Uncategorized

ICE Mortgage Technology has launched its own publicly available weekly average prime offer rate [APOR] index, the company announced Tuesday.The APOR index is the underlying interest rate source used to determine what qualifies as a higher-priced mortgage loan under federal regulations. For more than a decade, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has published the APOR weekly.In 2023, the CFPB announced it would begin using data from ICE, rather than the weekly Freddie Mac survey, to calculate its APOR. ICE said the same data from its loan origination system, Encompass — which is used by the CFPB — will also be used for ICE's own APOR.It remains unclear why ICE opted to introduce a separate APOR index, given that the CFPB already publishes one. The company declined to provide additional details.The mortgage technology provider emphasized the importance of APOR for lenders, consumers and secondary market participants in assessing whether a loan meets certain regulatory thresholds. These thresholds can affect mortgage terms and whether a loan qualifies for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ICE's press release said.In its announcement, ICE called the APOR published by the CFPB "a foundational rate that impacts residential mortgage lending standards and qualifications for securitization.""ICE's deep experience leveraging transactional data and designing trusted benchmarks was critical in constructing ICE APOR, which is intended to provide additional and continued transparency for both lenders and participants in the mortgage-backed security market," said Chris Edmonds, president of fixed income and data services at ICE, in a statement. Uncertainty looming around the CFPB's future might have played a role in the mortgage tech vendor deciding to launch a stand alone index. Litigation filed by CFPB employees attempting to halt reductions at the bureau, have cited concerns about the bureaus ability to keep the index up to date if headcount plummets.

Privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac risks a return to the kind of perilous mortgages that helped cause the global financial crisis unless regulatory safeguards are kept in place, an affordable housing nonprofit said in a paper on Tuesday. READ MORE: GSE overhaul talk revives as key players meet"This is essential to averting the 'race to the bottom' that ultimately drove down credit standards during the run-up" to 2008, according to the paper by the National Housing Conference, a copy of which was seen by Bloomberg News. Fannie and Freddie have been in quasi-government ownership since Congress established the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2008 to oversee them after the housing market collapsed. Wall Street investors such as Pershing Square Capital Management's Bill Ackman have bought into the firms in the expectation of a windfall if they are no longer overseen by the FHFA.The time has come to return the housing giants to private ownership, the NHC wrote, in part because the housing finance model operates under full government control and comes with taxpayer risk "in an increasingly politicized environment."Enshrining safeguards can be done by tweaking the terms of the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements, which govern the terms of the US's ownership over the two government-sponsored enterprises, they added. That wouldn't require asking Congress to pass legislation, wrote the NHC, whose Chief Executive Officer is David Dworkin, a former senior housing policy adviser at the Treasury Department. READ MORE: Freddie Mac raises some reimbursement limits for some feesFederal Housing Finance Agency director William Pulte has said in recent interviews that the Trump administration is considering a public offering of the two companies without exiting conservatorship. Pulte is expected to meet today with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the heads of two other agencies to discuss topics such as Fannie and Freddie, according to a social media post he made last month. The NHC wants any proceeds from selling the government's stake in the two firms to be used to fund affordable housing. At present, the law requires any funds from the sale of GSE stock to be used for deficit reduction, the organization wrote.The paper also suggested that the board governance of Fannie and Freddie will need to be changed so that its members have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders of the companies. 

The Federal Housing Finance Board is reportedly back in action after a long hiatus, leading to speculation that the Trump administration could be working on taking its next steps forward in contemplating government-sponsored enterprise reform.The heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conservator and regulator, Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Treasury planned to meet privately Tuesday.GSE regulator Bill Pulte hasn't said much about the meeting since announcing it last month, but some lawmakers said it's the first in several years and could lead to changes for the influential GSEs, which buy and securitize many of the mortgages originated in the United States.What some legislators want to know about plans for GSEs"Given the significant implications of potential reprivatization of the enterprises, the public would benefit from your agencies proactively releasing information about the June 17th meeting," six Democrats in the Senate said in a letter to meeting participants."Doing so would demonstrate your commitment to promoting board transparency and accountability, especially given that the board has not met since 2017 and from which information had to be requested under the Freedom of Information Act," they added.Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Andy Kim, D-N.J.; Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Ralph Wyden, D-Ore.: and Raphael Warnock, D-Ga, signed the letter. Warren is the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee.Legislative views could be pertinent if GSE reform requires them to approve changes to Fannie and Freddie's statutory authorities, but currently Republicans dominate federal government and Congress, and officials are generally expected to favor an administrative approach.Officials' statements to date about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac goalsIn regard to transparency, Pulte told attendees at a Mortgage Bankers Association's conference in New York last month he has been using social media to post immediately with the high-level messages about his new developments to avoid delay in getting information out. Pulte also has said current GSE reform proposals under President Trump are unlikely to mean full "privatization," making a spinoff in which the government sells off some shares while retaining a stake in the now-profitable entities it took into conservatorship in 2008 more likely.(Treasury currently holds preferred shares in Fannie and Freddie and has warrants to purchase nearly 80% of their stock.)Given other statements President Trump, Pulte, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and SEC Chair Paul Atkins have previously made individually, other strategic goals they may discuss at a meeting around GSE reform could include:HUD and Ginnie Mae's current role in housing reformThe legislators called for more information on all these items and whether housing reform could also encompass plans for Ginnie Mae, a separate government corporation within HUD responsible for guaranteeing mortgage securities that other public entities back at the loan level.Some past iterations of GSE reform have contemplated folding Ginnie into the mix or using it as a model for alternative structures for Fannie and Freddie.But the current Trump administration's main goals for Ginnie and HUD and to date in regard to Fannie and Freddie reform appears to be more advisory, and potential around coordinating movements the two make that have implications for the broader market.The GSEs and Ginnie/HUD currently dominate the secondary mortgage market and changes in either of the two segments often influences the other.HUD Chairman Scott Turner, a former football player, has described his role in reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as that of a quarterback.

The American Bankers Association voiced its concerns over a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau final rule to eliminate a pandemic-era policy affecting loss-mitigation procedures that brought flexibility to servicers. While stating its support to the easing of some regulations proposed since the beginning of the second Trump term, the ABA urged the bureau to retain the anti-evasion exception the bureau's rule would remove. The exception was introduced in 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic and amended Regulation X in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.In a letter to CFPB acting director Russell Vought, the ABA said the exception provided "critical flexibility for servicers" to offer assistance to borrowers, regardless of the issues behind the distress, through loan modifications. Servicers are able to continue working with borrowers even when their loss-mitigation applications are incomplete.  "As a result, servicers may rely on this exception to offer streamlined modifications to borrowers struggling to pay their mortgages for reasons unrelated to Covid," the banking group's letter said. Upon release of the proposal in May, mortgage attorneys also advised that rescinding the exception would likely require servicers to make procedural changes. The bureau made public its plans to revise certain rules in the Federal Register last month, leaving its proposal open for comment for 30 days per government policy. The comment period closed June 16. Apart from the exception, the ABA offered broad support for the rescission of other "outdated" servicing policies. Prior changes introduced during the pandemic brought a more streamlined review process that even the CFPB said brought favorable outcomes, the letter mentioned. "During the pandemic, the exceptions provided in the 2020 and 2021 final rules allowed servicers to review borrowers for loss-mitigation options sequentially rather than simultaneously. These provisions were instrumental in allowing servicers to provide targeted loss mitigation options to millions of struggling borrowers — resulting in faster, more efficient relief," ABA said. How mortgage bankers are approaching the proposalABA's counterparts at the Mortgage Bankers Association held off commenting during the 30-day window, as it awaited for a full proposal to be released but said it had long pushed for reforms to RESPA, offering "numerous recommendations to refresh the rules to better serve consumers" in the past."We look forward to reviewing the details, once released, and will likely offer recommendations to make tweaks and improvements as opposed to a full repeal," MBA said in a statement. The moves at the CFPB are among many regulatory changes proposed by Vought since President Trump took office in January. In June, the bureau sent to the Office of Management and Budget five rules affecting the mortgage industry for possible revision, including updates to RESPA policy. Also included was a regulation governing loan officer compensation, which the CFPB appeared to recommend be rescinded. While mortgage bankers have generally welcomed a more relaxed regulatory environment under Trump compared to the strict guidelines frequently imposed by the CFPB during the Biden era, many have also raised warning flags about the danger of removing too many rules. MBA leadership remarked earlier this year that some CFPB guardrails needed to remain in place to protect consumers and lenders and ensure a sound market. 

Not only does the full panel of economists surveyed by Wolters Kluwer feel the Federal Open Market Committee will not cut short-term rates at its meeting today and tomorrow, less than 10% expect it to act in July.The Blue Chip Economic Indicators report also soundly discounts Pres. Trump's call for the Fed Funds Rate to be reduced by 100 basis points.If anything, the consensus average for a 2025 reduction continues to move lower, to 47 basis points, down from 60 basis points in the May survey and 65 basis points in April.Why the Federal Reserve will cut rates"The Federal Reserve would probably not cut rates if inflation were to stir," the commentary in the report said. "However, recent results have been favorable," meaning the latest Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index reports."Inflation reports in coming months will probably show elevated results because of tariffs, but the Fed would most likely look through high-side readings as long as inflation expectations remain anchored," the commentary said.It noted "public comments from Fed officials have indicated that they will put more weight on long-term expectations because short-term measures often move erratically."How investment bankers see the "cut or no cut" decisionAfter the meeting, investment banker Louis Navellier is "expecting a dovish FOMC statement due to a weak Beige Book survey (in 9 of 12 Fed districts) and better-than-expected inflation results in the past four months," he said in a June 16 commentary. "I do not expect the retail sales report on Tuesday to influence the Fed, but I hope the FOMC statement will refer to better-than-expected inflation news rather than anticipating an inflation 'bogeyman' that has not materialized," Navellier continued.The FOMC does not want to be backed into a corner, explained Nigel Green, CEO of financial advisory the deVere Group in a commentary.Committing too early to a rate cut, and then inflation was to return, "the credibility damage would be severe," Green declared.If the FOMC caves in to Trump's demand for the 100 basis point cut to cushion the impact on the economy from the tariffs, the long end of the yield curve could surge."This means higher — not lower — borrowing costs for U.S. households and businesses," Green said. "He should be careful what he wishes for."When economists expect the Fed to actBesides the 9% in the Wolters Kluwer panel who expect the next short-term rate cut to come at the July meeting, 50% predict it would happen in September, while the remaining 41% of panelists answered "later."This compared with the May survey, when 20% expected the first cut to take place in June and 29% said July; the remainder said later."If they don't cut their key interest rate this week, they should at least announce their intention to cut during their next meeting," Navellier said in a June 17 note.Green is in-between September and later for when the Fed will act next. "September is still on the table. But the bar is very high."When that cut comes, 93% said it would be only 25 basis points, while 7% responded 50 basis points, the Wolters Kluwer survey found.Most respondents, 60%, felt tariffs would have a one-time impact on inflation, with 38% expecting a longer-lasting pickup.A KMPG survey of institutional investors found nearly three-quarters, 72% believe two or more Fed interest rate cuts will happen this year."This partially aligns with the latest KPMG Economic Compass, in which Diane Swonk, KPMG chief economist, forecasts persistently high levels of uncertainty and uneven deregulation over the next two years, alongside two rate cuts by the Fed prior to the end of the year, starting in October," a press release from the accounting firm said.What is worrying the Fed?The sense is "another shoe is about to drop" and this will keep the FOMC on the sidelines, said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate, in a pre-meeting comment."There is a tendency to romanticize the idea of interest rates coming down, but with the economy chugging along and a lot of uncertainty about what happens with inflation, there is nothing compelling the Fed to cut interest rates right now," McBride said. "Further, we want interest rates to come down because inflation pressures are receding and the Fed can let the foot off the brake pedal, not because the economy is rolling over and in need of Fed stimulus."The impact on borrowing costsEven though mortgage rates are not priced off of the Fed Funds Rate, investors drive the 10-year Treasury yield up or down based on their views of the economy. Nor is any action or no action a zero sum game."Borrowing rates are high, with mortgage rates near 7%, many home equity lines of credit in double-digit interest rate territory, and the average credit card rate still above 20%," McBride said. "But savers continue to be rewarded with inflation-beating returns on the top-yielding savings accounts, money market accounts, and certificates of deposit."No matter what happens, the FOMC is in a bind."The Fed is facing an uncomfortable blend of sticky services inflation and new price pressures from tariffs," Green said. "Rushing to cut rates in this environment risks sending the wrong signal."This meeting is more than just about rates, he continued. "It's about the integrity of monetary policy in the face of political noise."

Confidence among US homebuilders fell to the lowest level since December 2022 in June, with potential buyers deterred by high mortgage rates and anxiety about tariffs and the economy. A gauge of market conditions from the National Association of Home Builders and Wells Fargo slipped 2 points to 32 this month. Economists expected 36 in a Bloomberg survey.All three of the overall index's components declined, with a measure of present sales falling to the lowest level since 2012. Gauges of traffic of prospective buyers and expected sales over the next six months are both at the lowest point in more than a year, NAHB data show.The trade association is forecasting a decline in single-family starts this year, given weakening conditions, NAHB Chief Economist Robert Dietz said in a prepared statement. To entice reluctant buyers, builders have increasingly relied on sales incentives and discounts. The share of respondents reporting cutting prices in June rose to 37%, the highest since NAHB started tracking it monthly in 2022."Rising inventory levels and prospective home buyers who are on hold waiting for affordability conditions to improve are resulting in weakening price growth in most markets and generating price declines for resales in a growing number of markets," Dietz said. Builders anticipate that President Donald Trump's tariff policies could boost construction costs by almost $11,000 a home, based on a previous NAHB survey. And, while the supply of previously owned homes is growing and helping would-be buyers, it's also providing more competition to the new-home industry. Around the US, builder confidence in the South, the biggest homebuilding region, slipped to its lowest level since 2012.The government's monthly report on US housing starts will give another look at the new-home market on Wednesday.

Senate Republicans plan to modify President Donald Trump's massive fiscal package to lower maximum deductions for state and local taxes and limit the impact of a "revenge" tax on foreign investors.Senate GOP leaders also plan to cut deeper into Medicaid health insurance for the poor and disabled than House Republicans did in their version of the legislation to help pay for Trump's tax cuts.Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee released their version of the legislation, which also would make permanent some business tax breaks that would only run through 2029 in the version the House passed last month by a single vote. Here are some of the key differences between the Senate and House tax bills. 'Revenge' taxThe House bill's Section 899 "revenge" tax has alarmed Wall Street analysts who warn it would create another disincentive for foreign investors already rattled by Trump's erratic trade policies and the nation's deteriorating fiscal accounts. Senate Republicans responded by delaying and watering down the levy, which would increase tax rates for individuals and companies from countries whose tax policies the government deems "discriminatory." The Senate version would postpone that new tax until 2027 for calendar-year filers and raise it by 5 percentage points a year until it hits a 15% cap. The House version of the tax would take effect sooner and rise to 20% over four years on individuals and firms from targeted countries.State and local tax deductionSenate Republicans want to significantly scale back the House bill's $40,000 limit on state and local tax deductions, a move House Republicans from high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California are fighting.The Senate's version of the tax bill calls for a $10,000 SALT cap, which leaders acknowledge is merely a placeholder figure as they try to hash out a compromise. There are no Senate Republicans from those high-tax states, and they've made no bones about the fact that it's not a priority for them. Car loansSenators want to restrict to new cars a House-passed provision allowing car buyers to deduct up to $10,000 a year in interest on their auto loans through 2028 for vehicles built in the U.S. Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, a former car dealer, pushed for the language.Moreno had also sought to make the tax break permanent, but the draft keeps it a temporary benefit.Electric vehiclesThe Senate bill would eliminate a popular $7,500 credit for the purchase of electric vehicles 180 days after the bill becomes law, as opposed to expiring at the end of the year for most vehicles in the House version. That could be a difference of a few days, or longer, depending on the timing of the bill. Child tax creditBoth the House and Senate bills seek to boost the child tax credit but they do so in different ways. The Senate legislation would increase the maximum per-child credit from $2,000 to $2,200, making it permanent and adjust it for inflation in later years. The House bill would boost the tax break to $2,500, but it would decrease after 2028.Tipped workersThe Senate bill contains new limits on Trump's campaign promises to exempt tips and overtime from taxation. It caps the amount of tipped wages that can be exempt at $25,000 per individual and overtime at $12,500 per individual and $25,000 per couple. The breaks phase out above $150,000 in income for individuals and $300,000 for couples, and, like the House bill, they expire after 2028.SeniorsThe Senate bill expands a maximum $4,000 bonus standard deduction for seniors to $6,000 in an effort to better offset all Social Security taxes paid, a promise by Trump.Medicaid cutsThe Senate bill makes more aggressive cuts to the Medicaid program for low-income and disabled people than the reductions in the House bill, favoring states like Texas and Florida that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The Senate bill also would require parents with children 15 and older to work or do community service for 80 hours per month to qualify for health insurance through Medicaid. The House plan exempted all people with dependents from the work requirements. University endowment taxThe Senate bill significantly pares back the House's plans to increase taxes on investment income generated by private university endowments. While the House proposed a levy as high as 21% on institutions with the largest endowments, the Senate version would cap the tax hike at 8%. The bill does not include a tax on private foundations found in the House bill.Permanent business tax breaksThe panel also plans to permanently extend three business-friendly tax breaks that end after 2029 in the House version. Those provisions include the research and development deduction, the ability to use depreciation and amortization as the basis for interest expensing and 100% bonus depreciation of certain property, including most machinery and factories. Gun tax breaksThe Senate version would eliminate taxes and other regulations on many guns and silencers subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934 in a win for gun-rights advocates.

Housing permits fell in April, according to the National Association of Home Builders. This marks the fourth month in a row of depressed housing permits, a sign that builders continue to pull back on construction amid an anemic housing market.Nationwide permits to build single-family homes were down 4.7% through April compared to the same time last year, with builders receiving 320,259 permits so far in 2025. Multifamily permits were also down, with 154,668 issued in the first four months of 2025, a 1.5% drop from this point in 2024. The data comes from the United States Census Bureau's monthly Building Permits Survey. There were wide regional variations across the country. Single-family home permits dropped in the Midwest, South, and West, with the latter two seeing the biggest drops as these regions experience increased supply and softer prices. States with some of the steepest year-over-year drops included New Mexico (down 27.5%), Arizona (down 12.4%) and Washington (down 10.4%). Permits were up 5.7% in the Northeast as strong demand continues to spur building in that corner of the country. On the multifamily side, permits were up in 3 of the 4 regions, with the West seeing a jump of more than 16% year-on-year. The overall numbers were dragged down by a 37.7% drop in the Northeast, with the steepest drops coming New York, where permits were down 58.7%. A number of factors are holding builders back, including high costs, tight credit, and strong housing inventory in many areas, according to Danushka Nanayakkara-Skillington, NAHB's assistant vice president for forecasting and analysis. "When single-family home prices are high and mortgage rates are elevated, more people may opt for renting, increasing demand for multifamily properties," she said.The Building Permits Survey is yet another data point showing that the housing market remains cool nationwide, leading to lower home sales and rising inventory in many markets. Builders will likely be navigating a tricky market in the months ahead as elevated mortgage rates, ever-changing tariffs, and financial uncertainty keep many buyers from holding off on pulling the trigger on a new home.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has begun to study the feasibility of reducing the government-related mortgage market's traditional three credit-report pull to a single one, putting a new twist on an old proposal.President and CEO Bob Broeksmit said in a recent blog that the move could fit in with an industry regulator's interest in promoting efficiencies."A single-report requirement would lead to both higher-quality services and lower costs," MBA President and CEO Bob Broeksmit said in the blog post.Broeksmit said the move is worth considering given other consumer finance segments don't use a trimerge and the reasons the mortgage industry has aren't necessarily valid anymore."Gaps in coverage or quality that may have existed decades ago appear to have closed," he said.But there is disagreement on that point.The bi-merge as a jumping-off point for discussionsThe concept the association is looking into is similar to one considered by the GSEs' previous regulator under President Biden, who had examined moving from three to two credit reports as a potential money saver.Like the MBA, rating agency Standard & Poor's reported that the lending outcomes wouldn't be significantly different with fewer credit reports.But others reached a different conclusion.Transunion, a credit report provider, argued that the move could cost borrowers who needlessly dropped into lower score bands due to the use of two reports as much as $6,000 in interest over the life of their loans."Trimerge credit reports are the most accurate picture of consumer creditworthiness, making them essential to preserving safety and soundness in the mortgage ecosystem," Transunion said in a statement issued in response to Broeksmit's blog.How the tri-merge fits in with other credit and closing costsGiven the questions around whether the move to two scores would produce a significant cost benefit, the MBA would have to look into how much there would be to gain from moving to a single score in terms of any costs saved relative to any additional risk."Any move away from the current tri-merge policy shifts the underlying data used in mortgage underwriting and could have implications in the broader capital markets," the Consumer Data Industry Association said in a statement responding to the MBA's blog.However, Broeksmit said, "Early indications from discussions with our members strongly suggest that a single report for mortgages would be feasible without posing undue risk to the GSEs."In the scheme of the total range of costs related to closing a mortgage, credit reporting and scoring expenses are not as large as items like transfer taxes, but they are more routinely charged because they serve a key purpose."Consumer credit reports are fundamental to the homebuying process, helping lenders better assess consumers' likelihood of repaying a mortgage and consumers qualify for the best mortgage rates available," the CDIA said in a statement.The cost of credit reports are intertwined with those of scoring models, which also is a regulatory concern. But the single report issue is more directly tied to the credit bureaus than score providers, who declined to comment on the topic."While a tri-merge is required for GSE loans, the GSEs do not use credit scores to make credit underwriting decisions, and there appears to be limited additive value in the data contained in multiple reports," Broeksmit said.

Wildfire risk forcing widespread relocation from the highest risk areas, especially after the Los Angeles fires in January, is no longer theoretical.According to U.S. Postal Service change-of-address data, counties with high wildfire risk (as rated by the U.S. Forest Service) have net population losses. Areas near those counties with lower risk are seeing population gains.Three California counties, Plumas, Lake and Nevada, lost 6-11% of their residents between 2020 and 2024, with nearby counties with lower risk gaining population during that time, according to the data. Joel Efosa, founder and CEO of Fire Cash Buyer. "We're seeing buyers in fire-prone ZIP codes asking not just 'Can I afford this house?' but 'Can I afford to insure it next year?' That's becoming a decision point in homes they walk away from. The data backs it up, but what matters is their behavior; insurance instability is reshaping liquidity on the ground," stated Joel Efosa, founder and CEO of Fire Cash Buyer, a company that buys, rehabilitates and re-sells fire damaged homes. "Some buyers have even pulled out of escrow when they learned that only FAIR Plan coverage was available, signaling a shift in how people evaluate real estate risk." Dan Veroff, policyholder counsel at Merlin Law Group.Gittings Photography This relocation trend will increase in California, as homeowners insurance rates continue to rise, according to Dan Veroff, policyholder counsel at Merlin Law Group. "A lot of folks are going to be selling their homes -- downgrading, downsizing," he said. "The reason is insurance. A lot of people won't be able to maintain their homes and afford these increases. It's just, unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of home sales because of that."Moving as a solution to increasing insurance rates does present its own hurdles, according to Katherine Hempstead, senior policy advisor at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Katherine Hempstead, senior policy advisor, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "When insurance costs get really high, it makes it hard to sell your home," she said. "You might want to leave, and it's not that easy. There's definitely a risk to the economic viability of places if a lot of people feel like they just can't protect themselves against important financial risks. You start to see that it really affects the economic viability of certain areas."So far, coastal area storm risks are more likely than wildfire risk to make areas too costly to rebuild or live in, according to Hempstead."We're a very, very, very long way from saying no one can live in this state, especially a state like California," she said. "There have been scattered examples of places where it doesn't really work for people to live there anymore."