Report Highlights IMB Challenges, the CHLA/CMLA Merger, and IMB Access to Credit for Minorities, Underserved Borrowers
For Immediate Release
Contact: Scott Olson
scottolson@communitylender.org
571-527-2601
The Community Home Lenders of America (CHLA) today issued its latest annual IMB Report, a comprehensive analysis of key issues affecting independent mortgage banks (IMBs) and the critical role IMBs play in access to mortgage credit, particularly for minorities and other underserved borrowers.
CHLA issued this report – the latest in a string of IMB reports going back to 2015 – in its capacity as the distinctive voice and only national advocate exclusively focused on small and mid-sized IMBs. This is the first report since the August merger of CMLA and CHLA.
A key feature of this year’s report is a new section (“IMB Snapshot” – page 3) highlighting the significant financial challenges facing IMBs. This section explains why small and mid-sized IMBs are well placed to weather the challenges – and urges policy makers to reject calls to contract credit at a time of heightened market challenges to homeownership affordability.
The report also includes a new section explaining the recent merger between CMLA and CHLA (page 4) , and updating CHLA’s federal mortgage policy recommendations (Page 7).
CHLA’s Report extensively documents key points regarding IMBs:
* IMBs originate 64% of all loans (90% of FHA, VA, & Ginnie Mae)
* IMBs demonstrably outperform banks in affordable mortgage loans to minorities and other underserved borrowers (extensively citing statistics and independent reports)
* IMBs have much stronger consumer protections than banks
* “IMBs are Risky” claim is a Myth [rebutted by analysis, including a 4-page chart showing financial regulation comparable to banks]
* IMB share of FHA loans grew from 57% to 90% since 2010
* IMB share of Ginnie Mae grew from 12% to 90% since 2010
Finally, as a basic primer for people not familiar with who IMBs are, page 6 of the report explains in detail what IMBs are (small businesses without a taxpayer backstop)- and what they are not. This section also explains that there are significant differences between smaller IMBs and the large mega-IMBs-such as the fact that smaller IMBs pose no systemic risk.