Tag Archives: economic sense

Credit Risk Transfer Deals

Posted on by

A Syn

The Federal Housing Finance Agency released an Overview of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Credit Risk Transfer Transactions. It opens,

In 2012, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) initiated a strategic plan to develop a program of credit risk transfer intended to reduce Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s (the Enterprises’) overall risk and, therefore, the risk they pose to taxpayers. In just three years, the Enterprises have made significant progress in developing a market for credit risk transfer securities, evidenced by the fact that they have already transferred significant credit risk on loans with over $667 billion of unpaid principal balance (UPB).

Credit risk transfer is now a regular part of the Enterprises’ business. The Enterprises are currently transferring a significant amount of the credit risk on almost 90% of the loans that account for the vast majority of their underlying credit risk. These loans constitute about half of all Enterprise loan acquisitions. Going forward, FHFA will continue to encourage the Enterprises to engage in large volumes of meaningful credit risk transfer through specific goals in the annual conservatorship scorecard and by working closely with Enterprise staff to develop and evaluate credit risk transfer structures. (2)

This is indeed good news for taxpayers and should reduce their exposure to future losses at Fannie and Freddie. There is still a lot of work to do, though, to get that risk level as low as possible. The report notes that these transactions have not yet been done for adjustable-rate mortgages or 15 year mortgages. Most importantly, the report cautions that

Because the programs have not been implemented through an entire housing price cycle, it is too soon to say whether the credit risk transfer transactions currently ongoing will make economic sense in all stages of the cycle. Specifically, we cannot know the extent to which investors will continue to participate through a housing downturn. Additionally, the investor base and pricing for these transactions could be affected by a higher interest rate environment in which other fixed-income securities may be more attractive alternatives. (22)

Taxpayers are exposed to many heightened risks during Fannie and Freddie’s conservatorship, such as operational risk. These risk transfer transactions are thus particularly important while the two companies linger on in that state.

Are Billions Enough?

Posted on by

Jenner & Block has issued the Citi Monitorship First Report. By way of background,

The Settlement Agreement resolved potential federal and state legal claims for violations of law in connection with the packaging, marketing, sale, structuring, arrangement, and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) between 2006 and 2007. As explained below, in the Settlement Agreement, Citi agreed to pay $4.5 billion to the settling governmental entities, acknowledged a statement of facts attached as Annex 1, and agreed to provide consumer relief that would be valued at $2.5 billion under the valuation principles set forth in Annex 2.2 As part of the Settlement Agreement, [Jenner partner] Thomas J. Perrelli was appointed as independent monitor (Monitor) to determine Citi’s compliance with the consumer relief and corresponding requirements of the Settlement Agreement. This is the first report assessing Citi’s progress toward completion of those obligations. (3, footnote omitted)

Because this is the first report, much of it sets the stage for what is to come. I was, however, struck by the section titled “Impact of Relief Provided:”

To evaluate fully the impact of the relief that is the subject of this report and authorized under the Settlement Agreement would require a variety of activities not contemplated by the settlement and not easily achievable (e.g., interviews with individual homeowners). Isolating the effect of this settlement, the National Mortgage Settlement, and other RMBS settlements from the broader housing market is also difficult.

One question frequently asked is whether the relief provided to borrowers and for which Citi has received credit would have been provided in any event (e.g., is this really additional?) On this question, the answer is mixed. Given ordinary accounting practices, loans for which foreclosure does not make economic sense are frequently written-off by financial institutions. In that circumstance, however, the banks may not release liens as a matter of routine, leaving borrowers with an ongoing burden and impeding potential efforts to redevelop the property. To get credit under the Settlement Agreement, Citi was required to release the lien, thus giving an additional benefit to the homeowner to allow him or her to make a fresh start and to remove any legal obstacles from the transfer of the property. (17, footnote omitted)

As I have noted before, it is hard to truly assess the restorative and retributive impacts of the ten and eleven digit settlements of litigation arising from the financial crisis. Are individuals appropriately helped? Are wrongdoers appropriately punished? Are current actors appropriately deterred?  I find it bizarre that it is so hard to tell even when settlements are measured in the billions of dollars.