can all agree that foreclosures are bad for families, bad for neighborhoods, and bad
for the economy as a whole.
I know that you’re as concerned as I am. I’ve seen the various pieces of
legislation designed to regulate high-cost loans and the lenders who make these loans.
We’ve all heard the warnings from the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency, and the Federal Trade Commission regarding the risk of high-cost
loans.
And we’re all aware of the state and local efforts to regulate this business.
All that said, the FHA Modernization Act is part of the solution. FHA reform is
designed to give homebuyers who can’t qualify for prime financing a choice again. The
legislation will allow FHA to fulfill its original mission, just like it did in 1934, when the
same kinds of circumstances existed. In 1934, interest-only loans and balloon loans
were prevalent, so FHA was established to give the private sector a way to provide
long-term, fixed-rate financing.
I said at the outset that this bill is very simple. It represents a simple solution to a
complex problem that affects all of us in this nation. We can talk and talk and issue
warnings and guidance. We can create regulations and restrictions and force
homebuyers to educate themselves. But really, when it comes right down to it, wouldn’
t it be a whole lot easier simply to just offer families a better alternative?
I know my introduction was lengthy, but I want you to understand how important
FHA reform is to homebuyers and to the industry as a whole. FHA’s private sector
partners – the brokers, the realtors, the lenders, the home builders – want to tell their
clients about the FHA alternative. They want low- to moderate-income homebuyers to
have a safer, more affordable financing option. They want FHA to be a viable player
again.
Now let me explain a little bit about the simple changes we’re proposing. For
one, we’re proposing to eliminate the complicated downpayment calculation and the
traditional cash investment requirement that have been the hallmark of FHA for years.
Before the rest of the market began offering low downpayment loans, FHA was often
the best option for first-time homebuyers because it required only a minimal
downpayment.
But, as I said before, the market passed FHA by. Last year, 43 percent of first-time
homebuyers purchased their homes with no downpayment. Of those who did put
money down, the majority put down two percent or less.
The downpayment is the biggest barrier to homeownership in this country, but
FHA has no way to address the barrier without changes to its statute. The FHA
Modernization Act proposes to permit borrowers to choose how much to invest, from
no money down to one or two or even ten percent. Many first-time homebuyers
choose to put less money down simply to save their hard-earned cash to purchase
other items to furnish or update their homes. This kind of home-related buying is the
reason the housing market contributes so significantly to the overall health of the
national economy.
The bill also proposes to provide FHA the flexibility to set the FHA insurance
premiums commensurate with the risk of the loans. For example, low downpayment
loans would be priced higher, yet appropriately and reasonably to give homebuyers a
fairly-priced option and to ensure that FHA’s insurance fund is compensated for taking
on the additional risk. FHA would also consider the borrower’s credit profile when
setting the insurance premium. FHA would charge lower-credit risk borrowers a lower
insurance premium than it does today, and higher-credit risk borrowers would be
chargeda slightly higher premium. In so doing, FHA could reach deeper into the pool of
prospective borrowers, while protecting the financial soundness of the FHA Fund.
The primary concerns with a risk-based pricing approach are that FHA will target
people who shouldn’t be homebuyers and charge them more than they should pay. I
want to address these concerns directly. Our goal is to reach families who are capable
of becoming homeowners and to offer them a safe and fairly-priced loan option.
With a risk-based premium structure, FHA can reach hard-working, creditworthy
borrowers – such as store clerks, bus drivers, librarians, and social workers –
who, for a variety of reasons, do not qualify for prime financing. Some have poor
credit scores due to circumstances beyond their control, but have put their lives back
together and need a second chance. For some, the rapid appreciation in housing
prices has simply outpaced their incomes. Many renters find it difficult to save for a
downpayment, but have adequate incomes to make monthly mortgage payments and
do not pose a significant credit risk. They simply need an affordable financing vehicle
to get them in the door. FHA can and should be there for these families.
The higher premiums that FHA will charge some types of borrowers are still
substantially lower than they would pay for subprime financing. Let me repeat that
point: the higher premiums that FHA will charge some types of borrowers are still
substantially lower than they would pay for subprime financing. The cost of a loan
with a higher FHA insurance premium is still substantially lower than the cost of a loan
with a higher interest rate. For example, if FHA charged a 3 percent upfront insurance
premium for a $225,000 loan to a credit-impaired borrower versus that same
borrower obtaining a subprime loan with an interest rate 3 percent above par, the
borrower would pay over $255 more in monthly mortgage payments with the
subprime loan and over $125,000 more over the life of the loan, if they kept it for a
full 30-year term.
Moreover, as I stated earlier, FHA intends to lower the insurance premium for
some borrowers. FHA will charge lower-risk borrowers a substantially lower premium
than these types of borrowers pay today. For example, homebuyers with higher credit
scores who choose to invest at least 3 percent in a downpayment may pay as little as
half a percent upfront premium.
So, while FHA may charge riskier borrowers more (and less risky borrowers less)
than it does today, the benefit is three-fold. First, FHA will be able to reach additional
borrowers the agency can’t serve today. There is nothing that upsets us more than to
see people taken to the cleaners when they would have fared better with an FHA-
insured product. Second, these borrowers will pay less with FHA than with a subprime
loan. And finally, the FHA Fund will be managed in a financially sound manner, with
adequate premium income to cover any losses.
Another change proposed in the FHA Modernization Act is to increase FHA’s
loan limits. FHA’s loan limit in high-cost areas would rise from 87 to 100 percent of the
GSE conforming loan limit and in lower-cost areas from 48 to 65 percent of the
conforming loan limit. In between high and lower-cost areas, FHA’s loan limit will
increase from 95 to 100 percent of the local median home price. This change is
extremely important and crucial in today’s housing market. In many areas of the
country, the existing FHA limits are lower than the cost of new construction.
Buyers of new homes can’t choose FHA financing in these markets. In other areas,
FHA has simply been priced out of the market. For example, in 1999, FHA insured
127,000 loans in the state of California; in 2005, FHA insured only 5,000.
FHA is also proposing some changes to specific FHA products. For example, the
bill proposes to permit FHA to insure mortgages on condominiums under its standard
single family product. The existing condo program is very specialized and burdensome,
as a result of outdated statutory provisions that were written at a time when
condominiums were an unfamiliar form of ownership. Condos represent 25 percent of
the new and 12 percent of the existing home market today and serve as one of the
primary forms of affordable housing for first-time homebuyers. In fact, condos tend
to be closer to city centers and offer lower income borrowers an opportunity to buy an
affordable home without moving far from their jobs and away from the public
transportation that gets them to those jobs. Therefore, FHA should be able to serve
condo buyers, just like any other homebuyers, under its standard single family
program.
Our reform bill also proposes to modernize the Title I manufactured housing
program, eliminating the portfolio insurance feature from the program and increasing
the loan limits to reflect the real cost of manufactured housing today. The existing
statute restricts FHA claim payments to 10 percent of the value of a lender’s loan
portfolio. With portfolio insurance, lenders are not guaranteed coverage against loss
and subsequently price their loans for additional risk. The higher loan costs, in turn,
increase the likelihood of borrower default. With additional default risk, but insufficient
coverage, the losses grew to unsustainable levels in the 1990s and Ginnie Mae pulled
out of the program.
Ginnie Mae has testified that with the elimination of this outdated insurance model it
would reconsider participation in the Title I securities market, which
will bring in more lenders and drive down the costs of manufactured home financing.
Finally, the FHA Modernization Act offers some changes to the Home Equity
Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program, which enables senior homeowners, aged 62
years or older, to tap into their home equity to live comfortably in their golden years.
The bill proposes elimination of the cap on the number of loans FHA can insure; a
single, national loan limit set at conforming; and a new HECM for Home Purchase
product to permit seniors to move from the family home to more suitable senior
housing and convert the purchase loan into a HECM in a single transaction. Today,
seniors who want to move, but need additional cash flow to pay their living expenses,
must purchase a new home and take out a HECM in two distinct transactions, resulting
in two sets of loan fees and charges.
Let me assure you that the changes we are proposing will not increase the overall
risk of the MMI Fund or impose a potential cost on taxpayers. We are proposing to
manage the Fund in a financially prudent way, beginning with the change in FHA
pricing to match premiums with risk. This will avoid FHA being exposed to excessive
risk, as it is today, because some borrowers who use FHA are under-charged for their
risk to the Fund while others are overcharged. Of course, we will continue to monitor
the performance of our borrowers very closely, and make adjustments to underwriting
policies and/or premiums as needed.
I know I’ve talked a lot here today, but I want to convey to you how passionate I
am about the proposed changes. I believe we have an opportunity to make a
difference in the lives of millions of lower- and modest-income Americans. We have a
chance to bring FHA back into business, to restore the FHA product to its traditional
market position. To all those families who can buy a home with prime conventional
financing, I say, “Go for it!” They’re fortunate and they should take full advantage of
that benefit. But for those who can’t, FHA needs to be a viable option. And when
people ask me why are we proposing these changes, I tell them these exact words:
“Families need a safe deal, at a fair price. Families need a way to take part in the
American Dream without putting themselves at risk. Families need FHA.”
I want to thank you again for providing me the opportunity to testify here today
on the FHA Modernization Act. I look forward to working with all of you to make these
reforms a reality.
today to testify on the Administration’s proposed FHA Modernization Act.
The bill itself is really very simple, the proposal straightforward. It does just what
its name suggests: it modernizes the 72-year-old Federal Housing Administration and
restores the agency to its intended place in the mortgage market. Nothing more,
nothing less. Yet, the impact of this bill may be tremendous.
Let me explain. FHA was created in 1934 to serve as an innovator in the
mortgage market, to meet the needs of citizens otherwise underserved by the private
sector, to stabilize local and regional housing markets, and to support the national
economy. This mission is still very relevant, perhaps now more so than ever, and most
of us would agree that FHA can and should continue to play its important role.
Unfortunately, over the last few years, the housing agency that helped bring the
nation out of the Depression, the agency that helped our grandparents and our
parents buy their first homes, the agency that stood by the oil patch and rust belt
states in the 1980s when the entire real estate market sank in parts of California,
Texas, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania – that agency became an
almost invisible presence.
President Bush committed the federal government and the housing industry to
reach an additional five million minority homebuyers by the end of 2010, but the
agency most suited to reaching these families was falling behind.
FHA was falling behind for a variety of reasons, from outdated business practices
to cumbersome program requirements. Over the last six months, we have made
significant changes, streamlining and realigning FHA’s operating procedures. While
these changes are good and long overdue, they are not enough, a point that FHA’s
industry partners have clearly conveyed. Therefore, FHA is now requesting that we
amend the law to give FHA the flexibility it needs to fulfill its original mission in today’s
marketplace.
Over the last ten years, the industry changed dramatically. Reliance on automated
underwriting systems and risk-based pricing is standard operating procedure today. A
multitude of innovative new products were created. The secondary mortgage market
was transformed into an investors’ paradise, where the array of investment options
seemed endless.
While this transformation happened, FHA stayed the course; the world changed
and FHA remained the same. Simply put, the dynamic mortgage market passed FHA by.
For example, in Congressman Tiberi’s district, FHA’s volume has dropped from 3,096
loans in 2000 to 1,735 loans in 2005.
For Congresswoman Harris, during that same time period, FHA’s volume dropped from
2,354 to 621 loans. For Ranking Member Waters, FHA’s volume has all but shriveled
up from 2,207 loans in 2000 to just 34 loans in 2005.
And without a viable FHA, many homebuyers – first-time homebuyers, minority
homebuyers and homebuyers with less-than-perfect credit – were left with fewer safe
and affordable options. Hundreds of thousands of families heard the message that
homeownership helps families build wealth and brings stability to communities. They
wanted to share in the good times. Many of them were able to become homebuyers,
but many of them paid a steep price to do so.
Without a viable FHA alternative, many homebuyers turned to high-cost
financing and nontraditional loan products to afford their first homes. While low initial
monthly payments seemed like a good thing, the reset rates on some interest-only
loans are substantial and many families are unable to keep pace when the payments
increase.
In addition, prepayment penalties make refinancing cost-prohibitive. According to
Moody’s Economy.com, more than $2 trillion of U.S. mortgage debt, or about a quarter
of all mortgage loans outstanding, comes up for interest rate resets in 2006 and 2007.
While some borrowers will make the higher payments, many will struggle. Some will be
forced to sell or lose their homes to foreclosure.
The foreclosure rate for subprime loans is twice that of prime loans. And I think we
can all agree that foreclosures are bad for families, bad for neighborhoods, and bad
for the economy as a whole.
I know that you’re as concerned as I am. I’ve seen the various pieces of
legislation designed to regulate high-cost loans and the lenders who make these loans.
We’ve all heard the warnings from the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency, and the Federal Trade Commission regarding the risk of high-cost
loans.
And we’re all aware of the state and local efforts to regulate this business.
All that said, the FHA Modernization Act is part of the solution. FHA reform is
designed to give homebuyers who can’t qualify for prime financing a choice again. The
legislation will allow FHA to fulfill its original mission, just like it did in 1934, when the
same kinds of circumstances existed. In 1934, interest-only loans and balloon loans
were prevalent, so FHA was established to give the private sector a way to provide
long-term, fixed-rate financing.
I said at the outset that this bill is very simple. It represents a simple solution to a
complex problem that affects all of us in this nation. We can talk and talk and issue
warnings and guidance. We can create regulations and restrictions and force
homebuyers to educate themselves. But really, when it comes right down to it, wouldn’
t it be a whole lot easier simply to just offer families a better alternative?
I know my introduction was lengthy, but I want you to understand how important
FHA reform is to homebuyers and to the industry as a whole. FHA’s private sector
partners – the brokers, the realtors, the lenders, the home builders – want to tell their
clients about the FHA alternative. They want low- to moderate-income homebuyers to
have a safer, more affordable financing option. They want FHA to be a viable player
again.
Now let me explain a little bit about the simple changes we’re proposing. For
one, we’re proposing to eliminate the complicated downpayment calculation and the
traditional cash investment requirement that have been the hallmark of FHA for years.
Before the rest of the market began offering low downpayment loans, FHA was often
the best option for first-time homebuyers because it required only a minimal
downpayment.
But, as I said before, the market passed FHA by. Last year, 43 percent of first-time
homebuyers purchased their homes with no downpayment. Of those who did put
money down, the majority put down two percent or less.
The downpayment is the biggest barrier to homeownership in this country, but
FHA has no way to address the barrier without changes to its statute. The FHA
Modernization Act proposes to permit borrowers to choose how much to invest, from
no money down to one or two or even ten percent. Many first-time homebuyers
choose to put less money down simply to save their hard-earned cash to purchase
other items to furnish or update their homes. This kind of home-related buying is the
reason the housing market contributes so significantly to the overall health of the
national economy.
The bill also proposes to provide FHA the flexibility to set the FHA insurance
premiums commensurate with the risk of the loans. For example, low downpayment
loans would be priced higher, yet appropriately and reasonably to give homebuyers a
fairly-priced option and to ensure that FHA’s insurance fund is compensated for taking
on the additional risk. FHA would also consider the borrower’s credit profile when
setting the insurance premium. FHA would charge lower-credit risk borrowers a lower
insurance premium than it does today, and higher-credit risk borrowers would be
chargeda slightly higher premium. In so doing, FHA could reach deeper into the pool of
prospective borrowers, while protecting the financial soundness of the FHA Fund.
The primary concerns with a risk-based pricing approach are that FHA will target
people who shouldn’t be homebuyers and charge them more than they should pay. I
want to address these concerns directly. Our goal is to reach families who are capable
of becoming homeowners and to offer them a safe and fairly-priced loan option.
With a risk-based premium structure, FHA can reach hard-working, creditworthy
borrowers – such as store clerks, bus drivers, librarians, and social workers –
who, for a variety of reasons, do not qualify for prime financing. Some have poor
credit scores due to circumstances beyond their control, but have put their lives back
together and need a second chance. For some, the rapid appreciation in housing
prices has simply outpaced their incomes. Many renters find it difficult to save for a
downpayment, but have adequate incomes to make monthly mortgage payments and
do not pose a significant credit risk. They simply need an affordable financing vehicle
to get them in the door. FHA can and should be there for these families.
The higher premiums that FHA will charge some types of borrowers are still
substantially lower than they would pay for subprime financing. Let me repeat that
point: the higher premiums that FHA will charge some types of borrowers are still
substantially lower than they would pay for subprime financing. The cost of a loan
with a higher FHA insurance premium is still substantially lower than the cost of a loan
with a higher interest rate. For example, if FHA charged a 3 percent upfront insurance
premium for a $225,000 loan to a credit-impaired borrower versus that same
borrower obtaining a subprime loan with an interest rate 3 percent above par, the
borrower would pay over $255 more in monthly mortgage payments with the
subprime loan and over $125,000 more over the life of the loan, if they kept it for a
full 30-year term.
Moreover, as I stated earlier, FHA intends to lower the insurance premium for
some borrowers. FHA will charge lower-risk borrowers a substantially lower premium
than these types of borrowers pay today. For example, homebuyers with higher credit
scores who choose to invest at least 3 percent in a downpayment may pay as little as
half a percent upfront premium.
So, while FHA may charge riskier borrowers more (and less risky borrowers less)
than it does today, the benefit is three-fold. First, FHA will be able to reach additional
borrowers the agency can’t serve today. There is nothing that upsets us more than to
see people taken to the cleaners when they would have fared better with an FHA-
insured product. Second, these borrowers will pay less with FHA than with a subprime
loan. And finally, the FHA Fund will be managed in a financially sound manner, with
adequate premium income to cover any losses.
Another change proposed in the FHA Modernization Act is to increase FHA’s
loan limits. FHA’s loan limit in high-cost areas would rise from 87 to 100 percent of the
GSE conforming loan limit and in lower-cost areas from 48 to 65 percent of the
conforming loan limit. In between high and lower-cost areas, FHA’s loan limit will
increase from 95 to 100 percent of the local median home price. This change is
extremely important and crucial in today’s housing market. In many areas of the
country, the existing FHA limits are lower than the cost of new construction.
Buyers of new homes can’t choose FHA financing in these markets. In other areas,
FHA has simply been priced out of the market. For example, in 1999, FHA insured
127,000 loans in the state of California; in 2005, FHA insured only 5,000.
FHA is also proposing some changes to specific FHA products. For example, the
bill proposes to permit FHA to insure mortgages on condominiums under its standard
single family product. The existing condo program is very specialized and burdensome,
as a result of outdated statutory provisions that were written at a time when
condominiums were an unfamiliar form of ownership. Condos represent 25 percent of
the new and 12 percent of the existing home market today and serve as one of the
primary forms of affordable housing for first-time homebuyers. In fact, condos tend
to be closer to city centers and offer lower income borrowers an opportunity to buy an
affordable home without moving far from their jobs and away from the public
transportation that gets them to those jobs. Therefore, FHA should be able to serve
condo buyers, just like any other homebuyers, under its standard single family
program.
Our reform bill also proposes to modernize the Title I manufactured housing
program, eliminating the portfolio insurance feature from the program and increasing
the loan limits to reflect the real cost of manufactured housing today. The existing
statute restricts FHA claim payments to 10 percent of the value of a lender’s loan
portfolio. With portfolio insurance, lenders are not guaranteed coverage against loss
and subsequently price their loans for additional risk. The higher loan costs, in turn,
increase the likelihood of borrower default. With additional default risk, but insufficient
coverage, the losses grew to unsustainable levels in the 1990s and Ginnie Mae pulled
out of the program.
Ginnie Mae has testified that with the elimination of this outdated insurance model it
would reconsider participation in the Title I securities market, which
will bring in more lenders and drive down the costs of manufactured home financing.
Finally, the FHA Modernization Act offers some changes to the Home Equity
Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program, which enables senior homeowners, aged 62
years or older, to tap into their home equity to live comfortably in their golden years.
The bill proposes elimination of the cap on the number of loans FHA can insure; a
single, national loan limit set at conforming; and a new HECM for Home Purchase
product to permit seniors to move from the family home to more suitable senior
housing and convert the purchase loan into a HECM in a single transaction. Today,
seniors who want to move, but need additional cash flow to pay their living expenses,
must purchase a new home and take out a HECM in two distinct transactions, resulting
in two sets of loan fees and charges.
Let me assure you that the changes we are proposing will not increase the overall
risk of the MMI Fund or impose a potential cost on taxpayers. We are proposing to
manage the Fund in a financially prudent way, beginning with the change in FHA
pricing to match premiums with risk. This will avoid FHA being exposed to excessive
risk, as it is today, because some borrowers who use FHA are under-charged for their
risk to the Fund while others are overcharged. Of course, we will continue to monitor
the performance of our borrowers very closely, and make adjustments to underwriting
policies and/or premiums as needed.
I know I’ve talked a lot here today, but I want to convey to you how passionate I
am about the proposed changes. I believe we have an opportunity to make a
difference in the lives of millions of lower- and modest-income Americans. We have a
chance to bring FHA back into business, to restore the FHA product to its traditional
market position. To all those families who can buy a home with prime conventional
financing, I say, “Go for it!” They’re fortunate and they should take full advantage of
that benefit. But for those who can’t, FHA needs to be a viable option. And when
people ask me why are we proposing these changes, I tell them these exact words:
“Families need a safe deal, at a fair price. Families need a way to take part in the
American Dream without putting themselves at risk. Families need FHA.”
I want to thank you again for providing me the opportunity to testify here today
on the FHA Modernization Act. I look forward to working with all of you to make these
reforms a reality.
| FHA Loan Programs |
| STATEMENT OF BRIAN D. MONTGOMERY Assistant Secretary for Housing – Federal Housing Commissioner U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Hearing before the United States House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity United States House of Representatives “Transforming the Federal Housing Administration for the 21st Century” April 5, 2006 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |