This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Flávia Furlan Nunes: How would each administration’s approach to the economy affect the mortgage industry?
Mark Calabria: You’re starting with the absolute most important aspect. While differences in housing mortgage policy are important, the overall driver will be the overall economy — predominantly the question of inflation and jobs. I recognize there are some out there who would argue that Trump will be more inflationary. He will be less, particularly given the experience we’ve had. That’s the benefit: We’ve had four years of Trump and almost four of Biden. There is actual history that compares.
Inflation will be more stable under Trump and you would see a decline in interest rates and mortgage rates more than you would under Biden. That said, of course, we’ve seen an overall decline in interest rates, even if they do remain somewhat high. It should be kept in mind that it doesn’t matter who the president is in 2025; we’re not going back to 3% mortgage rates. The difference between administrations, at most, would be a percentage point.
Nunes: What do you expect for the job market in a Biden or a Trump administration?
Calabria: We are seeing a slowing in the job market, and in Biden 2.0, I would expect the slowing trend to continue. You would see a number of things done in the Trump administration that might put some additional steam back in the job market. But I recognize forecasting is tough here. That said, what you think will happen to inflation and jobs should be 80% of what you think will happen to the housing and mortgage market.
The traditional forecasting community consistently underestimated growth during the Trump years and consistently overestimated growth during the Biden years. I don’t want to get too much of a digression, but the typical macro models used in the forecast community are very much demand-driven. Things like regulation don’t enter their forecast. It’s not that they’re intentionally wrong; it’s just that they’re not capturing the whole picture.
Nunes: On the fiscal front, several provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025, barring action from Congress.
Calabria: Obviously, the corporate fiscal incentives are quasi-permanent. It’s the individual things that come up. With a Trump administration, you’re largely seeing some tweaks and extensions of the 2017 changes, and they certainly are discussing: what can you do in terms of perhaps stimulating the housing market?
One of the things Republicans are looking at, on the tax side, is some indexing, perhaps temporarily, of the capital gains relief that you see in homeownership. It hasn’t changed since 1997. And of course, $500,000 for a couple in 1997 was a lot of money. It’s a lot less now. Both administrations will be looking at tax incentives to reduce lock-in effects in the existing-home sell side. You can debate if one is more effective than the other. The Biden side seems to be more tax-credit driven. My sense on the Republican side? It is probably more likely focused on capital gains.
Nunes: Regarding monetary policy, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s allies are “quietly” drafting proposals in an attempt to erode the Federal Reserve’s independence. What do you have to say about the independence of the Fed under a potential Trump administration?
Calabria: The Fed operates within the government. The Fed coordinates with administrations. The argument that Trump is somehow bringing a threat to the Fed’s independence is grossly exaggerated, if not completely false. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for that argument. My argument is not that there aren’t going to be some questions from the Trump administration about Fed behavior. My argument is, that’s how every administration behaves to some degree. They just do it differently.
Nunes: How do you see a Biden or a Trump administration addressing the affordability challenges?
Calabria: Housing has been subjected to inflationary pressures like the rest of the economy. There’s certainly a view on the Republican side that you could address inflationary pressures writ large. For instance, the same thing that has been driving up gas and grocery prices has impacted cement, lumber or labor prices. So, they’re all caught together to some extent. If you deal with the underlying inflationary issues, that will help with housing affordability. That’s one broader aspect.
When you drill down into what’s likely to happen, you haven’t seen specific proposals. Most of the Biden proposals, even though they’ll put up some pieces of paper that say “housing supply” at the top, 90% of it is housing demand. What is a $10,000 tax credit for down payments but increasing demand? That’s not going to make housing more affordable. It may make housing more affordable to the individual who gets it, but it makes overall housing less affordable.
Nunes: What else can be done to increase the housing supply?
Calabria: Certainly, on the lending side, the constraint is not you and I get a mortgage; the constraint is the builder getting construction finance. That results from 30% to 40% of community banks since Dodd-Frank having disappeared.
You’re going to see an approach under a Trump administration that’s much more looking at how we strengthen community banks. You need to be able to do that if you want to make construction financing readily available. It’s one of the reasons that you’ve seen consolidation among the builders. You have to deal with the construction lending side of it. And you would see that addressed better under a Trump administration than in the Biden administration.
Nunes: Construction finance is only one challenge. What about labor costs?
Calabria: There’s also a constraint on skilled labor. You have limitations on electricians and carpenters, some of this of course is when you increase spending in other parts of the economy — for example, the infrastructure bill. When you increase demand in the economy for construction labor, you’re increasing the cost of housing. You can argue that it’s worth it, and that’s fine — I’m an economist by training and I don’t think there are any free lunches.
You’ll see a different conversation at a national level in terms of where people should devote their careers. So much of the conversation of the Biden administration has been about student debt relief for doctors and lawyers. You’ll see a much bigger conversation in the Trump administration about how it’s a great thing to be a plumber, carpenter and electrician, and how we strengthen apprenticeship programs. It’s not to take away from doctors and lawyers, but it’s just an emphasis on you won’t get a lot of new housing built unless you can do something about the constraints in skilled labor.
Nunes: What is your opinion on the current administration’s initiatives in the mortgage space?
Calabria: There’s been a weakening of underwriting standards by this administration, not just at FHA, but also at Fannie and Freddie. If I can be slightly humorous, my description of the Biden administration’s housing policies is that they see two families competing aggressively over one house and they believe the solution is to add a third family. You’ve seen this massive expansion, high debt-to-income lending, that has been irresponsible and doesn’t do anything other than erode affordability. That has added to housing demand.
Keep in mind that you’re in an economy where you saw big increases in homeowners insurance. If you’re getting somebody into a loan with a 50 DTI, and then suddenly they’ve got an increase in their homeowners insurance, that’s not a sustainable world. There have been increases in allowable loan to value. Obviously, there’s been a lot of pressure to increase appraisals and weaken appraisal independence, which probably has inflated housing values as well.
They’ve done things that even don’t show up as directly. The CFPB has pushed for the elimination of medical debt and other things [from credit scores]. That may be the right policy, but it inflates FICO scores. If you’re not increasing the credit box to offset that, then you are knowingly decreasing the underwriting.
Nunes: Do you think that the federal government has limited means to influence housing supply, so wouldn’t it be expected to do more on the demand side?
Calabria: Washington doesn’t have a lot of levers in terms of housing supply. I understand if you feel you have to do something, most of your tools are demand-oriented. But that said, you have to recognize that increasing demand when supply is limited makes it worse, not better. There’s a lack of recognition of that.
There have been proposals on the Republican side to release some small amounts of federal land. There’s a process in Nevada, in Clark County around Las Vegas, where you can convert federal land to housing development. The proposal is to essentially allow it in other cities. The Joint Economic Committee made some estimates, and it could result in 3 million new units being built. The federal government does have land. Some of it is in urban areas, like Denver, that are facing affordability challenges but can be converted. Nobody’s talking about chopping down the redwoods or building housing in Death Valley. But it’s hard to see this administration ever thinking about federal lands to do anything other than be dirt.
Nunes: Among the steps taken by this administration, they reduced mortgage insurance premiums for FHA loans. How do you evaluate this decision?
Calabria: It only increases demand. There are things that the industry may like. Some of that is good for overall affordability. Some of it isn’t. Did housing prices go down after they did that? Did homeownership go up after that? No.
Obviously, the industry is under tremendous pressure, particularly on the nonbank side. Rather than trying to target things that look like they help the industry, if you target things to get the overall market going, that’s the better approach. For instance, on the tax side, if you allow some capital gains relief, many people with those 3% mortgages may be willing to sell their homes, which will increase the volume, increase existing-home sales and bring some of the volume back.
Nunes: What changes could we expect for the CFPB under a potential Trump administration?
Calabria: I don’t think the CFPB is going away — as much as that would be nice. But I do think you are going to see a difference in the stance, which will matter in the mortgage industry, in terms of enforcement and obligations. The Republicans’ approach to the CFPB is to say that there are wrongdoers; we will go after the bad guys. This administration says the same thing, and that’s where the overlap is. The difference is this administration also has the view that we’re going to use the CFPB to pick winners and losers to redistribute to our friends and engage in a lot of social engineering. And that’s a much different approach from just going after the bad guys.
Writ large on compliance and regulatory costs, Trump’s CFPB will be considerably lower. Post Dodd-Frank, one of the problems has been that it costs so much more to originate loans. A tremendous amount of that is because of regulatory costs. It’s not like the bad guys get to run wild; you’d still see enforcement.
Nunes: What’s the future of HUD, in your view?
Calabria: HUD is not going away. There may be some changes in some of those programs. And that’s fine, because much of what they’re doing today is just adding to demand without added supply. And of course, you’re not going to be able to deal with inflationary pressures unless you’re willing to make some changes to the budget. And if we’re going to make changes to the budget, anything, including HUD, should be on the table.
Nunes: Would a Trump administration’s goal be to resume some of its past projects, such as releasing Fannie and Freddie from conservatorship or implementing more caps on their purchases?
Calabria: There’s a much higher chance in a Trump administration of Fannie and Freddie coming out of conservatorship. You don’t need Congress to do it. Having been the guy who started it, I know a lot of work was done. There’s a road map; it’s all doable. It’s a benefit to the industry because you reduce the degree to which politics drives. You have to go back to letting Fannie and Freddie behave as businesses. It will bring a lot more certainty to the industry.
The restrictions put in place were always done to minimize disruptions to the primary purchase market. In 2020, when investment caps were put in place, everybody said the sky was falling. Did the sky fall? No. That business got picked up. It was done by other people. Trump is a developer. The guy spent his entire life in real estate. He tends to have people in the administration who understand how the housing and mortgage markets work.
Just like you saw in 2021, any constraints on Fannie and Freddie will be done to minimize disruption in the mortgage market. You can look at all these people who said in 2018 and 2019 that Calabria would kill the mortgage market. It didn’t happen. Nobody benefits from a strong Fannie and Freddie more than the mortgage industry.
Nunes: One initiative from Freddie Mac is a pilot program to purchase closed-end second mortgages. Do you support this idea?
Calabria: I would certainly expect that to get suspended. Should we be spending the portfolio on second mortgages instead of mortgages that are purchases? I recognize that the industry is hurting. Everybody wants to focus on things that bring the overall market back. But you can’t blow up Fannie and Freddie at the cost of it. That might feel good in the short run, but it’s not the right approach in the long run.
Nunes: A topic that’s been covered extensively at HousingWire is the National Association of Realtors’ settlement and changes to agent commission structures. What are your thoughts on that?
Calabria: If you remember, there was a 2020 settlement with NAR. That got thrown out the door. There’s a very high likelihood that it reverts back to the 2020 settlements. Again, that doesn’t stop some of the litigation out there. But you would see a very different stance toward the real estate industry and the kind of war on Realtors comes to an end.
Nunes: Who would you expect to lead federal housing agencies and companies under a potential second Trump term?
Calabria: It’s too early to say. But you’re likely to have people who are both experienced regulators and people with deep experience in the capital markets. You’ll have people who have experience with Trump’s style and understand how he governs. It’s less surprising, perhaps, this time around.
Nunes: Would you return to the government? If so, in what capacity?
Calabria: I believe in public service. If asked to serve in a capacity to make a difference, I would certainly be inclined to accept. But which capacity, that’s up to the president. You don’t get to choose it. My interest is broadly financial services.
