Module 2 · Hold vs. Sell · Interactive
The SOO asks for "insight into the valuation and marketability of Ginnie Mae's portfolios regarding hold or sell." That answer is different for a loan at 96% of MCA than for one at 60%. This engine runs the real May-2026 segments through both paths — with every assumption exposed on a slider. A scenario tool built on public benchmarks, not an appraisal.
The economics in one paragraph
Balances accrue at note rate + 0.5% MIP until they hit 98% of MCA; Ginnie Mae funds the mandatory buyout, then assigns eligible loans to FHA and recovers the claim — effectively par on the balance, capped at MCA. Hold value = those proceeds, discounted for time, minus servicing and advance carry, with a haircut for loans that can't assign (due-and-payable, deceased-borrower, title issues) and resolve through foreclosure instead.
A sale converts the segment to cash now at the market's clearing level and transfers the servicing burden, buyout funding obligation, and unfunded LOC draws to the buyer. The public anchors: HUD's own HECM sales clear at ~54–60% of loan balance for due-and-payable vacant collateral and ~5–7 points lower occupied — while assignment-eligible, claim-backed loans command far stronger executions. Where each segment prices between those poles is exactly what structuring is for.
The FCRA wedge: government hold-value is computed under Federal Credit Reform Act conventions (cohort single-effective-rate discounting — FY2025 MMI actuarial review), while the market prices at risk-adjusted yields. The same cash flows produce two different "values." A disposition advisor's first job is to make that wedge explicit, segment by segment — which is what the sliders below do.
HSG's FHFA roll-forward of all 53,780 origination appraisals (see the equity module) estimates $31.8B of current property value behind $12.9B of balances — and zero loans underwater. The non-assignable recovery slider below defaults to a conservative 60%; against a 41% WA LTV book, resolutions through foreclosure or payoff should test materially higher. Equity depth is also the strongest argument for challenging deep market-bid discounts loan by loan rather than accepting them book-wide.
The engine
Segments are the actual May-2026 balance/MCA bands. Defaults are anchored to public benchmarks (shown beside each slider); drag anything.
Anchors: WA note rate 6.28% (+0.5% MIP); HVLS 2025-3 cleared 53.6% of loan balance (vacant D&P); FHA assignment ≈ par to MCA. FY2026 CJ: >$500M monthly transaction volume.
Bars recompute live. The verdict strip below totals the book under your assumptions.
Loans at 90–98% of MCA are months from a claim-backed par recovery — selling them forfeits nearly-realized value unless a buyer pays through it. The long-dated, sub-80% book is the opposite: a decade of carry, ops cost and LOC funding stands between today and assignment, so a competitive market bid can beat the discounted hold path — if structuring, data quality and indemnification terms bring real buyer depth. That segmentation — not "sell the book" or "keep the book" — is the disposition strategy the SOO is asking for.
Engine math, simplifications and every default's source: Method. This page is a decision-structuring tool, not a valuation or investment advice.