HousingWire
Editor
in
Chief
Sarah
Wheeler
sat
down
with

Jason
Cave,
former
deputy
director
at
the

FHFA
where
he
ran
their
FinTech
Office,
to
talk
about
where
mortgage
tech
is
falling
short,
and
what
the
government
should
do
to
help.

Sarah
Wheeler:
What
led
you
to
leave
FHFA
for
the
private
sector?

Jason
Cave:
I
spent
30
years
in
the
government
—
27
at

FDIC
and
three
at

FHFA.
It
was
the
right
time
to
make
a
change
and
I
figured
it
would
be
neat
to
work
on
some
of
the
issues
with
the
fintechs.
There
are
a
lot
of
banking
challenges,
just
like
with
mortgage,
and
it
felt
like
a
good
time
to
be
part
of
the
solution.
So,
I’ve
been
helping
companies
navigate
the
D.C.
landscape,
and
just
helping
improve
engagement.
And
it’s
a
lot
of
fun
to
wake
up
and
do
a
bunch
of
different
things
on
a
given
day.
I
guess
I’m
a
gig
economy
worker
now!
A
month
in,
I’m
enjoying
it.

SW:
Looking
at
the
mortgage
space,
what
are
some
of
the
challenges
when
it
comes
to
technology?

JC:
There
are
several,
but
I
think
for

IMBs
specifically,
it’s
finding
a
way
to
get
a
stable
investment
track
—
something
that
allows
you
then
to
be
able
to
continue
to
build
in
good
times
and
bad
times,
because
this
industry
is
so
boom/bust.
And
it
seems
like
with

technology,
even
when
times
are
good,
a
lot
of
companies
aren’t
interested
because
there’s
so
much
money
to
be
made.
That’s
a
broad
generalization,
but
this
is
coming
from
discussions
with
lenders
as
well
as
vendors.

And
then
when
times
are
tough,
you
know,
you’ve
just
got
to
hang
on
and
putting
that
kind
of
money
into
technology
is
tough.
Many
players
in
the
mortgage
space
are
well
behind
technological
advances,
and
they
need
to
find
ways
to
really
smooth
that
out,
so
that
they’re
continuing
to
make
some
investment
in
all
the
cycles.
That
would
make
them
so
much
more
efficient.

SW:

You
launched
FHFA’s

Velocity
tech
sprint
in
2023
to
bring
the
industry
together
to
collaborate
on
solving
some
of
the
tech
problems
we
face.
What
were
some
of
the
areas
it
focused
on?

JC:
We
got
a
lot
of
different
ideas!
A
lot
of
the
discussions
were
very
much:
‘let’s
not
just
make
incremental
changes,
let’s
really
look
long-term.
Like,
how
could
we
actually
use
blockchain
or
some
form
of
distributed
ledger
to
really
build
a
better
mousetrap?’
But
the
issue
with
so
many
of
the
ideas
is
that
you
have
to
have
the
policymakers
or
regulators,
the
GSEs,
the
lenders,
and
all
the
other
parties
on
the
same
page.
Now,
the
positive
thing
with
that
is,
if
you
can
get
that,
I
think
you
can
make
real
change.

The
downside
is
that
it
takes
a
lot
to
get
everybody
there.
But
I
think
some
of
the
problems
we
have
today
is
because
it’s
so
difficult
to
get
everyone
at
the
table.
You
have
a
lot
of
solutions,
where
it’s
like,
well,
I’m
not
going
to
get
everybody
—
I’m
going
to
get
a
lender
and
I’m
going
to
get
a
vendor
and
then
we’re
going
to
do
this.
And
then
somebody
else
says
I’m
going
to
get
a
title
company
and
I’m
going
to
get
a
POS
provider,
and
we’re
going
to
do
this.
And
that’s
quicker
and
easier,
but
I
don’t
know
if
it’s
effective.

At
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think
we’re
finding
that
companies
are
having
challenges
both
on
adoption
and
integration.
And
so
maybe
this
idea
of
really
putting
in
the
time
to
get
everybody
at
the
table
and
start
building
makes
sense.

A
lot
of
people
brought
up
things
[in
the
tech
sprint]
that
were
not
heavy
lifts,
but
so
important,
like

down
payment
assistance.
There
are
so
many
programs
out
there,
but
sometimes
in
Washington,
we
forget
that
just
because
there
are
a
lot
of
programs
out
there,
doesn’t
mean
they’re
accessible,
doesn’t
mean
everybody
knows
about
them.
We
also
had
some
really
good
ideas
about
the
front
end,
really
being
able
to
pull
customer
information
quicker.

SW:
What
were
some
of
the
themes
that
came
out
of
the
tech
sprint
that
you’re
excited
about?

JC:
The
trusted
repositories.
I’m
excited
because
I
think
this
is
something
that
has
not
gotten
a
lot
of
investment
and
attention.
And
I
think
it
goes
back
to
the
need
for
collective
action.
Just
that
word
itself
means
you
need
to
have
a
lot
of
people
that
are
agreeing
to
move
forward
and
do
these
transactions
in
a
different
way.
And
it’s
going
to
affect
all
of
us,
but
we’re
going
to
be
okay
with
it
—
we’re
going
to
find
a
way
to
make
money
at
it
and
also
be
efficient
and
lay
the
tracks
down.

Blockchain
sort
of
gets
a
bad
name
because
it’s
often
connected
with
crypto.
But
a
lot
of
these
trusted
systems
run
on
distributed
ledger
technology.
I’m
not
a
techie,
but
I’ve
looked
at
it
and
talked
with
a
lot
of
people.
And
when
you
read
what
distributed
ledger
technology
is
meant
for
and
where
it
really
can
bear
the
greatest
fruit,
it
seems
made
for
mortgage.
And
I
think
that’s
something
that
the
government
and
the
GSEs
are
going
to
really
need
to
encourage
—
I
don’t
think
this
is
just
going
to
happen
from
the
bottom
up.
It’s
too
much
money
and
it’s
too
big
of
a
change.
So
I
would
like
to
see
that
become
a
priority.

SW:
Where
else
do
you
think
it
will
take
government
incentives
or
at
least
clearer
regulation
to
advance
tech?

JC:
We
need
that
sort
of
strong
encouragement/directive
even
in
areas
where
there’s
already
been
work
done.
So
one
of
the
first
things
that
we
wanted
to
tackle
with
Velocity
was
the
consumer
information
and
the
services
that
can
quickly
allow
people
to
transmit
what’s
normally
done
in
a
paper-based,
labor-intensive
way.
Tools
such
as

Day
1
Certainty
and

AIM
have
been
around
for
so
long
—
six,
seven,
eight
years
—
but
take
up
was
so
low.
What
is
the
holdup?
What
are
the
bottlenecks?
And
how
do
we
really
push
through
them?
And
I
think
that’s
something
FHFA
and
the
GSEs
need
to
really
push.

When
adoption
rates
are
so
low,
it
becomes
a
vicious
cycle.
Adoption
rates
are
low,
that
means
people
don’t
think
that
the
tools
are
effective,
that
means
that
they
don’t
use
it,
that
means
adoption
rates
go
lower.

But
think
about
Day
1
Certainty.
I
mean,
one
of
its
main
reasons
for
coming
into
existence
was
to
deal
with
the
rep
and
warranty
issue
years
ago.
This
isn’t
just
innovation,
this
was

Fannie
Mae
and

Freddie
Mac
getting
the
benefit
of
a
secure,
true
document
—
it’s
not
something
I
can
pull
out
and
doctor
up,
it’s
the
actual
record.
And
so
it’s
safer.
You
would
think
some
of
these
tools
are
just
a
no-brainer,
but
I
don’t
think
that’s
the
case.
So
that’s
an
area
where
Fannie
and
Freddie
as
well
as
FHFA
should
really
push
on
it.

I
would
even
be
so
bold
to
say
I
think
the
enterprises
should
be
required
to
be
getting
adoption
rates
of
50%
or
more,
and
if
they’re
not,
to
really
be
able
to
explain
why
people
aren’t
using
these
very
important
tools
they’ve
developed.
A
lot
of
money
has
gone
into
building
those
tools.
Also,
to
be
very
transparent,
I
am
advising
Argyle
and
they
are
one
of
those
providers,
so
just
full
disclosure
there
that
I’m
advising
them.
But
they
and
other
companies
like
them
are
doing
really
interesting
work.

SW:
Let’s
talk
more
about
direct
source
data,
since
it
seems
like
low-hanging
fruit,
whether
that’s
credit
scores
or
verification
of
income
and
assets.

JC:
I
couldn’t
agree
more.
And
whether
it’s
The
Work
Number
or

credit
scores,
those
are
two
examples
where
the
consumer
is
paying
that
bill
directly.
And
as
we
already
know,
closing
costs
go
up
every
year.
It’s
an
impediment
for
people
— especially
those
with
lower
to
moderate
income
—
to
be
able
to
refinance
and
get
the
credit
they
need.
So
the
more
people
do
what
Sandra
Thompson
is
doing
by
looking
at
credit
scores
and
trying
to
create
greater
competition,
the
better.

I
mean,
anytime
somebody
all
of
a
sudden
gets
to

double
their
fees
because
they
see
that
their
potential
monopolies
is
threatened,
I
think
it’s
a
sign
that
it’s
a
monopoly!
As
a
taxpayer,
I’m
flabbergasted
to
see
companies
say,
now
that
we
might
have
to
lose
some
of
that,
we’re
going
to
increase
our
fees
and
make
it
up
in
the
meantime.
I
think
that’s
a
problem.

And
I
think
that
what

CFPB
did
with
the
proposed

Personal
Financial
Rights
Data
rule,
they
have
started
down
that
path
with
making
banks
share
this
information.
Banks
have
been
able
to
have
a
lot
of
our
information
locked
up,
but
it’s
not
locked
up
for
them
—
they
get
to
use
it.
And
when
we
want
to
use
it
or
allow
others
to
use
it,
it’s
not
that
easy.
I
applaud
the
CFPB
for
really
taking
issue
with
that
because
it
is
the
consumer’s
information.

Now,
I
would
say
it’d
be
very
nice
if
the
CFPB
expanded
that
to
look
at
things
such
as
payroll
and
credit
scores,
because
the
companies
that
I
just
talked
about,
are
unfortunately
not
getting
picked
up.
It’s
the
banks,
right?
And
I
really
do
hope
that
CFPB
looks
at
some
of
these
other
companies,
who
are
saying
well,
we
built
the
pipes,
and
so
we
should
be
able
to
charge
what
we
want.
I
don’t
think
so.
There
are
a
lot
of
subsidies
in
this
housing
space.
I
don’t
know
who
built
the
pipes.
I
don’t
think
anybody
on
their
own,
with
all
their
own
private
money,
did
it
—
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
help
along
the
way.
And,
and
again,
when
you
look
at
who’s
paying
the
bill
at
the
end,
it’s
really
troubling.

SW:

What
about
alternative
data?
Where
is
that
headed?

JC:
I’m
not
sure
where
it’s
going.
I
think
it’s
another
one
of
those
areas
that
with
some
guardrails,
is
going
to
be
necessary
because
of
demographics.
The
reality
is
that
if
you
do
1099
work,
it’s
really
hard
to
get
a
mortgage.
I
know
that
from
the
work
we
did
at
FHFA.
Those
processes
are
still
geared
to
the
1950s
Ward
Cleaver
family.
I’ve
heard
concerns
that
some
of
the
alternative
credit
information
is
not
as
robust,
it’s
not
being
based
on
longer-term
data
histories.
I
think
it’s
fine
to
raise
those
issues.
I
don’t
think
it’s
fine
to
say
that
means
we’re
not
going
to
factor
it
in
or
we’re
going
to
be
very
stingy
with
whatever
credit
we
give
for
those
sorts
of
things.
I
think
there
are
some
companies
like
Argyle
and
others
that
are
finding
ways
to
be
able
to
get
that
information
from
good
verifiable
sources
so
that
lenders
can
bring
that
information
in
into
the
equation.

SW:

What
happens
to
the
FHFA’s
Velocity
tech
sprint
now
that
you’re
gone?

JC:
The
Velocity
tech
sprint
and
just
the
FinTech
office
in
general
is
in
very
good
hands.
At
FHFA
Anne
Marie
Pippin
is
continuing
to
do
that
work.
She
did
most
of
the
heavy
work
when
I
was
there,
so
you’re
seeing
Anne
Marie
at
the
various
conferences
and
panels.
FHFA
Director
Thompson
continues
to
strongly
support
the
work.
She
has
Tracy
Stephan,
who
we
brought
on
board,
who
was
a
long
term
executive
at
Fannie
and
also
Leah
Price
has
joined
recently.
And
while
they
have
a
small
group,
you’ve
got
some
good
leadership
and
also
some
people
that
have
actually
done
this
work.

Related