Tag Archives: FHA

Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Round-Up

Posted on by

Tuesdays Regulatory & Legislative Round-Up

Posted on by

Monday’s Adjudication Roundup

Posted on by

Reiss on Drop in FHA Premium

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in FHA Premium Cut Sets Up Fight Over Future Of Housing (behind a paywall). It reads in part,

President Barack Obama’s plan to lower premiums on Federal Housing Administration insurance has rekindled a battle with Republicans over the rehabilitation of the recently bailed out government mortgage insurer and the government’s role in the U.S. housing market more broadly.

Obama on Thursday officially laid out a plan that would see the FHA charge borrowers half a percentage point less on mortgage insurance premiums beginning this month in a move to boost affordability for the low- and middle-income borrowers who traditionally rely on FHA-backed mortgages.

The announcement came as the FHA continues to recover from a post-financial crisis shortfall that saw the long-standing program receive a $1.7 billion bailout from the U.S. Department of the Treasury in 2013, the first time the FHA has needed federal support.

Obama’s move on mortgage insurance premiums could make the road to a secure FHA take that much longer, and, coupled with earlier policy changes by the Federal Housing Finance Agency on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, set up a renewed fight with Republicans over government support for the housing market.

“What’s at stake is not just housing prices and mortgage rates,” Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss said. “What’s implicit of all of this is: What’s the appropriate role of the government in the housing market?”

The president’s plan would see the FHA charge borrowers 0.85 percent annual premiums on their mortgage insurance, down from the 1.35 percent they currently pay. First-time homebuyers will see a $900 drop in their mortgage payments each year under the new policy, according to a fact sheet released Wednesday by the White House.

“It’ll help make owning a home more affordable for millions” around the country, Obama said in a speech in Phoenix on Thursday.

Housing analysts said that the move could help boost the housing market at the margins but would not entice a large number of first-time buyers to get into the housing market.

The lower mortgage insurance premium will prove to be “marginally beneficial for the average borrower, in our opinion, and consequently, we do not believe this news … is a catalyst for higher housing demand and higher earnings estimates,” Sterne Agee analyst Jay McCanless said in a note Thursday.

But what the rate cut does is put in clear relief Obama’s plan to boost the housing market and provide a strong government role in that key economic sector, even if it means potentially putting added pressure on the agencies that provide government assistance to the housing market. Those agencies include the FHA as well as the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the two failed mortgage giants over which it has authority, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“The tension is between financial responsibility and public policy about housing,” Reiss said.

In the FHA’s case, lowering the mortgage insurance premium is likely to increase the amount of time that the agency will need to get to a 2 percent capital level that is mandated by Congress.

An independent audit of the FHA’s finances released late last year found that the agency’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund stood at a positive $4.8 billion as of the end of September after being as much as $16.3 billion in the hole in 2012.

Still, while the gain on the fund has been real, its capital ratio stood at only 0.41 percent in that period, far lower than the mandated 2 percent.

*     *     *

Obama had backed congressional efforts to eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and boost private capital in the mortgage market, but they failed amid disagreements between the Senate and House Republicans. The issue is now largely dormant.

That has left a vacuum for Obama to fill, Reiss said.

“Because Congress refused to act, Republicans are going to be stuck with a more activist government because they refused to come to the table and put together a proposal that can pass,” he said.

Housing Finance Reform at the AALS

Posted on by
The Financial Institutions and Consumer Financial Services Section and the Real Estate Transactions section of the American Association of Law Schools hosted a joint program at the AALS annual meeting on The Future of the Federal Housing Finance System. I moderated the session, along with Cornell’s Bob Hockett.
Former Representative Brad Miller (D-N.C.) keynoted.  Until recently he was a Senior Fellow, at the Center for American Progress and is now a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. He was followed by four more great speakers:
The program overview was as follows:
The fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are subject to the vagaries of politics, regulation,public opinion, the economy, and not least of all the numerous cases that were filed in 2013 against various government entities arising from the placement of the two companies into conservatorship. All of these vagaries occur, moreover, against a backdrop of surprising public and political ignorance of the history and functions of the GSEs and their place in the broader American financial and housing economies. This panel will take the long view to identify how the American housing finance market should be structured, given all of these constraints. Invited speakers include academics, government officials and researchers affiliated to think tanks. They will discuss the various bills that have been proposed to reform that market including Corker-Warner and Johnson-Crapo. They will also address regulatory efforts by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to shape the federal housing finance system in the absence of Congressional reform.
During the presentations, I felt a bit of awe for the collective knowledge of the speakers.  The program also emphasized for me how much there always is to learn about a topic as complex as housing finance.
Laurie Goodman was kind enough to let me post her PowerPoint slides from the program. If you are looking for a good overview of the current state of housing finance reform, you will want to take a look at them.
I was a bit depressed by the slide titled, “Why GSE reform is unlikely before 2017:”
1. There is no sense of urgency: GSEs are profitable, current system is functioning.
2. Higher legislative priorities.
3. No easy answers as to what a new housing finance system should look like.
4. Bipartisan action requires compromise, and some believe they have more to lose than to gain by compromising in this arena.
While the slide depressed me, I think it offers a pretty realistic assessment of where we are. I hope Congress and the Obama Administration prove me wrong.

Life Post-Fannie, Post-Freddie

Posted on by

The Congressional Budget Office has released a report, Transitioning to Alternative Structures for Housing Finance. This report

examines various mechanisms that policymakers could use to attract more private capital to the secondary mortgage market. The report also addresses how those mechanisms could be combined in different ways to help the market make the transition to a new structure during the coming decade. CBO analyzed transition paths to four alternative structures that involve choices about whether the government would continue to guarantee payment on mortgages and MBSs and, if so, what form and prices those guarantees would have. Under those different structures, the government’s activities would range from providing full or partial guarantees for a large share of the mortgage market to playing a minimal role in a largely private market (except perhaps during a financial crisis). Any transition to a new type of secondary market would also require decisions about what to do with the existing operations, guarantee obligations, and investment holdings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (1, footnotes omitted)

The report has three key findings:

1.  A transition to a new structure for housing finance that emphasized private capital could reduce costs and risks to taxpayers. One drawback to such a transition is that mortgages could become somewhat less available and more expensive to borrowers. Thus, over the longer term, it could also result in a modest shift of the economy’s resources away from housing toward other activities.
2.  Although the transition to a new structure could significantly decrease the number of borrowers who received mortgages backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, additional private capital would replace most of the lost funding. Borrowers would probably not face significant increases in interest rates because the two GSEs’ current pricing is not too far below market pricing. Consequently, a gradual transition would probably exert only modest downward pressure on house prices.
3.  Because policymakers have already raised the guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac close to those that CBO estimates would be charged by private insurers, the budgetary costs of the two GSEs’ activities over the next 10 years are expected to be small. As a result, the budgetary savings would also be small under any of the transition paths to a more private system that CBO considered. Thus, the choice between the different market structures probably rests primarily on considerations other than budgetary costs. (2)
I have been a long-time advocate for attracting more private capital to the secondary mortgage market, so I welcome this report. Given the public statements of the Obama Administration and the composition of the new Congress, there appears to be an opportunity to move in that direction. A bipartisan reform plan for the housing finance system will need to provide for a lender of last resort; appropriate consumer protection; and assistance for households that are underserved by the private market. There seems to be bipartisan will to reform this system, so we just need to chart a way to achieve it. This report leads us down the right path.

Reiss on Fair Housing Falsehood

Posted on by

The Providence (R.I.) Journal quoted me in its Truth-O-Meter column:  Mike Stenhouse: According to HUD, It’s Unfair, Unjust for Wealthy to Live in Exclusive Neighborhoods. The column reads, in part,

For more than three years, the Rhode Island Division of Planning has been working on RhodeMap RI, a long-term economic development plan meant to help guide efforts to improve the state’s economy.

The process, partly financed by a $1.9-million grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),  didn’t get much notice until a nearly 200-page draft of the plan was released in mid-September, igniting a firestorm of controversy.

Critics of the plan denounced it as a thinly disguised blueprint for social engineering. If it is implemented, they say, local communities will be forced to cede authority to the federal government on issues such as affordable housing and land use, and individual property rights will be under threat.

Supporters, including Governor Chafee and the planners and community leaders who drafted the plan, say it’s a well crafted, comprehensive guide that will help move the state’s economy forward over the decades ahead. They say there’s nothing in the plan that would infringe on individual property rights or local home rule.

The debate grew so heated at one meeting a shouting match broke out, with charges of racism and bigotry hurled. And last week, at a meeting of the Statewide Planning Council, opponents called it unconstitutional, socialist and even treasonous. Nonetheless, the council voted unanimously to adopt it.

Mike Stenhouse, CEO of the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a conservative research group, has led the opposition. A few weeks ago, he talked about the plan on WPRO-AM’s “The Dan Yorke Show.”

Yorke asked Stenhouse to cite a component of the plan “that highlights what you think is problematic.”

“I’m going to give you my interpretation,” Stenhouse responded. “I don’t have their plan in front of me. What we believe, for instance, take Poppasquash Point in Bristol. According to HUD, it is patently unfair and socially unjust that wealthy people can live in an exclusive neighborhood.”

We wondered whether Stenhouse was right about HUD’s view of wealthy neighborhoods such as Poppasquash Point, one of the state’s priciest enclaves.

When we asked Stenhouse about his statement, he told us he was not directly quoting HUD, but said that his statement was “an accurate interpretation of HUD’s openly stated intent.” He provided links to multiple documents to support his position.

While we don’t view Stenhouse’s statement as a direct quote of HUD policy, we do  believe that listeners who heard Stenhouse’s preface — “according to HUD” — would assume he was summarizing HUD’s policy.

Stenhouse’s backup is comprised primarily of links to a news story and an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily and links to various legal  documents and HUD regulations.

*    *    *

According to David Reiss, a professor of real estate and housing policy at Brooklyn Law School, “HUD does not interpret the FHA [Fair Housing Act] to mean that `wealthy people’ can’t `live in an exclusive neighborhood.’”

“An exclusive neighborhood is an expensive one – the FHA does not ban expensive neighborhoods.” Reiss continued in an email statement. “What it does do is ban exclusionary practices.  Exclusionary practices are those that exclude people based on certain of their characteristics such as their race, sex or religion.  To my knowledge, HUD has never taken the position that merely living in an exclusive – that is, expensive — neighborhood violates the FHA.”

We also asked HUD whether Stenhouse had accurately characterized its rules.

“There are simply no policies, practices, regulations or anything that can validate such hyper hyperbole,” Brian Sullivan, a public affairs officer with HUD, said in an email statement.

Our ruling

Mike Stenhouse said “According to HUD, it is patently unfair and socially unjust that wealthy people can live in an exclusive neighborhood.”

There’s no doubt that HUD has challenged what it considers to be discriminatory practices at the community level, including exclusionary zoning ordinances.

But that’s not nearly the same as objecting to the right of wealthy people to live in expensive neighborhoods.

We rule Stenhouse’s claim False.