Author Archives: David Reiss

Preserving NYC’s Affordable Housing Stock

Posted on by

The housing folks in the De Blasio Administration may want to take a look at a recent article in the Journal of Affordable Housing by Sullivan and Power.  Coming Affordable Housing Challenges for Municipalities After the Great Recession (also on SSRN) provides an overview of some modest ways to protect the existing affordable housing stock. Policies such as these can inform the Mayor’s overall affordable housing strategy which will have to emphasize preservation as much as new construction.

The authors note that for “low-income individuals who are to find employment, the disparity between wages and housing affordability is stark.” (298) They also note that while “housing prices have fallen approximately 30 percent since 2006, adjustments in value have done little to ease the financial burden of rental housing.” (2) The article then looks at various opportunities that local governments have to stem the loss of rental units to conversion, demolition and abandonment.

The authors identify three cost-effective and ways that states and local governments may be able to  “curtail the ongoing loss and conversion of affordable housing units . . ..” (308) They can adopt “no net loss” policies that could, for instance require that downzonings of residential communities be matched by upzonings . They can implement “rights of first refusal” that grant governmental and not-for-profit housing agencies “the right to notice of an owner’s intent to sell within a certain time frame and an opportunity to purchase expiring or opting-out affordable housing units.” (310) And local and state governments can amend their building codes to make it easier and cheaper for providers of affordable housing to maintain their properties.

NYC already does some of these things, but it is worth it for the new Mayor to take a fresh look at the City’s approach to preservation to ensure that there are no missed opportunities.

A New History of Mortgage Banking — Part Two!

Posted on by

I know, I know, you can’t get enough of this stuff. Yesterday, I noted a couple of highlights from Mortgage Banking in the United States 1870-1940. The last part of the report carefully documents how various players in the urban mortgage market saw their market and their market shares change dramatically as a result, in large part, of the new federal housing finance regime introduced in the 1930s:

All that was required for a historic surge in homebuilding and homeownership was a housing finance system. Local institutional portfolio lenders, now buttressed by deposit insurance and, in the case of S&Ls, the FHLB’s lending facilities, took up most of the business. But the inter-regional flow of credit that arbitraged imbalances across local markets was dominated by life insurance companies and their mortgage banking correspondents. Through 1952, most of these loans were insured under the FHA program, and for good reason — that program had worked well for these intermediaries in the late 1930s. The federally insured and guaranteed home mortgage loan business for life insurance companies and, later in the decade, mutual savings banks preoccupied mortgage bankers until the unusual conditions that fostered the expansion finally ran out in the 1960s. (2)

All of this historical detail brings home a key point for us today. The technical choices we make in structuring the federal housing finance system will alter the incentives of all of the current players. As we watch to see how the Qualified Mortgage, Qualified Residential Mortgage and Ability-to-Repay rules play out when they go into effect next year, we should know that they are likely to shape the mortgage market for decades to come. We already know that some mortgage products will be common and some rare because of these rules. But we should also be aware that some types of originators will be winners and some will be losers because of these rules, although it is too early (at least for me) to tell which will be which. And such an impact may shape the nature mortgage market as much as the types of products that eventually win out when the rules are fully understood by the industry.

A New History of Mortgage Banking

Posted on by

Yes, I know, a dry subject for most. But for some nerds, there are lots of insights in Mortgage Banking in the United States 1870-1940. The author, Kenneth Snowden, highlights this finding, which gives more credit to the Federal Farm Loan Bank system for the development of the modern mortgage market than do many other histories of the industry:

The Federal Farm Loan Bank system and the FHA mortgage insurance programs that restructured both the farm and urban mortgage banking sectors shared three common features:

+     They each encouraged the widespread adoption of long-term, amortized mortgage loans.

+     They each created mechanisms to stimulate the inter-regional transfer of mortgage credit and the convergence of mortgage rates and lending terms across regions.

+     They each established federal chartering systems for privately financed European-style mortgage banks to create active secondary markets for long-term, amortized loans. (2)

This history provides a lot more detail than one finds in standard histories of the American mortgage market, including much about the early history of securitization. Writers in this area (myself included) tend to think that securitization was birthed in the 1970s, but Snowden documents some proto-securitizations in the early 20th Century. I will come back to this report in a later blog post, but I highly recommend it to serious students of the mortgage markets.

Reiss on Cases To Watch In 2014

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in Real Estate Cases To Watch In 2014. The story reads in part,

The real estate market’s recovery from the financial crisis of the past few years has created a host of new issues — from contract disputes to eminent domain litigation — for government lenders, developers and investors to litigate in 2014.

Real estate finance attorneys are paying close attention to an expected rise in judicial scrutiny of banks’ ownership of loans, while also closely watching the multitude of cases that have been brought against the U.S. government and its handling of profits made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

At the same time, development attorneys are tuned in to how an increase in construction in gateway cities might soon lead to more litigation over land use and eminent domain.

Here are some of the most important cases and trends real estate attorneys are watching closely:

Challenges to Allocation of Fannie and Freddie Profits

A collection of cases making their way through the Washington, D.C., federal court and the Court of Federal Claims challenge the government’s taking of all of the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and directing them toward the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Two of the most-watched cases were brought by hedge funds Perry Capital LLC and Fairholme Capital Management LLC, the latter of which has since offered to purchase the government-sponsored entities’ insurance businesses.

Perry Capital accused the Treasury in July of illegally speeding up the GSEs’ liquidation, entitling the government to all of their mounting profits and essentially “extinguishing” privately held securities, according to the complaint filed in Washington federal court.

Fairholme made a similar claim in the Court of Federal Claims two days later, alleging that the government had acted unconstitutionally when it altered its bailout deal for the GSEs to keep the companies’ profits for itself.

“The universe of cases impacting the current operation of Fannie and Freddie is very important from a policy perspective, and it’s also an interesting battle between hedge funds and the government,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

There will likely be a flurry of motions to dismiss and requests for summary judgment on all sides in these cases 2014, but from the perspective of a real estate attorney, the policy implications will be more interesting than the precedential value of any decisions, he said.

A hearing on defendants’ dispositive motions and plaintiffs’ cross motions has been set for June 23 in the Washington cases.

Perry Capital is represented by Theodore B. Olson, Janet Weiss, Douglas Cox, Matthew McGill, Nikesh Jindal and Derek Lyons of Gibson Dunn. The case is Perry Capital LLC v. Lew et al., case number 1:13-cv-01025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Fairholme is represented by Charles J. Cooper, Vincent J. Colatriano, David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson of Cooper & Kirk PLLC. That case is Fairholme Funds Inc. v. U.S., case number 1:13-cv-00465, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Reiss in Reuters on Mortgage Investing

Posted on by

Reuters quoted me in Mortgage Bonds Reward Yield-Sensitive Investors, which addresses the future of Fannie and Freddie. It reads in part,

Investors who buy mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and hold those bonds until they mature will get their full investment back; there is no “principal risk.”

*     *     *

Washington has spent years debating what to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the future, and quick change is unlikely.

Even if Fannie and Freddie are privatized, older bonds would be safe, suggests David Reiss, a law professor of real estate finance at Brooklyn Law School.

“The government would not change the rules of the game for securities purchased with the guarantee. Pre-privatization (securities) would retain the guarantees, and future securities would have a different type of guarantee,” he said.

Reiss on New Mortgage Regime

Posted on by

Loans.org quoted me in a story, CFPB Rules Reiterate Current and Future Lending Practices. It reads in part,

David Reiss, professor of law at the Brooklyn Law School, said there could be other long-term effects due to this high DTI ratio since the lending rules will likely remain for several decades.

If the rules remain intact, the high DTI number can still be lowered at a later time. For instance, if few defaults occur when the bar is set at 43 percent, the limit might increase. Conversely, if a large number of defaults occur, the limit will decrease even further.

Reiss hopes that the agencies overseeing the rule will make these changes based on empirical evidence.

“I’m hopeful that regulation in this area will be numbers driven,” he said.

Despite the wording, Bill Parker, senior loan officer at Gencor Mortgage, said that lenders are technically “not required to ensure borrowers can repay their loans.” He said lenders are legally required to make a “good faith effort” for reviewing documents and facts about the borrower and indicating if he or she can repay the debt.

“If they do so, following the directives of the CFPB, then they are protected against suit by said borrower in the future,” Parker said. “If they can’t prove they investigated as required, then they lose the Safe Harbor and have to prove the borrower has not suffered harm because of this.”

The statute of limitations for the CFPB law is three years from the start of loan payments. After that time period, the lender is no longer required to provide evidence of loan compliance.

Even though the amendment could impact the current lending market, experts told loans.org that the CFPB’s standards will make a greater impact on the future of the housing industry.

Reiss believes that the stricter rules will create a sustainable lending market.

Individual Liability for RMBS Misrepresentations

Posted on by

Judge Cote (SDNY) issued an Opinion and Order in Federal Housing Finance Agency v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc, et al., 11-cv-06201 (Dec. 10, 2013).  The opinion relates to the potential liability of individuals who signed various documents containing alleged misrepresentations that were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These misrepresentations, if true, may violate the Securities Act of 1933. Individuals who signed off on the alleged misrepresentations could be liable as “control persons” or other key individuals under the Act. The alleged misrepresentations were contained in offering materials for RMBS purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The issue in the case is a pretty technical one: “the motion requires the Court to decide whether the SEC radically altered Section 11 liability for individuals who sign registration statements in the context of the shelf registration process when the SEC promulgated Rule 430B in 2005.” (5) Less technically, the motion requires that the Court decide the scope of potential liability for individuals for misrepresentations made in documents that they DID NOT sign that were supplemental to documents that they DID sign. The Court found that individuals could be held liable for such misrepresentations as had been the case before Rule430B had been promulgated.

I am not a securities law expert, so I assume that Judge Cote is right in stating that the defendants were arguing for a radical change to  the Securities Act of 1933 liability regime. I am also on the record in support of liability for individuals who are responsible for material aspects of the financial crisis. But I have also expressed concern about incredibly broad liability provisions. As a non-expert in this area, I was surprised that individuals could be held liable for misrepresentations that were made after they signed off on the preliminary documentation for securitizations.