I understand. This is almost the exact conversation that we've had about a hundred times, honestly, and Francesco and I have debated this ad nauseam, almost.
We have no concern, or I should say, we are not averse to stress testing. We never have been. From the moment the first stress test was introduced only on the insured side of the marketplace, our association was recommending that it be applied to the uninsured space as well, but at a reduced level so that we didn't have the same impact on activity and erosion of marketplaces where the economy was not already firing on all cylinders.
There's a pretty easy narrative to trace. Because it was easier to qualify for an uninsured mortgage than an insured mortgage for a period of time, more people were finding their way, miraculously, to getting a 20% down payment. That increased the average loan to value of the banks' uninsured business, so of course there also had to be a task to mirror to make sure that that risk profile was returned.
What we've seen in the market though, I think, is an overshooting of the expected cooling or the rolling back of those debt-to-income levels that are the big concern. We're 100% supportive of making the marketplace more secure. Lenders and insurers are our members. We want to ensure that the system is fully capitalized and funded, but we do want to make sure that we're not disproportionately affecting the folks at the bottom end of the economic ladder with a 20% borrowing power reduction. If the stress test had been brought in at somewhere around a 75 basis point mark, we would still have had a far more prudent underwriting environment than previously without necessarily having the same, at times quite dramatic, reduction in activity.