In addition to the general regulatory risks described under "-Our business is extensively regulated and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth," we are also affected by various additional regulations, particularly those that relate to our mortgage insurance operations.
Federal and state regulations affect the scope of our competitors' operations, which influences the size of the mortgage insurance market and the intensity of the competition. This competition includes not only other private mortgage insurers, but also federal and state governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, principally the FHA and the VA, which are governed by federal regulations. Increases in the maximum loan amount that the FHA can insure, and reductions in the mortgage insurance premiums the FHA charges, can reduce the demand for private mortgage insurance. Decreases in the maximum loan amounts the GSEs will purchase or guarantee, increases in GSE fees or decreases in the maximum LTV ratio for loans the GSEs will purchase can also reduce demand for private mortgage insurance. See "-Changes to the charters or practices of the GSEs, including actions or decisions to decrease or discontinue the use of mortgage insurance, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition." Legislative, regulatory and administrative changes could cause demand for private mortgage insurance to decrease.
Additionally, the FHFA's Enterprise Capital Framework imposes a capital framework on the GSEs, including risk-based and leverage capital requirements and capital buffers in excess of regulatory minimums that can be drawn down in periods of financial distress. However, the GSEs will not be subject to any requirement under the Enterprise Capital Framework until the applicable compliance date. Compliance with the Enterprise Capital Framework, other than the requirements to maintain a PCCBA and a PLBA, is required on the later of (i) the date of termination of the conservatorship of a GSE and (ii) any later compliance date provided in a consent order or other transition order applicable to such GSE. FHFA contemplates that the compliance dates for the PCCBA and the PLBA will be the date of termination of the conservatorship of a GSE. The Enterprise Capital Framework's Advanced Approaches requirements will be delayed until a compliance date provided by a transition order applicable to such GSE. The Enterprise Capital Framework significantly increases capital requirements and reduces capital credit on CRT transactions as compared to the previous framework. The final rule could cause the GSEs to increase their guarantee pricing in order to meet the new capital requirements. If the GSEs increase their guarantee pricing in order to meet the higher capital requirements, that increase could have a negative impact on the private mortgage insurance market and our business. Furthermore, higher GSE capital requirements could ultimately lead to increased costs to borrowers for GSE loans, which in turn could shift the market away from the GSEs to the FHA or lender portfolios. Such a shift could result in a smaller market size for private mortgage insurance. This rule could also accelerate the diversification of the GSEs' risk transfer programs to encompass a broader array of instruments beyond private mortgage insurance, which could adversely impact our business.
As a credit enhancement provider in the residential mortgage lending industry, we are also subject to compliance with or otherwise impacted by various federal and state consumer protection and insurance laws, including RESPA, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (the "Fair Housing Act"), HOPA, FCRA and others. Changes in these laws or regulations, changes in the appropriate regulator's interpretation of these laws or regulations or heightened enforcement activity could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Dodd-Frank Act Risk Retention
The Dodd-Frank Act also requires an originator or issuer to retain a specified percentage of the credit risk exposure on securitized mortgages that do not meet the definition of a QRM.
As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, in 2015 the Federal Banking Agencies, the FHFA, the SEC and HUD adopted a joint final rule implementing the QRM rules that aligns the definition of a QRM with that of a QM. In December 2019, the Federal Banking Agencies initiated a review of certain provisions of the risk retention rule, including the QRM definition. Among other things, the review allows the Federal Banking Agencies to consider the QRM definition in light of any changes to the QM definition under the QM Rule adopted by the CFPB, which would include the final rule promulgated by the CFPB on December 29, 2020. If the QRM definition is changed in a manner that is unfavorable to us, such as to require a large down payment for a loan to qualify as a QRM, without giving consideration to mortgage insurance in computing LTV ratios, the attractiveness of originating and securitizing loans with lower down payments may be reduced, which may adversely affect the future demand for mortgage insurance.
Basel III
Since 1988, the Basel Committee has worked to develop international benchmarks for assessing banks' capital adequacy requirements. In 2005, the Basel Committee issued Basel II, which, among other things, sets forth capital treatment of mortgage insurance purchased and held on balance sheet by banks in respect of their origination and securitization activities (including in bank regulation, the standards for a prudentially underwritten mortgage, with 50% risk weighting for high loan-to-value mortgages covered with mortgage insurance). Following the financial crisis of 2008, the Basel Committee issued Basel III that established RBC and leverage capital requirements for most United States banking organizations (although banks with less than $10 billion in total assets may choose to comply with an alternative community bank leverage ratio framework established by the Federal Banking Agencies in 2019).
If further revisions to the Basel III Rules increase the capital requirements of banking organizations with respect to the residential mortgages we insure or do not provide sufficiently favorable treatment for the use of mortgage insurance purchased in respect of a bank's origination and securitization activities, it could adversely affect the demand for mortgage insurance. In 2013, the U.S. federal banking regulators confirmed the role of mortgage insurance as a component of prudential bank regulation for high loan-to-value mortgages. More recently, in July of 2023, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed for comment the Basel III Endgame rule. Under the proposed rule, commercial banks with total assets greater than $100 billion would no longer receive the 50% capital relief for high loan-to-value portfolio loans with mortgage insurance. If adopted as proposed, this rule could decrease the demand for mortgage insurance. The federal banking regulators are currently in the review process, and with the change in Administration on January 20, 2025, the outcome, content and timing of the final rule are unclear.