Tag Archives: FHFA

Dodd-Frank and Mortgage Reform at Five

Posted on by

"Seal on United States Department of the Treasury on the Building" by MohitSingh - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_on_United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury_on_the_Building.JPG#/media/File:Seal_on_United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury_on_the_Building.JPG

The Department of Treasury has issued a report, Dodd-Frank at Five Years: Reforming Wall Street and Protecting Main Street. The report is clearly a political document, trumpeting the achievements of the Obama Administration. It is interesting nonetheless. It opens,

When President Obama took office in January 2009, the U.S. economy was in crisis. The nation was shedding more than 750,000 jobs per month, and confidence in our financial system had been shaken to its core. The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression exposed a toxic mix of excessive risk-taking, shoddy lending practices, inadequate capital levels, unstable funding, and weaknesses in regulatory oversight. A collapsing financial system choked off credit to consumers seeking to purchase a car, a home, groceries, or to finance an education. Nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, and over 5 million lost their homes. Nearly $13 trillion of families’ wealth was destroyed, wiping out almost two decades of gains.

In response to the crisis, the Administration released a proposed set of reforms in June 2009. Congress held numerous hearings and crafted legislation based on the Administration’s proposal, incorporating ideas from both Republicans and Democrats throughout the process. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law, a historic and comprehensive set of financial reforms, which put in place critical new protections for consumers, investors, and taxpayers. Five years later—as a result of Dodd-Frank and other Wall Street reforms—our financial system is stronger, safer, more resilient, and more supportive of sustainable economic growth. Regulators also have better tools to deal with financial shocks when they occur, to protect Main Street and taxpayers from Wall Street recklessness.

Critics of reform have claimed that Wall Street Reform would deter lending and choke off the recovery. But, today it is clear that the opposite is true. Reform has served as a building block for economic growth, providing Americans with safe places to invest their savings and enabling banks to lend to individuals, businesses, and communities. Only a financial system strong enough to withstand a major financial shock is capable of promoting sustainable economic growth. Five years after the President signed Wall Street Reform into law, nearly all of the major elements of financial reform are in place. Today, our financial system is safer and stronger as a result of these hard-won reforms, and our economy is in a far better position to continue growing and creating jobs. (1)

I was struck by the fact that the report does not address the biggest financial reform failure of the last five years, the lack of reform of the housing finance system.  Fannie and Freddie remain in conservatorship, putting the housing finance system at risk of another crisis.

I was also struck by the following passage:

In the run-up to the financial crisis, abusive lending practices and unclear underwriting standards resulted in risky mortgages which hurt consumers and ultimately threatened financial stability. Wall Street Reform bans many of the abusive practices in mortgage markets that helped cause the crisis, and requires lenders to determine that borrowers can repay their loans. (2)

My recollection from academic conferences over the course of the last six or seven years is that many leading academics denied the link between abusive lending practices and systemic risk. It seemed pretty clear to me, but I was in the minority on that one. I am glad to see that at least the Treasury agrees with me.

Friday’s Government Reports

Posted on by
  • Federal Housing Finance Agency released its annual Guarantee Fee Report, which tracks the upward trend in single family guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 requires FHFA to submit a report to Congress annually on guarantee fees.  Guarantee fees are intended to cover the costs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac incur for guaranteeing the payment of principal and interest on single-family loans they purchase from mortgage lenders.  These costs include projected credit losses from borrower defaults over the life of the loans, administrative costs, and a return on capital.
  • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in conjunction with Vanderbilt University released the Family Options Study in which presents the short-term impacts of the interventions in five domains related to family well-being: (1) housing stability, (2) family preservation, (3) adult well-being,(4) child well-being, and (5) self-sufficiency.

The Importance of Understanding G-Fees

Posted on by

United_States_Capitol_west_front_edit2

The Federal Housing Finance Agency has released Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Single-Family Guarantee Fees in 2014. Ok, ok, this is some really technical stuff. But it gives us a lot of important information about what goes into the cost of a home mortgage.

The executive summary opens, “The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) requires the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to submit reports to Congress annually on the guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises).” (2, footnotes omitted) The report finds that “the average level of guarantee fees charged has increased since 2009. The guarantee fees are currently two-and-a-half times their previous level; from 2009 to 2014, average fees increased from 22 basis points to 58 basis points. From 2013 to 2014, average fees increased from 51 basis points to 58 basis points.” (2, footnote omitted)

For all of you non-experts out there, a basis point is 1/100th of a percentage point. So a guarantee fee (or g-fee in the lingo) of 58 basis points increases the interest rate paid by more than half a percentage point (for instance, from 4.5% to 5.08%).  So homeowners should want to understand why g-fees have more than doubled since 2009.

The report breaks down how g-fees gradually increased in response to Congressional and FHFA requirements, some of which are not tied to housing finance goals at all. For instance, Congress added ten basis points to fund an extension of a tax cut.

Many have argued that g-fees should be kept as low as possible in order to help out the housing market. I do not take that position, in large part because cheap credit does not necessarily lower the cost of housing; sellers may just be able to raise the price of their homes in a cheap credit environment. I also believe that the housing market and the mortgage market need to achieve some sort of equilibrium and unnaturally low g-fees will distort such an equilibrium.

The price of the g-fee should reflect the real costs of the g-fee. For instance, it should cover the cost of losses that result from borrower default. It should not be used to fund programs unrelated to housing. G-fees that are unnaturally high distort the housing finance market and make homeowners subsidize other constituencies. Federal housing finance policy tends to get screwed up if it veers too much from its fundamentals, so we should not ask too much of the g-fee.

Fannie and Freddie have been in limbo ever since they entered conservatorship in 2008. The longer they are in that limbo, the more likely it is that Congress will use them to do all sorts of things that do not relate to maintaining a liquid housing finance market. This study outlines how the g-fee has morphed over time and is a wake-up call to homeowners and policy makers alike to set Fannie and Freddie on a healthy course for the long term, starting with that obscure and technical g-fee.

High Risk at Fannie and Freddie

Posted on by

FHFA Director Watt

The Federal Housing Finance Agency released its 2014 Report to Congress. It summarizes many interim reports and press releases that were released over the previous year, many of which have been covered by REFinBlog as they came out. I was struck, however, by the passages about the operational risk that Fannie and Freddie face.  I have been concerned with operational risk at Fannie and Freddie for some time, as the two enterprises have languished in conservatorship limbo for far too long.

The Report of the Annual Examination of Fannie Mae states that

The level of operational risk remains high and largely reflects the risk posed by execution of Fannie Mae’s strategic plan to replace its existing information technology infrastructure. Management has made significant progress in stabilizing the current information technology environment, with improvements in the change management process and reductions in production outages. Further, progress was made in establishing an out-of-region data center that is a critical component for supporting information systems and providing for business continuity in the event of a disaster. As Fannie Mae implements this plan, however, the level of operational risk will remain elevated. Risks associated with the execution, deployment, and integration with the CSP [Common Securitization Platform] and the move to a Single Security, while addressing ongoing IT infrastructure issues, will also introduce a significant level of inherent operational risk to the organization. Effective project management will be critical to mitigate the operational risk arising from these efforts.(14, emphasis added)

The Report of the Annual Examination of Freddie Mac indicates that Freddie faces somewhat different operational risks:

Operational risk, including risks associated with information technology systems, remains a concern primarily because of resource requirements and operational complexities of major strategic initiatives (including integration with the CSP), developing information security and privacy protection capabilities, and heightened risk during the transition to the new risk management structure.

Information security is one of the primary operational risks Freddie Mac faces given the proliferation of cyber crimes and the high probability of new cyber attacks targeted at large organizations. Freddie Mac’s operational framework is highly complex. Information security within the Enterprise is more important than ever given the pervasiveness of cyber-related threats. In addition to external threats, Freddie Mac faces other challenges that may continue to elevate operational risk and increase the likelihood of significant operational incidents and losses. (17, emphasis added)

While neither of these passages is terrifying — as in, here-is-the-next-trigger-for-a-bailout terrifying — they do make me pause and ask whether the GSEs in their current form are up to the challenge of handling this period of “heightened risk.”

Those in Congress who are impeding GSE reform are on notice that Fannie and Freddie face high levels of operational risk. If the next crisis results from that risk, it is on them.

New FHA Guidelines No Biggie

Posted on by
Welcome_to_Levittown_sign

(Original Purchases in Levittown Funded in Large Part by FHA Mortgages)

Law360 quoted me in New Guidelines For Bad FHA Loans Won’t Boost Lending (behind paywall). It opens,

The federal government on Thursday provided lenders with a streamlined framework for how it determines whether the Federal Housing Administration must be paid for a loan gone bad, but experts say the new framework will have limited effect because it failed to alleviate the threat of a Justice Department lawsuit.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provided lenders with what it called a “defect taxonomy” that it will use to determine when a lender will have to indemnify the FHA, which essentially provides insurance for mortgages taken out by first-time and low-income borrowers, for bad loans. The new framework whittled down the number of categories the FHA would review when making its decisions on loans and highlighted how it would measure the severity of those defects.

All of this was done in a bid to increase transparency and boost a sagging home loan sector. However, HUD was careful to state that its new default taxonomy does not have any bearing on potential civil or administrative liability a lender may face for making bad loans.

And because of that, lenders will still be skittish about issuing new mortgages, said Jeffrey Naimon, a partner with BuckleySandler LLP.

“What this expressly doesn’t address is what is likely the single most important thing in housing policy right now, which is how the Department of Justice is going to handle these issues,” he said.

The U.S. housing market has been slow to recover since the 2008 financial crisis due to a combination of economics, regulatory changes and, according to the industry, the threat of litigation over questionable loans from the Justice Department, the FHA and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

In recent years, the Justice Department has reached settlements reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars with banks and other lenders over bad loans backed by the government using the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act.

The most recent settlement came in February when MetLife Inc. agreed to a $123.5 million deal.

In April, Quicken Loans Inc. filed a preemptive suit alleging that the Justice Department and HUD were pressuring the lender to admit to faulty lending practices that they did not commit. The Justice Department sued Quicken soon after.

Policymakers at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which serves as the conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and HUD have attempted to ease lenders’ fears that they will force lenders to buy back bad loans or otherwise indemnify the programs.

HUD on Thursday said that its new single-family loan quality assessment methodology — the so-called defect taxonomy — would do just that by slimming down the categories it uses to categorize mortgage defects from 99 to nine and establishing a system for categorizing the severity of those defects.

Among the nine categories that will be included in HUD’s review of loans are measures of borrowers’ income, assets and credit histories as well as loan-to-value ratios and maximum mortgage amounts.

Providing greater insight into FHA’s thinking is intended to make lending easier, Edward Golding, HUD’s principal deputy assistant secretary for housing, said in a statement.

“By enhancing our approach, lenders will have more confidence in how they interact with FHA and, we anticipate, will be more willing to lend to future homeowners who are ready to own,” he said.

However, what the new guidelines do not do is address the potential risk for lenders from the Justice Department.

“This taxonomy is not a comprehensive statement on all compliance monitoring or enforcement efforts by FHA or the federal government and does not establish standards for administrative or civil enforcement action, which are set forth in separate law. Nor does it address FHA’s response to patterns and practice of loan-level defects, or FHA’s plans to address fraud or misrepresentation in connection with any FHA-insured loan,” the FHA’s statement said.

And that could blunt the overall benefits of the new guidelines, said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

“To the extent it helps people make better decisions, it will help them reduce their exposure. But it is not any kind of bulletproof vest,” he said.

AIG’s “Victory” and the GSE Litigation

Posted on by

AIG_Headquarters_New_York_City

Court of Federal Claims Judge Wheeler issued an Opinion and Order in Starr International Company, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-779C (June 15, 2015), the case that Hank Greenberg brought against the government over the terms of the bailout of AIG during the financial crisis. The judge found that the government exceeded its authority in taking an equity interest in AIG, but did not award the plaintiffs any damages.  Many will read the tea leaves of this opinion to see what they tell us about the litigation brought against the federal government by shareholders in Fannie and Freddie arising from the bailout of those two companies. I think it offers little guidance as to liability but lots as to damages.

My most important takeaway from the opinion (which seems well-reasoned to me) is that the holding is based on a close reading of the Federal Reserve Act.  The Act enumerates the powers and limitations of the Fed.  The Court held that the Act does not authorize the Fed to take equity in a company as part of a bailout.

Fannie and Freddie are regulated by the Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA). The FHFA’s powers and limitations, in contrast, derive from the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), passed during the financial crisis itself.  HERA explicitly granted the FHFA broad powers as conservator.  Section 1117 of HERA authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to make unlimited equity and debt investments in the two companies’ securities through December 31, 2009.  (There is a disagreement as to whether the the Third Amendment to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, discussed here, created new securities after that date, but the more general point is that HERA authorized equity investments in a way that the Federal Reserve Act did not.)

In sum, I would not read too much into the GSE litigation from the AIG litigation as it relates to the government’s ability to take equity in Fannie and Freddie.  The two cases arise under two completely different statutes.

As to the damages component of the opinion, there are many cases when a court finds for a plaintiff but only awards nominal damages.  Thus, the Court’s opinion is not particularly out of the ordinary in this regard.  Here, the Court relied on the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a TARP case, A&D Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2014).  In that case, the Federal Circuit found that absent allegations that “GM and Chrysler would have avoided bankruptcy but for the Government’s intervention and that the franchises would have had value in that scenario,” there was no basis to argue that the government caused “a net negative economic impact” on the plaintiffs (Starr at 66, quoting A&D at 1158).

It would appear that to prove damages, the GSE litigation plaintiffs will need to overcome that bar too, even if they were to succeed in proving that the government had acted improperly in bailing out Fannie and Freddie.

Monday’s Adjudication Roundup

Posted on by