By Jeanette Quick, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Policy
On
July 10, 2024, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Federal Insurance
Office (FIO) hosted a roundtable to discuss the title insurance industry
and analyze potential reforms.[1]
FIO convened the roundtable in connection with President Biden’s call
for federal agencies to take all available actions to lower home closing
costs and help more Americans access homeownership.[2]
At
the roundtable, senior Treasury officials led discussions with a wide
array of stakeholders about the structure of the title insurance
industry, the costs and benefits of title insurance, consumer awareness
and protection, the regulatory environment, and various proposals for
reforms. This note highlights some of the issues discussed and ideas
considered at the roundtable, and outlines ongoing and potential
policy-related steps concerning title insurance and housing
affordability.
Title Insurance and THE Title Industry
Title Policies and Services
In
general, a title insurance policy insures the interests of the owners
or other persons (mainly mortgage lenders) in real property against loss
or damage arising from any or all of the following conditions that
existed on or before the policy date: (1) defects in or liens or
encumbrances on the insured title; (2) unmarketability of the insured
title; (3) invalidity, lack of priority or unenforceability of liens, or
encumbrances on the stated property; (4) lack of legal right of access
to the land; or (5) unenforceability of rights in title to the land.[3]
Title
or settlement agents may provide or facilitate a range of products and
services in connection with closing a home purchase and mortgage (or
refinancing of a mortgage). These may include searching and reviewing
property and other records (“title search”); correcting title defects
identified prior to closing (“curing”); conducting the closing; and
issuing one or more insurance policies that obligate the insurer to
indemnify and defend the insureds in the case of later-discovered
alleged title defects.
There are two types of title insurance
policies offered in residential real estate transactions—the lender’s
policy and the owner’s policy. The lender’s policy is issued for the
benefit of the lender and will pay to the lender the remaining principal
of the loan if there is a covered problem with the title that cannot be
resolved. An owner’s policy typically protects the buyer’s interest by
providing coverage for up to the full purchase price of the property.
Obtaining an owner’s policy is not required to close on a home purchase
or mortgage, while lenders generally require the purchase of a lender’s
policy as a condition of funding a loan secured by real property. The
cost of the lender’s policy is typically paid for by the buyer (i.e.,
the borrower). Title insurance policies are paid for at the time of
closing or refinancing through a one-time premium.
When both an
owner’s policy and a lender’s policy are issued at closing in a purchase
or refinance transaction, some insurers may offer a reduced price for
one of these policies (“simultaneous issue discount”) since it requires
limited or no additional title work to support a second policy. In
refinance transactions, where a new lender’s policy is generally
required by the lender to ensure clean title since the date the prior
mortgage was issued (and to insure a new lender and/or for new coverage
amounts), many title insurers offer “reissue” rates that provide some
cost savings as well.[4]
In some states, the buyer pays for the lender’s policy, and may choose
to obtain an owner’s policy (that could be subject to a simultaneous
issue discount). In other states it is common for the property seller
to pay for an owner’s title policy, and the buyer pays for the lender’s
policy (the cost of which may reflect a simultaneous issue discount).
The Title Insurance Market
According
to Fannie Mae, the average cost in the United States for title and
settlement services, inclusive of the lender’s policy, is $1,900.[5]The
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reports that title
insurance premiums typically range from 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the
purchase price.[6]
The title industry noted that these cost estimates are overstated
because they do not factor in certain seller credits and they count some
third-party fees as part of the title charge, even if they are not paid
to the title company.[7]
Industry loss ratios, which generally range from 3 to 7 percent, are
extremely low in comparison to property and casualty insurers in
general. Industry officials and others, however, note that title insurer
combined ratios—which take into account both expenses and losses—range
from 95 to 102 percent, broadly in line with that of other insurance
products. Some of the roundtable discussion focused on the various cost
components that make up those expenses.
Regulation
In the
United States the business of insurance, including title insurance, is
primarily regulated by the states, the District of Columbia, and the
five U.S. territories.[8]
In most states, the law specifies that title insurance rates may not be
excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. Rate regulation
varies among the states. Some states regulate only the risk premium,
while other states regulate an all-inclusive premium, which generally
includes all costs of issuing the policy, search expenses, and the risk
premium. Moreover, states regulate title insurance rates in several
distinct ways: prior approval (rate must be approved by the regulator
prior to use), file and use (rates must be filed prior to use, no
advance approval required), or by use and file (rates are filed after
they are used in the market). In a few states, rates are established by
regulation set by the state’s insurance regulator.
THE Title Insurance Roundtable
The
title insurance roundtable brought together a diverse group of
participants for discussions about the title insurance marketplace, the
regulatory landscape, consumer protection, and potential reforms that
might help lead to lower costs for consumers and help expand access to
homeownership. Academics and other participants stressed the importance
of obtaining quantitative data and conducting independent research to
ensure that any discussions on potential reforms are grounded in
data-driven analysis. Some of the discussions are summarized below.
Consumer Concerns
Consumer
groups expressed concerns with the way that title insurance is marketed
and sold, which they said results in limited or no price competition.
They highlighted that title insurance marketing and distribution is
focused on lender and real estate stakeholders, even though the borrower
pays for the lender’s insurance policy. Consumer groups shared concerns
that (despite applicable state and federal law) the pricing of title
insurance is not transparent, and that consumers have little knowledge
of how the rates are determined, or even what they are paying for, which
can hamper the ability of consumers to make informed decisions. For
example, in some states, the title insurance premium includes some of
the costs of title clearing and preparing for the closing; in others the
premium is supposed to reflect only the cost of risk.[9]
Title insurance may be bundled with other closing costs in a real
estate transaction, which can make it challenging for consumers to
understand the charges for each respective service or product. Moreover,
some title companies market policies with various enhancements, at
increased cost, and consumers may not be informed of the value of these
products.
Consumer groups also noted that many potential home
buyers face challenges in accumulating sufficient funds for down
payments and other costs that are required for closing a housing
transaction. These challenges for consumers can be exacerbated by the
cost of title insurance, considering that the median savings account
balance for American families is just $8,000.[10]
Moreover, some participants suggested that in various ways consumer
interests are not being protected—for example, that borrowers who are
not aware of the availability of simultaneous issue or reissue discounts
may be charged undiscounted rates.
Title Industry Profitability
Industry
officials emphasized that a large and costly part of its role is the
labor-intensive process of identifying and curing title defects on a
property’s title before the transaction closes. Accordingly, they noted
that the industry’s generally low loss ratio reflects their
effectiveness before closing and in reducing risk of loss to
policyholders and the insurers. According to the American Land Title
Association (ALTA), even with the benefit of increasing automation, for
the average purchase transaction, the search, exam, and curative and
closing services takes over 20 hours of time to complete if no
extraordinary defects or issues are found.[11] In
addition, industry participants noted that title insurance prices have
had very little growth in real terms over the past 5 to 10 years.
Industry
participants also emphasized that title insurance may protect insured
parties from the risk of events such as escrow fraud, cyber-enabled
crimes, and equity stripping. They noted that such events have been
occurring more frequently and cannot be cured in advance.
Alternative Structures and the Iowa Model
Participants
discussed alternative structures, consumer protection, and the role of
the government-sponsored enterprises. For example, consumer groups
suggested that the cost of title insurance might be lower if lenders
used their market power to negotiate prices with insurers, or if lenders
(rather than sellers) paid the premium for lender’s title policies. It
was also suggested that the requirement for lenders to have title
insurance is driven by the interests of investors in conforming loan
securities.
Participants also discussed the approach to title
insurance in Iowa, which is the only state in the country that provides
title coverage through a not-for-profit state-administered program. The
Title Guarantee Division of the Iowa Finance Authority relies on
attorney abstracts and opinion letters, and for residential transactions
will issue a lender’s guaranty of up to $750,000 for a flat fee of
$175. An owner’s guaranty generally is provided at no additional charge.[12]
Industry representatives cautioned that the borrower bears the cost for
the attorney’s work and opinion letter and potentially other settlement
costs, so that the $175 fee is not directly comparable to the costs of
title insurance and settlement services in other states. Other
participants noted the potential utility and cost effectiveness of
attorney opinion letters in some instances, if acceptable to lenders.
Observations and Recommendations
Title
insurance provides benefits to consumers and lenders by identifying and
curing title defects, defending the interests of the insureds in case
of title-related disputes after closing, including reimbursing losses
from covered title-related defects that emerge after the transfer of
property ownership, and providing a source of compensation for various
fraudulent activities that can damage homeowners. Roundtable
participants noted multiple areas of the title insurance industry that
could benefit from potential reforms, including product design,
distribution, pricing, and regulation. However, reaching definitive
conclusions on appropriate paths forward for potential reforms is
challenging because views are generally informed by anecdotal evidence
or proprietary data.
Even though consumers spend as much as $22
billion on title insurance each year, the lack of publicly available
data on the U.S. market means that there is relatively little
independent research on the title insurance market.[13]
Various industry participants noted their potential willingness to work
with other stakeholders on efforts to increase data availability to
researchers, so long as sufficient confidentiality protections are
maintained. Treasury supports increased and independent qualitative and
quantitative analyses of the cost structure of title insurance, claims,
expenses, and variations in state insurance regulation to better assess
the cost of title insurance and the extent to which the title insurance
industry is benefiting consumers and homeowners. Treasury also
encourages academic and industry participants to explore potential areas
of cooperation, including the potential sharing of anonymized industry
data with interested researchers.
New Research Initiatives
It
is notable that subsequent to the roundtable, the American Academy of
Actuaries and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
both announced new research initiatives related to title insurance.[14]Both
of these research initiatives are promising developments that could
help increase independent data-driven assessments of the title insurance
market. Treasury will monitor and consider the outcomes of these
initiatives.
Lenders Pay for Title Insurance
Some
consumer groups have suggested that the cost of title insurance would
be lower if lenders used their market power to negotiate prices with
insurers.[15]
This may be an area where additional data and independent analysis
could help with assessment of the potential benefit of any reforms.
Industry participants also countered the view that borrowers receive no
benefit from the lender’s policies they pay for. They noted that in the
absence of this coverage lenders would look to the borrowers—who
typically warrant that they have good title on the property serving as
mortgage collateral—to bear the cost of title defects that affect the
lender’s interest.
Consumer Education
The roundtable also
suggests areas for collaboration among industry, consumer advocates, and
regulators to increase consumer education. Some of these initiatives
could include exploring ways to provide more accessible disclosure and
breakdowns of title insurance fees, continuing efforts to educate
consumers (such as helping consumers to understand the difference
between lender’s and owner’s policies, the potential availability of
discounts, and the scope of “premium” coverage enhancements) and
encouraging consumers to shop around for title insurance. The NAIC’s
Title Insurance Task Force developed a Title Insurance Consumer Shopping
Tool in 2015, which is periodically updated, as a guide for consumers
regarding title insurance and how to shop for it.[16]
Further evaluation by the NAIC concerning accessibility and usefulness
of the shopping tool for consumers in light of market developments
should be considered. A related avenue to consider relates to
opportunities for title agents and housing advocates to collaborate on
increasing consumer education and awareness directed, for example, at
ensuring that consumers take full advantage of premium discounts that
may be available. Some roundtable participants, however, noted that the
effectiveness of consumer education regarding title insurance may be
limited, because many consumers only purchase homes infrequently, and
they may simply rely on the recommendations of their real estate agent,
rather than focusing on any details concerning the product or the
insurers and agents involved in delivering it.
State Regulatory Differences in Title Insurance
The
research initiatives described above could also help identify
recommendations for state regulators around harmonizing rate filings and
related matters. More harmonization of state regulation, which could be
addressed in amendments to relevant NAIC model laws, might improve the
ability of policymakers to conduct direct comparisons. Moreover, to the
degree that these efforts do not result in improved consumer outcomes,
consideration should be given as to whether other regulatory solutions,
at the state or federal level, are needed.
Technology
Some
insurers are exploring various technological advancements (including
the use of artificial intelligence) and others have invested in tools
such as decision engines that automate aspects of the title examination
and document collection. Such efforts may help drive down costs in the
title industry over time. Nevertheless, stakeholders noted that further
digitization of state and local records is needed to reduce costs and
inefficiencies. To that end, identifying funding sources to facilitate
the digitization of local land records could be beneficial.
Iowa’s Model
Some
roundtable participants remarked that there should be careful
consideration into whether aspects of Iowa’s practices around title
coverage (e.g., attorney opinion letters) can or should be adapted for
implementation in other states. They also noted that studying the
relative costs and benefits of Iowa’s approach as compared to that in
other states may yield useful insights to regulators and policymakers.
There were a variety of views on the relative merits of the two systems
and whether Iowa’s approach is scalable.[17]
Additional research in this area could be a potential topic for
additional projects by the American Academy of Actuaries or the NAIC.
LOOKING AHEAD
Treasury
will continue to monitor the title insurance industry and its role in
housing affordability and explore opportunities for potential title
insurance reform where appropriate, including by consulting and
collaborating with state insurance regulators and other stakeholders.
Ken Warner - LandStar says... Posted Tuesday, December 24, 2024
Rich,
Thank you for forwarding this.
As much as Jeanette Quick tried to add a little balance to her summary of the title insurance roundtable, FIO seems focused on replacing lender title insurance with some combination of attorney opinion letters and the “Iowa model”.
In New York, we have TIRSA filed rates, lender Loan Estimates (which include title charges), and title agent web sites with rate calculators and fee lists. You would think that criticisms regarding a “lack of transparency” would be a thing of the past and yet, here they are again.
When it comes to reducing costs to the consumer, there is never a mention of reducing government regulation, reducing amounts charged to lenders by Fannie Mae, reducing municipal fees, recording charges, transfer taxes or mortgage taxes. There is barely a reference to the existing benefits of title insurance and no discussion of expanding title insurance coverage to provide additional benefits the consumer. Instead, FIO’s focus is on restricting lenders from passing on the cost of title insurance to borrowers so that lenders are incentivized to replace title insurance with cheaper and inferior alternatives.
ALTA is doing a great job of advocacy for our industry, but it seems that the FIO has different ideas.
The New York State Land Title Association, Inc. advances the common interests of all those engaged in the business of abstracting, examining, insuring titles, and otherwise facilitating real estate transactions. The Association promotes the business
and general welfare of its Members and protects real property title holders’ ownership rights.
Posted Tuesday, December 24, 2024
Thank you for forwarding this.
As much as Jeanette Quick tried to add a little balance to her summary of the title insurance roundtable, FIO seems focused on replacing lender title insurance with some combination of attorney opinion letters and the “Iowa model”.
In New York, we have TIRSA filed rates, lender Loan Estimates (which include title charges), and title agent web sites with rate calculators and fee lists. You would think that criticisms regarding a “lack of transparency” would be a thing of the past and yet, here they are again.
When it comes to reducing costs to the consumer, there is never a mention of reducing government regulation, reducing amounts charged to lenders by Fannie Mae, reducing municipal fees, recording charges, transfer taxes or mortgage taxes. There is barely a reference to the existing benefits of title insurance and no discussion of expanding title insurance coverage to provide additional benefits the consumer. Instead, FIO’s focus is on restricting lenders from passing on the cost of title insurance to borrowers so that lenders are incentivized to replace title insurance with cheaper and inferior alternatives.
ALTA is doing a great job of advocacy for our industry, but it seems that the FIO has different ideas.
Ken