The Effects of the Suspended FHA Premium Cut on Long Island, New York

Working Paper 2017-01

Christopher Niedt, Ph.D.

Hempstead, New York

Lawrence Levy, Executive Dean
Executive Summary
In the immediate aftermath of the housing crisis, homeowners increasingly relied on loans insured by the
Federal Housing Administration. FHA loans accounted for fewer than 4% of all home purchase loans in
2007, but the figure rose to 20% in 2008, and to 28% in 2009. 1 This dramatic increase, coupled with the
lingering recession, placed extraordinary pressure on FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF). In
2010, the Federal Housing Administration made the first of several increases to FHA loan premiums to
shore up the programs reserves. Although these measures did not avert a transfer from the Treasury in
2013, an improving economy and declining foreclosures allowed the FHA to reduce these in 2015. A final
cut was scheduled for January 27th. On its first day in office, the new administration suspended this
reduction, citing the need to study the issue.
Since FHA lending in the New York metropolitan area is primarily suburban lending, the decision to
suspend the cut will cost Long Islands homeowners and the regional economy millions of dollars in
savings over the life of these loans. Many families of modest means and first time home buyers, and most
Black and Latino/a borrowers count on FHA to propel them into homeownership. FHA-insured lending
has helped rebuild housing wealth in foreclosure-burdened, majority-minority communities, albeit at a
high cost to individual homeowners. The FHA rate cut would have provided some relief to these
homeowners. Now, with the suspension of the cut, these households will continue to pay more and work
harder to save for the American Dream of homeownership. Local communities will continue to lose
capital as it is siphoned away from local economies to the Federal government.
In this paper, we analyze Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for 2015 to identify who is
taking out FHA loans, where they live, and how much a 0.25% FHA premium reduction would have
saved them. Since FHA lending trended higher in 2015 and 2016, this calculation serves as a conservative
estimate of how much borrowers who buy homes in the year following January 27th would have saved
annually.
Our key findings:

In the New York area, FHA lending in 2015 was primarily suburban lending. In 2015, 4,789
FHA mortgages were originated on Long Island, 33% more than the 3,614 FHA mortgages
originated in the whole of New York City. FHA loans accounted for 24% of all originations and
$1.5 billion total lending on Long Island in 2015.
The 0.25% premium cut would have translated into savings of about $3.8 million annually on
Long Island or $797 per FHA borrower. Though only 14% of New York States population
lives on Long Island, the region accounts for 28% of the states lost savings. New York City
borrowers could lose $4.1 million annually.
White FHA borrowers
will lose the bulk of the $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
savings, due to the large White $1,808,528
number of loans
Latino/a $810,643
originated to this group.
White borrowers stand to Asian-Am. $175,318
lose $1.8 million annually Black / Af-Am. $555,405
from the suspended cut. Multi-racial $207,615
Other cats $12,595
No info $247,183

2
 But Black/African American and Latino/a homebuyers will be affected di Over 58% of Long
Islands Black/African American and Latino/a borrowers rely on FHA loans, by far the
highest rates of any group.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

White 17.37%
Latino/a 58.18%
Asian-Am. 11.19%
Black / Af-Am. 58.83%
Multi-racial 25.94%
Other cats 23.08%
No info 17.89%
Average 23.70%

The premium cut would have saved Latino/a FHA homebuyers $811,000 annually (or $717
annually per FHA borrower), and saved Black/African American homebuyers $555,000 (or $790
per FHA borrower).
In 23 of Long Islands 292 communities, FHA-insured loans accounted for more than half of all
originations. Most of these were the same places that were hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis.
Four of Long Islands congressional districts (the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th) led the state in total FHA
lending. Lost savings total more than $1 million annually in three of these districts (1st, 2nd,
and 5th).

3
Effects of Cancelling the FHA Premium Cut on Long Island
FHA insurance has long played a key role in helping families achieve homeownership. By guaranteeing
government loans, the FHA encourages lenders to extend credit to buyers whose down payments or credit
scores fall short of standards for conventional lending. The FHA charges premiums to capitalize the
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) and offset the risks inherent in mortgage insurance. Pushed to
the sidelines during the subprime boom, FHA purchase originations skyrocketed from 2007-2009, as tight
underwriting standards for down payments and creditworthiness placed conventional home purchase
loans out of reach for many.2
Buyers pay two premiums for FHA loans: an Up-Front Mortgage Insurance Premium (UFMIP, currently
1.75%) paid immediately after closing and an ongoing Mortgage Insurance Premium paid monthly or
yearly. Prior to the foreclosure crisis, the MIP for a 30-year conforming loan was generally set at 0.50%,
and the MIP could be removed when loans were paid down to 78% loan-to-value (LTV). When the crisis
hit, FHA reserves were drained, and lawmakers responded by increasing the statutory cap for FHA
premiums to support the Mutual Mortgage Insurance fund. Annual MIPs rose as high as 1.30-1.35% on
30-year conforming loans. The fund nevertheless required an infusion of $1.7 billion from the Treasury in
2013. In 2013, FHA also extended the period of time during which borrowers had to pay the MIP;
borrowers now pay the premium for 11 years for loans below or equal to 90% LTV at origination, and for
the full term of the loan, if the LTV is over 90%.
While these measures successfully replenished FHAs reserves, they placed an increased cost burden on
homeowners. Yet, some homebuyers were affected more than others. In December 2014, the National
Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra (NCSS) released a report documenting Latino/a and Black/African
American borrowers heavy reliance on FHA lending. FHA lending was also geographically clustered in
majority-minority communities primarily in southern/western Nassau County and western Suffolk
that had experienced high rates of foreclosure, and which were struggling to rebuild community wealth.3
In the final years of the Obama Administrations second term, the premiums were reduced, falling to
0.80-0.85% for a 30-year mortgage for a base loan of $625,000 or less in January 2015.4 A final cut of
0.25% was planned for January 27th, which would have brought FHA rates close to their pre-crisis levels.
On its first day, the incoming Trump Administration indefinitely suspended the cut. Moreover, it
announced that the agency would review both FHA premiums and the role of the FHA in housing finance
more broadly.
This policy report uses publicly-available Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) to measure the
prevalence and geographic distribution of FHA-insured loans on Long Island (see Appendix A for a
detailed discussion of methods). We calculate the how much the suspended cut would have saved
homeowners, and we examine which groups of homeowners will be most affected by the decision to
maintain premiums at their current level.

4
Results
Loan Volume by County
Table 1a shows the total number of conventional, FHA, VA, and other government-backed loans by
county, and Table 1b shows total mortgage lending in those jurisdictions and the yearly cost of the
foregone premium cut.
In the New York area, FHA lending is primarily suburban lending:

In 2015, 4,789 FHA mortgages were originated on Long Island,32.5% higher than the 3,614 FHA
mortgages issued in the whole of New York City.
Suffolk County alone accounted for over 3,000 FHA mortgages, while Manhattan accounted for
only 2.
Total FHA mortgage lending was slightly higher in New York City ($1.6 billion) than on Long
Island ($1.5 billion), due to the citys larger average loan size.
FHA lending totaled $625 million in Nassau County and $902 million in Suffolk in 2015.
If the changes in the premium are reversed Long Island borrowers will save $3.8 million annually
for as long as they pay the premium.5
FHA loan usage as a percentage of all originations is also generally higher on Long Island than in the
city:

FHA accounted for 24% of all mortgage loans on Long Island. FHA accounted for 30% of all
mortgage loans in Suffolk and 17% in Nassau. Both of these figures are higher than the
corresponding figure for New York City (13%).
In Queens, FHA loans were 18% of all originations and total volume approached that of Nassau
County, but FHA lending was highly concentrated in neighborhoods in southeastern Queens near
the Nassau border.
Bronx homebuyers used FHA at a higher rate than Long Island (35%), but loan volume was low.
There are many explanations for the difference between Long Island and New York City. High home
prices in New York City especially Manhattan and the more expensive sections of western Brooklyn
and Queens commonly exceed FHA loan limits. The same areas have lower homeownership levels
overall. Moreover, many co-ops and condos require high minimum down payments, forbid FHA
financing, or both.

5
Table 1a. Loan Originations by County, 2015

Loan Type FHA as %

VA/ Other Total of
Conventional FHA Govt Backed originations total
Long Island 14,781 4,789 633 20,203 23.7%
Nassau 7,980 1,737 234 9,951 17.5%
Suffolk 6,801 3,052 399 10,252 29.8%
New York City 23,497 3,614 215 27,326 13.2%
Bronx 1,333 732 38 2,103 34.8%
Brooklyn 5,905 834 40 6,779 12.3%
Manhattan 6,791 2 0 6,793 0.0%
Queens 6,943 1,552 70 8,565 18.1%
Staten Island 2,525 494 67 3,086 16.0%

Table 1b. Total Mortgage Lending by County

Annual lost savings

FHA lending, in due to suspended Lost savings over 11
millions cut years
Long Island 1,527 $3,817,248 $41,989,723
Nassau 625 $1,563,090 $17,193,990
Suffolk 902 $2,254,158 $24,795,733
New York City 1,634 $4,084,518 $44,929,693
Bronx 321 $802,900 $8,831,900
Brooklyn 425 $1,062,188 $11,684,063
Manhattan 2 $3,858 $42,433
Queens 694 $1,734,278 $19,077,053
Staten Island 193 $481,295 $5,294,245

FHA Loan Volume and the Cost of the Suspended Cut by Race, Ethnicity, and Income
African American and Latino/a borrowers depend disproportionately on FHA-insurance mortgages for
financing, and are disproportionately impacted by the suspended cut, but white borrowers lose more total
savings (Tables 2a and 2b):

On Long Island, FHA loans accounted for 58.2% and 58.8% of originations to Latino/a and
African American buyers, respectively. This is more than triple the proportion of non-Hispanic
white borrowers who used FHA-insured loans (17.4%).
White borrowers nevertheless account for the plurality of FHA loans in the region -- 2,189 loans,
or 45.3% of all FHA loans. These loans provide $723 million in financing to white borrowers
(compared to $222 million for Black/African Americans and $324 million for Latino/as).

6
 The suspended premium cut would have saved white homebuyers on Long Island $1.8 million
annually, while Latino/as would have saved $811,000 and Black/African Americans $555,000.
This would have amounted to savings of $826, $717, and $790 per FHA borrower per year.

Table 2a. FHA receipt by race/ethnicity on Long Island

Loan Type
VA/
Other
Govt FHA as % of
Conv FHA Backed Total total
White 10,056 2,189 357 12,602 17.4%
Latino/a 744 1,131 69 1,944 58.2%
Asian American 1,502 192 22 1,716 11.2%
Black or African American 438 703 54 1,195 58.8%
Multi-racial applicant or co-applicant of a
different race/ethnicity 677 256 54 987 25.9%
Other categories (AIAN, NH, OPI) 49 15 1 65 23.1%
No info 1,315 303 76 1,694 17.9%
Total 14,781 4,789 629 20,203 23.7%

Table 2b. Cost of suspended premium by race/ethnicity on Long Island

Annual lost savings

due to suspended Lost savings over
cut 11 years
White $1,808,508 $19,893,583
Latino/a $810,638 $8,917,013
Asian American $175,313 $1,928,438
Black or African American $555,400 $6,109,400
Multi-racial applicant or co-applicant of a
different race/ethnicity $207,615 $2,283,765
Other categories (AIAN, NH, OPI) $12,595 $138,545
No info $247,180 $2,718,980
Total $3,817,248 $41,989,723

We also examined FHA use by income. The median income for a borrower in the 2015 dataset was
$118,000, and we sorted each mortgage according to whether the applicant fell above or at/below this
threshold. Overall, households at or below the median borrower income make greater use of FHA loans
(32.9% of originations) than those above the median (13.5%), which is not surprising, given FHAs
mission to serve underserved and low-/middle-income borrowers.
But on Long Island these patterns vary considerably between racial and ethnic groups:

7
 A majority of both lower- and higher- income Black/African Americans utilized FHA: 62% of
all loans were FHA-insured for low-moderate income Blacks and 50% for higher-income Black
buyers.
Both the higher and lower income Black and Latino/a groups greatly exceeded the figures for
higher- and lower-income white and Asian American applicants. For low/moderate-income
Latino/a homeowners, FHA loans were 64% of total originations, while 34% of loans to higher-
income Latino/as were FHA.
Twenty-three percent of white borrowers at or below the median borrower income used FHA.
This was about as often as Long Island as a whole. In contrast, only 12% of loans to whites
above the median were FHA-insured. White borrowers below the median lost over $1 million in
annual savings when the cut was suspended.
High- and low-to-moderate-income Asian American borrowers used FHA loans at rates far
below the regional average.

Table 3. FHA Cost of suspended premium by race/ethnicity on Long Island

Income vs. app Loan type FHA as Lost

median of % of annual
Racial/ethnic group $118k FHA Total total savings ($)
White Low-income 1446 6173 23.4% $1,045,993
High-income 737 6311 11.7% $756,935
Latino/a Low-income 1006 1571 64.0% $691,945
High-income 123 365 33.7% $117,208
Asian American Low-income 133 824 16.1% $109,805
High-income 59 857 6.9% $65,508
Black or African American Low-income 568 922 61.6% $420,750
High-income 135 268 50.4% $134,650
Other categories (AIAN, NH, Low-income 14 43 32.6% $11,535
OPI) High-income 1 20 5.0% $1,060
No info Low-income 202 799 25.3% $145,678
High-income 101 859 11.8% $101,503
Multi-racial applicant or co-
applicant of a different Low-income 157 378 41.5% $111,628
race/ethnicity High-income 99 596 16.6% $95,988
Total Low-income 3526 10710 32.9% $2,537,330
High-income 1255 9276 13.5% $1,272,850

On the one hand, the much higher rates for Black and Latino/a buyers indicate that FHA insurance is
fulfilling its mission of providing affordable mortgage financing for the underserved, a notable
accomplishment for an agency which famously encouraged redlining well into the 1960s. But the fact that

8
FHA usage rates for higher-income Black/African American (50%) and Latino/a borrowers (34%) are
substantially higher than rates for lower-income white buyers (23%) is cause for concern. It is possible
that factors such as lower credit ratings or intergenerational wealth transfer (neither of which can be
ascertained from HMDA) explain part of this difference. But our past research suggests that these
disparities may also reflect the perpetuation of a dual credit market in the aftermath of the subprime crisis:
mortgage lenders specializing in conventional loans lend primarily to White and/or Asian American
buyers or buyers living in primarily White/Asian American communities; while another group of lenders
that specialize in FHA products work primarily (but not exclusively) in majority-Black and Latino/a
communities and with Black/Latino buyers.6 It is possible that more affluent Black borrowers may be
taking out FHA mortgages when they would be better served by conventional financing. This is a
concerning pattern that call for investigation by state and federal regulators.
Although the appearance of a dual credit market is troubling, FHA lending lacks many of the most
damaging predatory and unsustainable characteristics of subprime lending, and the elevated rates of FHA
foreclosures observed during 2008-2009 have subsided. Yet, historically high FHA premiums during
2010-2015 disproportionately affected Black and Latino/a buyers and undermined their ability to build
wealth. Changes in the FHA premiums similarly have a disproportionate effect on Black and Latino/a
borrowers, even if the effects remains greatest in absolute terms on white borrowers.

FHA Loan Volume and the Cost of the Suspended Cut by Place
These findings for groups of homeowners are reflected in the geography of FHA lending. Table 4 and
Appendix Table B-1 show FHA use by congressional district and by place including both incorporated
municipalities and census-designated places (CDPs) in Nassau and Suffolk counties:

In 23 of the 292 places in the region, FHA-insured loans accounted for more than half of all
originations locally. Together, loans from these 23 neighborhoods account for 27% of all FHA
loans made on Long Island in 2015.
More than two-thirds of Queens FHA loans were made in neighborhoods south of the Grand
Central and east of the Van Wyck Expressway (such as Jamaica, Hollis, and the Rockaways) and
more than half of those neighborhoods loans were FHA insured (50%). In the remainder of
Queens, only 8% of all loans were FHA insured. A dense area of FHA lending stretches across
the county line between southeastern Queens and southern and western Nassau County.
The worst affected congressional districts in New York State were NY-1, NY-2, and NY-5 all
located wholly or partly on Long Island where the suspended cut cost homeowners in each
district more than $1 million annually.
Most of the places with the highest levels of FHA use were the same areas hard-hit by the foreclosure
crisis. Figure 1 shows the relationship between FHA loans as a percentage of total originations in 2015
and the high-cost loans (as flagged by HMDAs rate spread field) as a percentage of total originations in
2005-2006. The correspondence is striking, and indicates that FHA lending has filled the gap (or perhaps,
recaptured the market) occupied for a time by subprime lenders in the late 1990s and early 2000s
meeting the needs of low-income borrowers and borrowers of color.
This underscores the importance of affordable FHA lending: FHA insurance has been a valuable tool as
homebuyers in these areas have attempted to rebuild housing wealth in communities that are still among
the most foreclosure- and zombie home-burdened in New York State and in the country. Higher FHA

9
premiums and suspended rate cuts place pressure on households budgets, undermining rather than
facilitating the development of community wealth.
Figure 1. FHA originations, 2015 vs. High-cost originations by place on Long Island (bubbles scaled to
total originations in each census place, 2015).

100.00%

80.00%
Village of Central Islip
Roosevelt
Hempstead
High-rate origination as % of total, 2005-2006

Uniondale

Brentwood
60.00%
North Bay Shore
North Amityville
New Cassel
Baywood
Mastic Beach
40.00%

20.00%

0.00%
-20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
FHA as a % of originations, 2015

10
Table 4. FHA Lending by congressional district, New York State, 2015

FHA loans
Total as % of Lost annual
CD Area Represent. FHA loans originations total savings
NY-1 Long Island Zeldin 1442 5106 28.24% $1,034,065
NY-2 Long Island King 1637 4809 34.04% $1,231,278
NY-3 Long Island Suozzi 450 5505 8.17% $449,820
NY-4 Long Island Rice 1085 5227 20.76% $955,203
NY-5 NYC/LI Meeks 1446 2930 49.35% $1,515,873
NY-6 NYC Meng 63 3095 2.04% $87,958
NY-7 NYC Velazquez 175 1553 11.27% $229,980
NY-8 NYC Jeffries 588 2374 24.77% $727,400
NY-9 NYC Clarke 201 1954 10.29% $252,333
NY-10 NYC Nadler 7 2978 0.24% $13,555
NY-11 NYC Donovan 502 3898 12.88% $494,483
NY-12 NYC Maloney 4 3880 0.10% $6,825
NY-13 NYC Espalliat 23 1036 2.22% $26,913
NY-14 NYC Crowley 295 1889 15.62% $347,793
NY-15 NYC Serrano 225 456 49.34% $244,108
NY-16 NYC/HV Engel 601 4235 14.19% $619,335
NY-17 Hud. Valley Lowey 632 5487 11.52% $569,143
NY-18 Hud. Valley Maloney 1174 5137 22.85% $712,103
NY-19 Hud. Valley Gibson 860 3796 22.66% $362,580
NY-20 Capital Tonko 1702 6580 25.87% $696,123
District
NY-21 North Stefanik 1066 4367 24.41% $378,263
Country
NY-22 Central NY Tenney 1445 4283 33.74% $397,765
NY-23 Central NY Reed 779 3963 19.66% $206,118
NY-24 Central NY Katko 1872 5973 31.34% $556,665
NY-25 Western NY Slaughter 2005 6914 29.00% $608,230
NY-26 Western NY Higgins 1753 5632 31.13% $496,128
NY-27 Western NY Collins 1444 6365 22.69% $486,230
Total 23476 109422 21.45% $13,706,263

11
APPENDIX A. DATA AND METHODS
In this report, we analyze Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) datasets, which are publicly available
from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council website (ffiec.gov). We use lenders7 HMDA
Loan Application Register (LAR) documentation of mortgage originations by census tract during the year
2015.8
We analyze HMDA datasets for Nassau County-Suffolk County and New York-Jersey City-White Plains
metropolitan divisions, selecting originated first mortgages for the purchase of owner-occupied, 1-to-4
family units (including condominium and co-operative units). We calculate the use of FHA mortgages at
the regional and county level. We present cross tabulations for race and ethnicity and loan type).9 We then
divide these groups into two simple income categories based upon whether the applicants income was
more than $118,000 (the median applicant income for all racial categories in Long Island) or equal to or
less than $118,000 and measure FHA loan originations for each race/ethnicity-income combination.
We also use the Missouri Center Data Centers MABEL/GeoCorr system to convert HMDA data by
census tract into loan counts by place and congressional district. We used Mabel/GeoCorr to identify
census tracts that are divided between multiple geographies. We created additional copies of mortgage
records, and then weighted each according to the geography-specific allocation factor in the
MABEL/GeoCorr v. 1.2 system.
We estimate the minimum cost of the suspended premium reduction to homebuyers by calculating how
much homebuyers in 2015 would have benefitted annually if they had received a 0.25% premium cut, i.e.,
how much these buyers would have benefitted if the cut approved by President Obama last month, and
suspended by President Trump on his first day in office, had instead taken place in 2015. This calculation
relies on the assumption that the demand for FHA-insured mortgages will meet or exceed 2015 volume
and that in an environment of rising prices, loan size will stay stable or rise.10 We multiply the total 2015
base loan amount by 0.25% to obtain a reasonable minimum estimate of the annual cost of suspending the
cut to borrowers today. The reader should keep in mind that the resulting figures refer to the cost that
buyers in the first year of their loan. In fact, since FHA borrowers are now obligated to pay this premium
for either 11 years of the loan term, or until they sell or refinance their home, the actual cost to buyers will
be many times higher than what is reported here. Additionally, since the figures reported here only refer
to homebuyers who receive mortgage over a one-year period, the total cost to buyers will increase for
every year that the MIP remains elevated.

12
APPENDIX B. LENDING BY PLACE
Table B-1. FHA Lending by place, 2015

Note: mortgages recorded for census tracts split between places were apportioned to places
based upon population of the tract located in each places. Resulting mortgage totals were
rounded to the nearest whole number. As a result, some places have zero FHA mortgages but
non-zero values for FHA as a percentage of all mortgages and lost annual savings.

LoanTyp
e Other Subprim
govt FHA as e as % of Lost
backe % of total, annual
Conv. FHA d Total total 2005-6 savings
Albertson CDP 46 0 0 46 0.00% 20.33% $0
Amagansett CDP 5 1 0 6 18.18% 31.56% $1,125
Amityville village 58 16 1 75 21.09% 37.88% $12,723
Aquebogue CDP 14 2 3 19 9.52% 31.28% $1,628
Asharoken village 4 0 0 4 7.14% 9.79% $433
Atlantic Beach village 10 1 0 11 13.04% 14.63% $1,800
Babylon village 86 16 2 104 15.38% 24.47% $13,640
Baiting Hollow CDP 10 0 0 10 0.00% 33.33% $0
Baldwin CDP 97 88 14 199 44.22% 48.95% $77,723
Baldwin Harbor CDP 30 42 2 74 56.76% 48.51% $36,065
Barnum Island CDP 14 7 1 22 32.35% 35.03% $6,058
Baxter Estates village 11 0 0 11 2.99% 16.57% $478
Bay Park CDP 10 8 2 19 40.43% 28.21% $6,400
Bay Shore CDP 59 76 7 142 53.52% 52.22% $50,325
Bayport CDP 53 7 2 62 11.29% 22.97% $5,830
Bayville village 34 7 1 42 16.87% 17.52% $6,913
Baywood CDP 13 36 3 52 69.23% 56.41% $22,205
Belle Terre village 7 1 0 8 8.51% 15.36% $683
Bellerose Terrace CDP 11 1 0 12 5.56% 35.71% $565
Bellerose village 6 0 0 6 5.56% 35.71% $308
Bellmore CDP 122 21 2 145 14.48% 26.05% $20,308
Bellport village 13 1 1 15 6.67% 23.67% $675
Bethpage CDP 98 21 9 128 16.41% 23.07% $20,253
Blue Point CDP 31 11 4 46 23.91% 26.42% $10,798
Bohemia CDP 40 14 2 56 25.00% 28.09% $10,805
Brentwood CDP 43 190 4 237 80.16% 62.94% $122,538
Bridgehampton CDP 12 1 0 13 8.68% 13.40% $1,633
Brightwaters village 44 6 1 51 11.76% 21.71% $6,650
Brookhaven CDP 15 7 2 25 29.10% 45.98% $4,968

13
 LoanTyp
e Other Subprim
govt FHA as e as % of Lost
backe % of total, annual
Conv. FHA d Total total 2005-6 savings
Brookville village 14 0 0 14 0.00% 8.40% $0
Calverton CDP 19 6 4 29 20.92% 33.79% $4,485
Carle Place CDP 27 7 1 35 20.00% 25.62% $7,480
Cedarhurst village 35 0 0 35 0.00% 30.09% $0
Center Moriches CDP 48 19 5 72 25.91% 33.86% $14,070
Centereach CDP 105 85 11 202 42.26% 38.18% $62,298
Centerport CDP 44 2 0 46 3.80% 14.53% $2,118
Central Islip CDP 64 97 5 166 58.43% 61.74% $56,388
Centre Island village 2 1 0 2 23.53% 24.42% $518
Cold Spring Harbor CDP 44 6 1 51 11.76% 14.46% $7,043
Commack CDP 236 28 8 272 10.29% 22.93% $27,363
Copiague CDP 73 84 7 164 51.22% 45.92% $56,993
Coram CDP 178 103 12 293 35.15% 37.36% $71,130
Cove Neck village 3 0 0 3 0.00% 9.52% $0
Cutchogue CDP 12 3 1 16 19.05% 13.95% $2,948
Deer Park CDP 136 77 5 217 35.29% 41.81% $60,955
Dering Harbor village 0 0 0 0 9.52% 15.05% $13
Dix Hills CDP 180 25 4 209 11.96% 24.60% $29,760
East Atlantic Beach CDP 10 2 0 12 13.04% 14.63% $1,948
East Farmingdale CDP 20 8 0 28 28.57% 39.94% $6,368
East Garden City CDP 22 1 0 23 4.35% 62.24% $898
East Hampton North CDP 26 3 0 29 9.87% 25.25% $2,913
East Hampton village 6 0 0 6 0.00% 18.68% $0
East Hills village 66 1 1 68 1.47% 13.73% $1,590
East Islip CDP 83 22 4 109 20.18% 26.84% $19,330
East Marion CDP 4 1 0 5 13.64% 22.26% $675
East Massapequa CDP 126 35 5 166 21.08% 35.37% $29,508
East Meadow CDP 209 41 6 256 16.13% 32.09% $39,250
East Moriches CDP 28 14 3 45 31.30% 29.41% $11,265
East Northport CDP 114 20 4 138 14.66% 21.93% $19,355
East Norwich CDP 17 3 0 20 15.00% 18.95% $3,755
East Patchogue CDP 91 62 11 164 37.80% 39.15% $42,250
East Quogue CDP 33 5 1 38 11.91% 25.36% $3,825
East Rockaway village 62 16 3 82 19.97% 24.89% $14,025
East Shoreham CDP 35 19 2 55 33.66% 22.92% $15,845
East Williston village 20 0 1 21 0.00% 13.68% $0
Eastport CDP 9 3 2 14 22.51% 26.95% $2,910

14
 LoanTyp
e Other Subprim
govt FHA as e as % of Lost
backe % of total, annual
Conv. FHA d Total total 2005-6 savings
Eatons Neck CDP 9 1 0 9 7.14% 9.79% $928
Elmont CDP 88 93 4 185 50.49% 58.82% $81,215
Elwood CDP 76 11 3 90 12.22% 29.39% $11,578
Farmingdale village 44 10 4 58 17.24% 23.75% $8,375
Farmingville CDP 54 45 10 109 41.66% 37.49% $32,130
Fire Island CDP 2 0 0 2 0.94% 37.52% $18
Fishers Island CDP 1 0 0 1 13.64% 22.26% $173
Flanders CDP 10 7 1 17 38.71% 46.59% $4,365
Floral Park village 119 9 0 128 7.03% 19.91% $10,283
Flower Hill village 45 0 0 45 0.00% 12.96% $0
Fort Salonga CDP 61 4 2 67 5.97% 15.49% $4,605
Franklin Square CDP 159 34 7 200 17.00% 32.99% $32,530
Freeport village 128 115 10 253 45.45% 54.35% $85,003
Garden City Park CDP 36 2 1 39 5.13% 30.14% $2,663
Garden City South CDP 17 6 0 23 26.09% 21.71% $7,203
Garden City village 245 3 2 250 1.20% 14.63% $4,703
Gilgo CDP 1 0 0 1 35.48% 25.37% $283
Glen Cove city 104 24 3 131 18.32% 33.02% $24,735
Glen Head CDP 24 2 2 28 7.14% 20.13% $1,918
Glenwood Landing CDP 38 2 0 39 4.69% 10.48% $2,758
Gordon Heights CDP 16 3 0 19 15.79% 63.41% $1,650
Great Neck Estates village 23 0 0 23 0.00% 7.03% $0
Great Neck Gardens CDP 8 0 0 8 0.00% 8.31% $0
Great Neck Plaza village 99 0 0 99 0.00% 3.88% $0
Great Neck village 69 1 2 72 1.39% 9.73% $1,485
Great River CDP 6 0 0 6 0.00% 24.46% $0
Greenlawn CDP 76 23 2 101 22.77% 36.72% $19,123
Greenport village 6 0 1 7 0.00% 34.01% $0
Greenport West CDP 9 2 1 12 13.64% 22.26% $1,545
Greenvale CDP 10 0 0 10 0.00% 9.26% $0
Halesite CDP 26 2 1 29 7.14% 18.37% $2,488
Hampton Bays CDP 63 28 2 93 30.22% 36.33% $25,618
Harbor Hills CDP 5 0 0 5 0.00% 7.03% $0
Harbor Isle CDP 8 4 0 12 32.35% 35.03% $3,260
Hauppauge CDP 115 22 3 140 15.71% 20.93% $23,250
Head of the Harbor village 11 0 0 12 0.00% 9.34% $0
Hempstead village 52 79 12 143 55.24% 65.93% $49,903

15
 LoanTyp
e Other Subprim
govt FHA as e as % of Lost
backe % of total, annual
Conv. FHA d Total total 2005-6 savings
Herricks CDP 30 0 0 30 0.00% 19.40% $0
Hewlett Bay Park village 3 0 0 4 8.00% 16.03% $368
Hewlett CDP 43 7 0 50 14.00% 25.50% $7,355
Hewlett Harbor village 10 1 0 11 8.00% 16.03% $1,150
Hewlett Neck village 4 0 0 4 8.00% 16.03% $405
Hicksville CDP 193 39 5 237 16.46% 29.73% $36,403
Holbrook CDP 132 61 11 204 29.90% 28.77% $51,420
Holtsville CDP 91 41 9 140 28.99% 30.39% $30,508
Huntington Bay village 15 1 0 17 7.14% 18.37% $1,423
Huntington CDP 145 22 2 169 12.83% 16.64% $26,390
Huntington Station CDP 122 71 4 197 36.04% 45.15% $53,700
Inwood CDP 30 10 0 40 25.00% 54.69% $8,245
Island Park village 10 15 0 25 60.00% 43.09% $11,413
Islandia village 8 12 0 20 60.00% 55.46% $8,105
Islip CDP 85 41 1 127 32.28% 33.44% $31,145
Islip Terrace CDP 18 16 1 35 45.71% 32.05% $11,110
Jamesport CDP 10 1 2 13 9.52% 31.28% $1,145
Jericho CDP 97 4 1 102 3.89% 12.38% $5,425
Kensington village 8 0 0 8 0.00% 8.31% $0
Kings Park CDP 97 20 6 123 16.43% 21.87% $18,795
Kings Point village 17 0 0 17 0.00% 4.02% $0
Lake Grove village 51 24 5 80 30.00% 32.45% $18,473
Lake Ronkonkoma CDP 80 51 3 134 38.06% 31.57% $38,785
Lake Success village 25 0 0 25 0.00% 6.20% $0
Lakeview CDP 14 12 0 26 46.15% 64.37% $9,465
Lattingtown village 14 0 0 15 3.33% 10.61% $653
Laurel CDP 9 0 0 10 5.13% 16.83% $525
Laurel Hollow village 18 0 0 18 0.00% 9.52% $0
Lawrence village 32 1 0 33 3.03% 17.70% $1,965
Levittown CDP 276 112 26 414 27.05% 33.04% $95,540
Lido Beach CDP 21 1 0 23 6.25% 21.64% $1,655
Lindenhurst village 83 62 10 155 40.00% 33.15% $46,020
Lloyd Harbor village 41 0 0 41 0.00% 10.00% $0
Locust Valley CDP 20 4 0 24 16.67% 25.78% $4,093
Long Beach city 305 31 5 341 9.09% 24.54% $34,578
Lynbrook village 151 33 8 192 17.19% 27.41% $31,728
Malverne Park Oaks CDP 4 1 0 5 16.13% 20.88% $845

16
 LoanTyp
e Other Subprim
govt FHA as e as % of Lost
backe % of total, annual
Conv. FHA d Total total 2005-6 savings
Malverne village 69 14 1 84 16.62% 26.31% $13,898
Manhasset CDP 45 0 1 46 0.00% 18.54% $0
Manhasset Hills CDP 23 0 1 24 0.00% 9.58% $0
Manorhaven village 19 7 0 26 26.92% 20.09% $9,555
Manorville CDP 71 20 6 97 20.90% 31.81% $18,140
Massapequa CDP 136 24 2 162 14.81% 18.00% $26,375
Massapequa Park village 115 21 1 137 15.33% 18.62% $21,623
Mastic Beach CDP 19 53 6 78 67.95% 52.76% $19,778
Mastic CDP 23 47 5 75 62.61% 51.24% $23,473
Matinecock village 7 0 0 7 3.33% 10.61% $303
Mattituck CDP 26 2 2 29 5.13% 16.83% $1,595
Medford CDP 109 84 7 200 42.00% 38.46% $55,830
Melville CDP 108 7 1 116 6.03% 18.22% $7,285
Merrick CDP 163 22 4 189 11.64% 21.46% $23,455
Middle Island CDP 76 26 2 104 25.00% 36.85% $16,053
Mill Neck village 8 0 0 8 3.33% 10.61% $373
Miller Place CDP 59 25 4 88 28.36% 24.77% $20,768
Mineola village 132 10 1 143 6.99% 20.38% $10,278
Montauk CDP 16 1 0 17 5.88% 23.10% $1,295
Moriches CDP 11 9 1 21 42.76% 45.70% $5,040
Mount Sinai CDP 72 18 4 94 19.18% 22.91% $15,818
Munsey Park village 34 0 0 34 0.00% 9.32% $0
Muttontown village 32 0 0 32 0.00% 11.61% $0
Napeague CDP 1 0 0 1 18.18% 31.56% $193
Nesconset CDP 89 18 8 115 15.65% 21.40% $17,318
New Cassel CDP 14 35 1 50 70.00% 62.67% $25,985
New Hyde Park village 68 5 2 75 6.32% 24.92% $5,558
New Suffolk CDP 1 0 0 2 19.05% 13.95% $308
Nissequogue village 14 0 1 14 0.00% 9.34% $0
North Amityville CDP 20 52 0 72 72.46% 62.71% $32,875
North Babylon CDP 92 59 4 155 38.06% 38.48% $45,693
North Bay Shore CDP 15 58 1 74 78.40% 60.48% $37,985
North Bellmore CDP 149 24 9 182 13.19% 26.36% $22,155
North Bellport CDP 28 25 4 56 44.54% 54.43% $14,070
North Great River CDP 25 7 1 33 21.21% 35.08% $5,778
North Haven village 7 0 0 7 0.00% 9.60% $0
North Hills village 43 0 0 43 0.00% 6.20% $0

17
 LoanTyp
e Other Subprim
govt FHA as e as % of Lost
backe % of total, annual
Conv. FHA d Total total 2005-6 savings
North Lindenhurst CDP 25 30 3 58 51.72% 42.32% $21,818
North Lynbrook CDP 6 1 0 7 17.65% 34.33% $1,233
North Massapequa CDP 125 20 3 148 13.51% 18.86% $18,615
North Merrick CDP 83 15 3 101 14.85% 21.09% $15,090
North New Hyde Park CDP 91 12 0 103 11.65% 20.73% $13,908
North Patchogue CDP 25 24 5 54 44.44% 40.40% $14,820
North Sea CDP 24 1 0 25 2.51% 25.52% $785
North Valley Stream CDP 81 31 4 116 26.72% 48.38% $27,073
North Wantagh CDP 91 22 2 115 19.13% 26.10% $20,080
Northampton CDP 1 1 0 2 38.71% 46.63% $560
Northport village 45 5 2 52 9.62% 16.74% $5,103
Northville CDP 8 1 2 10 9.52% 31.28% $895
Northwest Harbor CDP 32 1 1 33 1.56% 18.68% $725
Noyack CDP 24 2 1 27 8.59% 18.86% $2,983
Oak Beach-Captree CDP 2 1 0 2 35.48% 30.74% $625
Oakdale CDP 62 12 2 76 15.79% 16.92% $10,860
Ocean Beach village 0 0 0 0 0.00% 25.37% $0
Oceanside CDP 242 66 8 316 20.89% 26.94% $62,760
Old Bethpage CDP 56 3 0 59 5.08% 25.39% $3,020
Old Brookville village 19 0 0 19 0.00% 11.61% $0
Old Field village 7 1 0 8 7.50% 13.81% $515
Old Westbury village 17 0 0 17 0.27% 13.04% $73
Orient CDP 3 1 0 4 13.64% 22.26% $540
Oyster Bay CDP 37 5 1 43 11.63% 22.03% $4,515
Oyster Bay Cove village 21 0 0 21 0.00% 9.52% $0
Patchogue village 101 25 5 131 19.08% 37.69% $17,060
Peconic CDP 2 1 0 3 19.05% 13.95% $603
Plainedge CDP 51 9 7 67 13.43% 27.51% $7,708
Plainview CDP 207 11 1 219 5.02% 18.25% $12,648
Plandome Heights village 9 0 0 9 0.00% 8.54% $0
Plandome Manor village 8 0 0 8 0.00% 8.54% $0
Plandome village 13 0 0 13 0.00% 8.54% $0
Point Lookout CDP 9 1 0 9 6.25% 21.64% $695
Poquott village 7 1 0 8 7.50% 13.81% $538
Port Jefferson Station CDP 35 23 4 62 37.10% 32.18% $17,100
Port Jefferson village 55 4 1 60 7.20% 18.59% $4,425
Port Washington CDP 149 3 2 154 2.05% 16.25% $4,628

18
 LoanTyp
e Other Subprim
govt FHA as e as % of Lost
backe % of total, annual
Conv. FHA d Total total 2005-6 savings
Port Washington North
village 26 0 1 28 0.00% 13.06% $0
Quiogue CDP 6 0 0 6 0.00% 30.26% $0
Quogue village 9 1 0 10 9.09% 23.28% $823
Remsenburg-Speonk CDP 12 3 2 18 17.80% 22.73% $3,483
Ridge CDP 79 22 7 108 20.23% 30.60% $16,900
Riverhead CDP 52 14 4 70 20.29% 35.64% $9,310
Riverside CDP 7 4 0 11 38.71% 46.63% $2,843
Rockville Centre village 230 9 2 241 3.73% 17.36% $10,785
Rocky Point CDP 63 52 7 122 42.45% 37.55% $29,930
Ronkonkoma CDP 93 44 6 143 30.77% 32.94% $32,583
Roosevelt CDP 17 51 2 70 72.86% 70.39% $31,933
Roslyn Estates village 17 0 0 17 0.05% 7.85% $15
Roslyn Harbor village 13 0 0 13 1.17% 8.62% $230
Roslyn Heights CDP 62 1 0 63 1.58% 17.36% $1,690
Roslyn village 37 0 0 37 0.00% 7.85% $0
Russell Gardens village 7 0 0 7 0.00% 8.31% $0
Saddle Rock Estates CDP 4 0 0 4 0.00% 7.03% $0
Saddle Rock village 7 0 0 7 0.00% 7.03% $0
Sag Harbor village 19 0 0 20 0.77% 14.06% $215
Sagaponack village 2 0 0 2 8.70% 13.10% $295
Salisbury CDP 92 22 3 117 18.56% 31.15% $20,338
Saltaire village 0 0 0 0 0.00% 25.37% $0
Sands Point village 30 1 0 31 1.64% 12.21% $773
Sayville CDP 91 27 3 121 22.31% 22.32% $24,468
Sea Cliff village 41 7 1 49 14.29% 15.48% $7,300
Seaford CDP 89 20 3 112 17.86% 23.19% $18,213
Searingtown CDP 45 0 0 45 0.00% 14.76% $0
Selden CDP 61 68 6 135 50.12% 42.38% $42,063
Setauket-East Setauket
CDP 104 19 3 126 14.86% 19.51% $18,825
Shelter Island CDP 11 1 0 12 9.52% 15.05% $1,503
Shelter Island Heights CDP 8 1 0 9 9.52% 15.05% $1,183
Shinnecock Hills CDP 9 3 1 12 21.74% 28.30% $2,835
Shirley CDP 64 92 19 175 52.57% 48.76% $46,340
Shoreham village 3 2 0 5 33.33% 17.09% $1,433
Smithtown CDP 167 27 8 202 13.43% 20.12% $25,880

19
 LoanTyp
e Other Subprim
govt FHA as e as % of Lost
backe % of total, annual
Conv. FHA d Total total 2005-6 savings
Sound Beach CDP 33 20 3 56 36.08% 33.72% $11,960
South Farmingdale CDP 82 24 4 110 21.82% 30.13% $21,235
South Floral Park village 7 2 0 9 18.18% 58.17% $1,435
South Hempstead CDP 14 9 0 23 39.13% 39.70% $7,875
South Huntington CDP 62 20 0 82 24.39% 23.79% $17,275
South Valley Stream CDP 37 15 1 53 28.30% 40.34% $14,990
Southampton village 13 2 0 15 13.33% 17.70% $2,248
Southold CDP 37 2 1 40 5.00% 20.66% $2,285
Springs CDP 42 7 0 49 14.29% 33.48% $8,548
St. James CDP 87 11 5 103 10.68% 23.64% $10,303
Stewart Manor village 14 1 0 15 8.33% 26.73% $1,253
Stony Brook CDP 81 12 7 100 12.06% 15.16% $13,753
100.00
Stony Brook University CDP 0 1 0 1 % 15.36% $1,510
Syosset CDP 146 3 1 150 2.00% 16.29% $3,990
Terryville CDP 42 27 4 73 36.99% 38.53% $20,060
Thomaston village 18 0 0 18 0.00% 8.31% $0
Tuckahoe CDP 6 1 0 7 7.19% 28.13% $550
Uniondale CDP 33 63 1 97 64.95% 63.19% $49,435
University Gardens CDP 59 0 0 59 0.00% 9.70% $0
Upper Brookville village 15 0 0 15 0.00% 11.61% $0
Valley Stream village 179 114 10 303 37.62% 45.21% $102,473
Village of the Branch village 12 2 0 14 11.76% 21.99% $1,808
Wading River CDP 50 15 3 68 22.06% 25.86% $9,520
Wainscott CDP 6 0 0 6 1.56% 18.68% $143
Wantagh CDP 96 14 3 113 12.39% 20.39% $14,570
Water Mill CDP 10 1 0 11 7.20% 18.38% $1,053
West Babylon CDP 147 122 10 279 43.72% 40.70% $91,458
West Bay Shore CDP 33 12 0 45 26.67% 25.37% $9,225
West Hampton Dunes
village 0 0 0 0 0.00% 21.44% $0
West Hempstead CDP 105 26 3 134 19.40% 40.18% $22,703
West Hills CDP 42 9 1 52 17.31% 20.98% $9,450
West Islip CDP 154 52 10 216 24.07% 25.33% $44,795
West Sayville CDP 25 7 1 33 21.21% 28.21% $6,060
Westbury village 64 17 2 83 20.48% 42.68% $17,003

20
 LoanTyp
e Other Subprim
govt FHA as e as % of Lost
backe % of total, annual
Conv. FHA d Total total 2005-6 savings
Westhampton Beach
village 12 0 0 12 0.00% 30.26% $0
Westhampton CDP 17 1 0 18 7.67% 25.07% $855
Wheatley Heights CDP 11 12 0 23 52.95% 55.30% $10,068
Williston Park village 34 4 2 40 10.00% 16.04% $4,528
Woodbury CDP 83 1 0 84 1.19% 17.69% $1,160
Woodmere CDP 146 12 0 158 7.59% 22.83% $13,350
Woodsburgh village 6 1 0 7 8.00% 16.03% $708
Wyandanch CDP 15 26 0 42 62.68% 66.73% $14,178
Yaphank CDP 35 19 2 56 33.48% 37.49% $13,360
478 2020 $3,817,24
Total 14781 9 633 3 23.70% 8

21
ENDNOTES

1
See https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FHA_SF_MarketShare_2015Q1.pdf
2
FHA originations dropped in FY 2011-2014 as premiums rose and the market recovered, and rose again during
2015-2016.
3
Christopher Niedt and Marc Silver. An Uneven Road to Recovery: Place, Race, and Mortgage Lending on Long
Island. Hempstead, NY: National Center for Suburban Studies/Long Island Housing Services, December 2014.
Available at www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/css/ncss-report-uneven-road.pdf.
4
See HUDs Mortgage Letter 2015-01, available at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=15-
01ml.pdf.
5
This assumes that 2017 FHA lending matches or exceed that of 2015. See Appendix A and footnote 9 below.
6
Christopher Niedt and Marc Silver. An Uneven Road to Recovery: Place, Race, and Mortgage Lending on Long
Island. Hempstead, NY: National Center for Suburban Studies/Long Island Housing Services, December 2014.
Available at www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/css/ncss-report-uneven-road.pdf.
7
Nearly all depository and non-depository lenders operating in metropolitan areas are required to submit loan
application registers which are included in HMDA data. For an explanation of the exceptions, see
https://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/pdf/2013guide.pdf.
8
The data include a range of demographic variables describing each borrower (e.g., race, ethnicity, and income), as
well as basic information about the loan itself (e.g., purpose, loan amount conventional/FHA/VA). Some important
variables are notably excluded, such as applicant credit scores and detailed loan terms; this makes it difficult, for
example, to determine if people of color with the same borrower profiles as white applicants receive FHA loans at a
disproportionate rate (due to a dual credit market, discrimination, etc.).
9
The eight ethnicity and race variables for applicants and co-applicants are recoded into a single variable. All
Latino/a applicants and co-applicants were coded Latino/a in the new summary variable, and the remaining
applicants were coded multi-racial if they listed more than one racial category. If applicants had a co-applicant
with a different race/ethnicity, the summary variable was again coded multi-racial. Loan type includes
conventional, FHA, and other government-loans (primarily Veterans Affairs, plus four Farm Service Agency/Rural
Housing Service).
10
FHA purchase endorsements rose from FY 15 to FY 16, and quarterly endorsements and endorsement volumes
rose from 2015 to 2016, except for a 1% decline from 2015Q4 to 2016Q4 see
https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=2016fhaannualreport1.pdf. Several other independent
factors could also affect FHA loan volume, such as the cost of FHA insurance relative to PMI.

22