Tag Archives: FHFA

GSEs Are Giants of Multifamily Sector Too

Posted on by

In discussions about the future of Fannie and Freddie, we tend to emphasize their outsized role in the single-family sector.  We often forget that they have an even bigger footprint in multifamily.  A recent Kroll BondRatings report, FHFA Slowdown May Spur Multifamily Resurgence in Conduit CMBS, shows just how big it is. Chart 1 shows Multifamily Loans as a Percentage of the New Issuance Market by Year. Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie had a 15 to 47 percent market share at points during the eight years from 2000 through 2007.  It jumped to 85 to as high as 100% (!!!) at points during the following five years.Kroll notes that the private sector (CMBS Conduits) has begun to increase market share dramatically, although this is measured from a very small base.

Kroll concludes that

it is evident that private lending sources will experience continued growth in multifamily lending as the GSEs reduce their commitment to the space. Conduits are well positioned to participate in this growth, provided the spread environment doesn’t impede conduit lenders’ ability to offer attractive financing rates. Multifamily fundamentals will also inevitably play a role in overall financing volumes, and while it isn’t clear the sector’s outsized performance will continue, housing and demographic trends suggest the sector will remain relatively strong over the next couple of years. While the question of whether and when conduits will surpass GSE originations remains to be seen, we anticipate that the percentage of multifamily product in CMBS will trend upward throughout next year. When 2015 rolls around we may even see the proportion of multifamily in CMBS approach or exceed levels last seen in the mid 2000’s, when it represented, on average, 18% of the CMBS universe, with some recent deals in the conduit universe starting to trend closer to 20%. (4)

What is clear to me is that we should not forget about the relatively small multifamily housing finance sector as we think about the appropriate role for Fannie and Freddie in the single-family sector. They are completely different sectors. The one is akin to a wholesale business and the other is akin to a retail business, each with very different underwriting.

We should be open to very different policy outcomes for the two sectors. The policy reasons that might support a large government role in the single-family sector do not necessarily carry over to the multifamily sector. As I have noted elsewhere (and here) in the context of the multifamily sector, a market failure or liquidity crisis is the typical rationale that justifies government intervention in a particular market. It is incumbent on those who argue for a very active role for the government in the multifamily sector to clearly explain the market failure that government policy intends to address.

Reiss on Government’s Role in Housing Finance

Posted on by

The Urban Land Institute New York Blog posted Housing Finance Leaders Gather to Discuss the Future of Freddie and Fannie about a recent panel on the housing finance market. It begins,

Housing finance industry leaders came together last week to debate the future role of government-sponsored lending giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both entities were placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) during the financial crisis from which they have yet to emerge.

Panelists included David Brickman, Head of Multifamily for Freddie Mac, Robert Bostrom, Co-Chair of the Financial Compliance and Regulatory Practice at Greenberg Traurig, Mike McRoberts, Managing Director at Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, David Reiss, Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, and Alan H. Weiner, Group Head at Wells Fargo Multifamily Capital.

The debate centered around the proper role for the mortgage giants and to what extent government-backed entities should intervene in capital markets.

A market failure or liquidity crisis is the only reasonable basis for government intervention in the housing market, according to Reiss. “However, it is not possible for the government to create liquidity only in moments of crisis, so there is a need to have a permanent platform that is capable of originating liquidity at all times,” said Brickman. Fannie Mae, which was created during the Great Depression and Freddie Mac, which was created during the Savings and Loan crisis, were both responses to past market failures.

Fannie and Freddie in Play?

Posted on by

Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management LP has joined Bruce Berkowitz’s Fairholme Capital Management LLC in seeking to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  News reports indicate that Pershing Square owns about ten percent of the common shares of each company. While it is unclear to me how they could parlay their holdings into control of the two companies, they are certainly changing the conversation about them. It is worth taking a closer look at the Fairholme proposal, which is pretty detailed.  The proposal, according to Fairholme,

  • Brings approximately $52 billion of private capital to support credit risk on more than $1 trillion of new mortgages without market disruption;
  • Demonstrates reform is possible, even without a Federal guarantee, by having investors commit to bear risk now;
  • Allows for the liquidation of Fannie and Freddie, ending their Federal charters and special status, without losing the value of operating assets critical to the mortgage market;
  • Reduces systemic risk by separating new underwriting from the legacy investment books of Fannie and Freddie;
  • Preserves Government options for affordable housing initiatives and counter-cyclical liquidity – but using tools other than Fannie and Freddie; and
  • Ends the unsustainable Federal conservatorship. (Press Release, 1)

Fairholme states that “The centerpiece of the proposal is the establishment of two new, State-regulated private insurance companies to purchase, recapitalize, and operate the insurance businesses of Fannie and Freddie.” (Press Release, 1)

Fairholme predominantly owns preferred shares and Pershing predominantly owns common shares, so we are certain to see different visions for the capital structure of the two companies once Pershing presents a more concrete proposal. But it is clear that the conversation about Fannie and Freddie is shifting and that the federal government is facing some pressure to at least respond to these proposals.

Reiss on Fannie and Freddie Buyout

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in Fairholme Changes The Game For Fannie And Freddie (behind a paywall).  It reads in part,

Fairholme Capital Management LLC’s plan to buy Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s insurance businesses will likely turn out to be more symbolic gesture than successful deal, experts say, but the hedge fund’s bold move could increase interest in privatization of the entities and potentially encourage other bidders to join the fray.

*     *     *

Some experts believe this emphasis on the ownership stakes of Fairholme and other hedge funds will be a major turnoff for the White House, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Treasury.

“It’s a very good idea, but the question is, will it keep the government and taxpayers off the hook? And will it bring in sufficient private capital to provide a vibrant residential mortgage market?” said David Reiss, a real estate finance professor at Brooklyn Law School. “Of course they’re looking to maximize their return, so the question has to be, what’s the angle that they’re playing?”

The angle, experts and analysts say, is likely connected to claims Fairholme and other hedge funds have made recently against the federal government, accusing it of devaluing their shares of Fannie and Freddie in order to reap all the GSEs’ mounting profits.

Fairholme and Perry Capital LLC both sued the government over its management of Fannie and Freddie this summer.

In July, Perry Capital accused the Treasury of wrongfully altering stock purchasing agreements with Fannie and Freddie, which allegedly allowed it to illegally speed up the liquidation of the companies and reap more than $200 billion over the next decade.

Two days later, Fairholme and insurance holding company W.R. Berkley Corp. sued the federal government, alleging it had acted unconstitutionally when it altered its bailout deal for the GSEs to keep the companies’ profits for itself.

Fairholme’s proposal assumes that their shares have the value they claim they have in their lawsuit, Reiss said. If the deal were to move forward, valuation of Fairholme’s stake could be a major sticking point.

*     *     *

“It begins the conversation as to whether you can have effectively a buyout of the federal government from Fannie and Freddie, which is a healthy thing, I think,” Reiss said.

Qualified Residential Mortgage Comments

Posted on by

The agencies responsible for the Qualified Residential Mortgage rules that address the issue of credit risk retention for mortgage-backed securities requested that comments on the proposed rulemaking be submitted by yesterday.  And comments there were.  Here is a sampling:

The Urban Institute argues that

In formulating their QRM recommendations, the Agencies have done an admirable job balancing these considerations: on one hand, they wanted QRM loans to have a low default rate; on the other hand, if QRM is too tight, it will impede efforts to bring private capital back into the market and will further restrict credit availability. The right balance would thus appear to be precisely where they have landed with their main proposal: that QRM equal QM. (2)

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association effectively agrees with this and argues that

QM should be adopted as the standard for QRM, rather than QM-plus. QM is a meaningful standard for high quality loans. The characteristics of QM-plus, particularly the 70 percent LTV ratio, would exclude most borrowers from these loans. We believe the adoption of QM-plus would reduce the competitiveness of private mortgage originators and delay the transition of the housing finance system away from the GSEs. (vi)

The American Enterprise Institute, on the other hand, argues that

The preferred response, in our opinion, is to implement the Dodd-Frank Act by creating a combination of the QM and a standard for a traditional prime mortgage that Congress intended for the QRM. For this reason, we have filed this comment with the agencies, detailing how it is possible to comply with the clear language and intent of the act and still provide a flexible set of standards for prime mortgages — which have low credit risk even under stress. (4)

My thoughts on the proposed QRM rule can be found here, here, here and here.

Private Capital and the Mortgage Markets

Posted on by

The American Securitization Forum recently wrote to the Federal Housing Finance Agency to argue for at least a small reduction in the size of the loans that Fannie and Freddie can guaranty. While this makes sense to me, it is pretty controversial.  The ASF argues that “incremental reductions are appropriate for the following reasons:”

(i) as a means to begin scaling back the outsized role the GSEs currently play in the U.S. housing finance system and encourage the return of private capital;

(ii) FHFA has the legal authority in its role as conservator to act according to its dual mandate; and

(iii) the timing of any Congressional action on wide-ranging housing finance reform remains uncertain. (1)

Various groups like the Realtors and some members of Congress argue that any restriction of credit is unwarranted while the housing recovery is so tentative. The ASF notes, however, that the federal government is insuring roughly 90% of new residential mortgages. Virtually no one supports such a level of government support for the mortgage market, so the only question is one of timing. Do we start cutting back now or do we wait for better market conditions?

Others argue that there is not enough private capital to replace the government guaranteed capital in the market. But scaling back the Fannie/Freddie loan limit is a great way to work private capital back into the market gradually. The long term health of the American mortgage market is best assured by having private capital assume as much of the credit risk as it can responsibly handle. This private capital should also be subject to consumer protection regulation to ensure that it is not put to predatory uses. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has rules in place to provide that consumer protection. The FHFA should complement that regulatory action with its own. It should reduce the Fannie and Freddie loan limits starting in 2014.

Mortgage Reform Schooling on 30 Year Term

Posted on by

S&P has posted U.S. Mortgage Finance Reform Efforts and the Potential Credit Implications to school us on the current state of affairs in Congress. It provides a useful lesson on three major mortgage reform bills introduced in Congress this year.  They are the Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2013 (Corker-Warner); Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners ACT of 2013 (PATH); and the FHA Solvency Act.

Given the current mood in D.C., S&P somewhat optimistically states that there “seems to be a bipartisan commitment to encourage private capital support for the U.S. housing market while winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that hold dominant positions in the mortgage market.” (1) S&P uses this report as an opportunity to “comment on the potential credit implications of these mortgage finance reform efforts on several market sectors.” (1)

In this post, I focus on, and criticize, S&P’s analysis of the appropriate role of the 30 year fixed-rate mortgage. S&P states that

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has contributed significantly to housing affordability in the U.S. And while some market players have looked at current rates on jumbo mortgages (those that exceed conforming-loan limits) and suggested that the private market could support mortgage interest rates below 5%, we think this view is distorted. Jumbo mortgage rates carrying the lowest interest rates, for the most part, are limited to a narrow set of borrowers who have FICO credit scores above 750 and equity of roughly 30% in their homes. We don’t believe that these same rates would be available to average prime borrowers, such as those with credit scores of 725 and 25% equity in a property. (3)

While I think that S&P is probably right about the limited usefulness of comparing current jumbo loans to a broad swath of conforming loans, I see no support in their analysis for the assertion that the “30-year fixed-rate mortgage has contributed significantly to housing affordability in the U.S.” First, a 30-year FRM typically carries a higher interest rate than an ARM of any length. Second, a typical American household only stays in a home for about seven years. Thus, a 30-year FRM provides an expensive insurance policy against increases in interest rates that most Americans do not end up needing.

While we may end up providing governmental support for the 30-year FRM because of its longstanding popularity, S&P’s mortgage reform school should be based on facts, not fancy.