After posting yesterday’s pre-approval story, one reader asked:
Will you undertake to provide your readers with more information regarding the process of hedging?
We surely will. Here’s the gist of it…
Lenders hedge pre-approvals in a variety of ways. Among them, they may do so by buying listed or over-the-counter bond options (puts), or by short-selling bonds.
The cost of doing this can be massive. One industry exec we spoke with said it costs his lender $900 to $1,200 to hedge a 120-day rate hold on a $100,000 mortgage. It’s basically a linear relationship so the costs on a $300,000 mortgage are three times higher.
With pre-approval funding ratios as low as 15%, at some lenders, you can see why these costs are a concern for the industry. That doesn’t include the human resource and other expenses that apply to underwriting and supporting pre-approvals.
By the way, for whatever reason, bank-branch funding ratios are higher than broker-funding ratios. If that doesn’t correct itself, it is very possible that the best pre-approval choices will someday be limited to the big banks. That would really be unfortunate because it would mean far less choice for consumers.
Pre-approvals are just expensive for lenders at the best of times. But in the worst case scenario, there’s a big rate increase and the percentage of pre-apps that end up converting to real deals increases dramatically. Because lenders use probabilities to determine what % of their pre-apps will fund, they can end up badly under hedged, resulting in lost profitability or even losses on an individual mortgage basis. I think the only reason lenders offer pre-apps is because they’re afraid not to (for competitive reasons) but in reality, they’re more trouble then they’re worth.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for making that important point.
Given the current rate environment, hopefully this adverse selection problem isn’t the nail in the coffin of pre-approvals for some lenders.
-rob