Tag Archives: FHFA

Reiss on Fannie/Freddie Loan Limits

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in Time May Not Be Right To Limit Fannie, Freddie Loans (behind a paywall).  It reads in part,

The Federal Housing Finance Agency has proposed lowering the maximum size of the loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase as part of an effort to attract more private-sector lending, but some experts warn that other market factors including rising interest rates will keep private lenders from filling the gap.

The FHFA announced earlier this month that it planned to reduce the maximum size of home mortgage loans eligible for backing by the government-sponsored enterprises. The move is part of the agency’s strategic plan of slowly backing away from the mortgage market and encouraging private capital to take its place. But some real estate attorneys and practitioners say private lenders need more than customers to convince them to take the plunge.

Many other environmental factors affect private lenders’ decisions about whether to enter the residential mortgage market, said Bob Bostrom, a shareholder of Greenberg Traurig LLP and former counsel to Freddie Mac.

Reducing the number of loans eligible for Fannie and Freddie backing and raising guarantee fees — another recent tactic — sound good in theory, but they don’t change the fact that the interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rose a full percentage point over the past several months and the housing market dipped correspondingly, Bostrom said.

“The housing recovery is extraordinarily fragile right now,” he said.

The steps the FHFA is taking to reduce the GSEs’ size and scope will work only when there’s a private sector ready to step in, experts say. Until then, these measures can only push the housing market backward, they warn.

* * *

Not everyone is convinced of this dark forecast, however. David Reiss, a Brooklyn Law School professor and real estate finance scholar, told Law360 on Thursday that he’s not convinced the FHFA’s moves will have a negative effect.

Although the pullback should be gradual, it must be done, because the government can’t continue to hold up the mortgage market indefinitely, he said.

Reiss says current market factors actually favor weaning borrowers off Fannie and Freddie, noting that private capital in the sector has increased — particularly in the market for jumbo loans — and that the overall housing market has stabilized.

“We’re past the immediate crisis,” he said. “There’s nothing going on right now that makes me think a downward adjustment in conforming loan limits won’t be met by an increase in capital from private lenders,” Reiss said.

Fannie and Freddie’s Unreported Billions of Losses

Posted on by

The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Inspector General has warned FHFA Acting Director DeMarco that the FHFA has allowed Fannie and Freddie to defer acknowledgment of billions of dollars of losses relating to seriously delinquent singe-family residential mortgage loans for far too long.

The Office of the IG recommends that estimates of these losses be reported immediately, on an ongoing basis. There are all sorts of obvious good reasons to do this, including the fact that “[c]lassification of loans according to risk characteristics is a critical factor considered by financial regulators to evaluate a financial institution’s safety and soundness”  and that it accords with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. (1)

directly through interest

Fannie and Freddie’s recent reports of billions of dollars of profits have caused a scrum to form around the two companies, as investors in preferred shares seek to get a slice of those profits through a series of lawsuits (here, here, here and here for example), as low-income advocates seek to fund the Housing Trust Fund through a lawsuit (here) and as some politicians forget the risks that these two companies present to the American taxpayer and seek to reanimate the two companies.

In a perfect world, we would ask what kind of residential housing finance infrastructure we want to implement for the next fifty years or so and what should happen to Fannie and Freddie should have little to nothing to do with their current profits or losses. But the political reality is that it does. With that as a given, we should at least have an honest assessment of their balance sheets. But the FHFA is keeping us in the dark. It needs to turn the lights on so that we can understand the true magnitude of these unreported losses so that the debate about Fannie and Freddie can be held with as much accurate information as possible.

Whither The Housing Trust Fund?

Posted on by

As part of my review of the litigation surrounding the newly-profitable Fannie And Freddie (here, here, here and here), I turn to the complaint filed by “extremely low income tenants in desperate need of affordable housing” and the National Low Income Housing Coalition and the Right to the City Alliance, Samuels et al. v. FHFA et al., No. 1:13-cv-22399 (Jul. 9, 2009).

As the complaint notes, Congress created the Housing Trust Fund as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA).  The Housing Trust Fund was to be funded by contributions by Fannie and Freddie that were based on their annual purchases.   Those contributions could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

But here was the rub:  the Director of the FHFA could suspend  those contributions if the Director finds that they

(1) are contributing, or would contribute, to the financial instability of [Fannie or Freddie];

(2) are causing, or would cause, the [Fannie or Freddie] to be classified as undercapitalized; or

(3) are preventing, or would prevent, [Fannie or Freddie] from successfully completing a capital restoration plan under section 4622 of this title. (14, quoting 12 U.S.C. section 4567(b))

And that is just what happened in 2008:  the FHFA put them into conservatorship because of fears of their impending insolvency and their mounting losses. With the housing recovery, Fannie and Freddie have returned to profitability — massive profitability. But the federal government has redirected those profits to the Treasury, which had provided many billions of dollars to the two companies during the early years of the crisis without funding the Housing Trust Fund.

The plaintiffs allege that despite “the record profits of the Enterprises and despite the statutory requirement that any suspension of payments be temporary,  the Federal Defendants have failed and refused to review these findings and/or discontinue their suspension of the statutorily required payments by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the Housing Trust Fund.” (17) The plaintiffs allege that this is “arbitrary and capricious in light of the changed and current financial condition of the Enterprise. The required statutory contribution is a small percentage of the Enterprise’s profits and thus would not contribute to the financial instability” of the two companies or to the other two bases for suspending the contributions pursuant to section 4567(b). (18, citations omitted) In sum, “the level of capitalization is solely a function of the policy decisions of the conservator not the cost of contributions to the Housing Trust Fund.” (22)

The big challenge that the plaintiffs face, as far as I can tell, is how they can convince the Court that the two companies are financially stable when they are still so deeply in debt to the federal government, notwithstanding the billions of dollars of profits that they two companies have remitted so far to the Treasury.

Fannie, Freddie & Affordable Housing

Posted on by

I was quoted in a Law360.com story, Affordable Housing May Trip Up Fannie, Freddie Fixes (behind a paywall).  It reads in part,

While the debate over housing finance reform in Washington has focused on the government’s role as market backstop, analysts say questions about federal funding for affordable housing add another potential pitfall for lawmakers looking to dismantle and replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie and Freddie long have been part of a broader government program to add to the country’s affordable housing stock. Republicans have been critical of that mission and targeted it as something that should be abolished along with the two mortgage giants, while Democrats want to keep programs promoting affordable housing in any reform of the housing finance system.

As the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate move forward with their own visions of a new system for financing home purchases, it is likely that those two perspectives on affordable housing promotion will clash, said Rick Lazio, a former four-term Republican member of Congress from New York.

“That will be a significant obstacle to getting an agreement,” said Lazio, now the chairman of Jones Walker LLP’s housing and housing finance industry team.

One of the main issues lawmakers will have to confront will be what to do with the National Housing Trust Fund, a program created by the 2008 Housing and Economic Recovery Act.

HERA required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to transfer a small percentage of the money from new business to the fund, which would then be used to subsidize the construction of rental housing for low-income families.

The fund’s inclusion in HERA was seen as a major victory for affordable housing advocates, but the benefits never materialized.

Soon after HERA passed, Fannie and Freddie were placed into conservatorship after mounting losses from exposure to subprime mortgages, and the two companies took a combined $187 billion bailout. The Federal Housing Finance Agency canceled all contributions to the fund.

Several housing advocacy groups have sued the FHFA to force the agency to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to resume their contributions now that the entities are generating profits and repaying the bailout money.

What seems more likely than getting the money the two companies were supposed to pay out is that the funds allocated to affordable housing will be shrunk under a new system, as envisioned by a Senate bill, or eliminated altogether, as proposed by a bill introduced by House Republicans.

“If it’s included at all, it will be smaller,” Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss said of affordable housing money.

Fannie/Freddie Take Down 3: Washington Federal v. The U.S. of A.

Posted on by

This should catch us up on the Fannie/Freddie preferred stock Takings litigation (see here and here for two other suits).  Washington Federal et al. v. United States was filed June 10, 2013 and is a class action complaint. The theories are pretty similar in the three cases. I had earlier written about the importance of narrative in these Takings cases. Having lived through this history myself and having read the “first draft” of history carefully in the pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and many trade periodicals, I am somewhat taken aback by this revisionist history. For instance, the complaint states that the companies were not “likely to incur losses that would deplete all or substantially all of” their capital. (38) News to me!

But what is most striking about the complaint is this notion that if the government had just taken this action (allowing the companies to buy more subprime mortgages) or not taken that action (strong arming the board to accept the conservatorship) or not deferring taking this other action (waiting to raise the guarantee fee), then everything would have worked out for the companies and their shareholders.  Maybe so, but it sure will be hard to categorize each of the government’s actions as either totally okay or completely inappropriate for the companies’ health in the context of the financial crisis. This leaves the plaintiffs with some tough work ahead. They are going to need to show a judge just how to categorize each of those facts and ensure that the categorization does not interfere with their theory of the case.

All of this raises a bigger, more interesting question. What role should these types of lawsuits play after a crisis has passed? Some would say that they are an outrage — second-guessing what are leaders did to avert financial ruin. Others might say that this is an efficient way to respond to crises: allow the government to do what it needs to do during the crisis, but use litigation to make an accounting to all of the stakeholders once the situation has stabilized. I don’t have a fully thought out view on this, but I am struck by the dangers of each approach. The first allows for various kinds of scapegoating (as Hank Greenberg argues in the AIG bailout litigation) while the second allows for the kind of revisionism that favors the wealthy and powerful (as with these Takings suits by powerful investors who bought Fannie and Freddie preferred shares on the cheap as a sort of long shot bet on what the two companies will look like going forward). Tough to choose between the two . . ..

The Taking of Fannie and Freddie 2

Posted on by

Today, I look at one more complaint filed in response to the federal government’s amendment to its Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with Fannie and Freddie (the PSPAs).  Cacciapelle et al. v. United States, filed July 10, 2013, is another takings clause case like the one filed by Fairholme the day before. The facts alleged in the complaint should be familiar to readers of REfinblog.com (here, here and here), although this is a class action complaint.

The plaintiffs state that the members of the class “paid valuable consideration to acquire these rights, and in doing so helped provide financial support for Fannie and Freddie, both before and after the conservatorship, by contributing to a viable market for Fannie’s and Freddie’s issued securities. Plaintiffs certainly had a reasonable, investment-backed expectation that the property they acquired could not be appropriated by the Government without payment of just compensation.” (4-5)

Now having read four complaints dealing with the same issue arising from the financial crisis, I am struck by the importance of narrative in litigation. Given that the federal government saved the Fannie and Freddie from certain financial ruin, we may label the Cacciapelle narrative the “Have Your Cake and Eat It Too” storyline.

One can well imagine the government’s version of events in its inevitable motion to dismiss.

Fannie and Freddie were at the brink of ruin.  We swept in, provided unlimited capital and rescued the companies, the housing market, the country and the world from the Second Great Depression.  To have the private preferred shareholders engage in Monday Morning Quarterbacking and focus on the details from the crisis response that harmed them, to have them ignore the competing concerns that were at stake for each of these critical decisions, adds insult to this injurious lawsuit.  Judge, do not succumb to this hindsight bias!

Let’s label this the Corialanus storyline.

These lawsuits have caught reporters’ eyes and will be well-covered in the press. I would look to see which narratives resonate and I wouldn’t be surprised if the dominant narrative finds its way into the judicial opinions that decide these cases.

Federal Government’s a Fairholme-weather Friend?

Posted on by

Following up on my posts (here and here) about other suits against the federal government over its amendment of the terms of the distribution of dividends and other payments by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I now look at Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al. v. FHFA et al., filed July 10, 2013.  The suit alleges very similar facts to those found in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, filed July 9, 2013, but the claims for relief are more similar to those found in Perry Capital, LLC v. Lew et al.

Here are some of the key claims made by the plaintiffs (owners of Fannie and Freddie preferred shares):

  • While the FHFA is the conservator of the two companies, it is acting acting like a receiver by “winding down” Fannie and Freddie’s “affairs and liquidating” their assets, while conservatorship should aim to return a company “to normal operation.” (15) The goal of the conservator, claim the plaintiffs, is to return the company “to a safe, sound and solvent condition.” (15, quoting Conservatorship and Receivership, 76 Fed. Reg. 35, 724, 35, 730(June 20, 2011)) As a result, plaintiffs argue that the Net Worth Sweep (which gives to the federal government substantially all of Fannie and Freddie’s profit) “is squarely contrary to FHFA’s statutory responsibilities as conservator of Fannie and Freddie” because it does not put them in “a sound and solvent condition” and it does not “conserve the assets and property” of the two companies. (25, quoting 12 U.S.C. section 4617(b)(2)(D))
  • “Neither Treasury nor FHFA made any public record of their decision-making processes in agreeing to the Net Worth Sweep.” (29) The plaintiffs argue that the FHFA’s “authority as conservator of” Fannie and Freddie “is strictly limited by statute.” (31, citing 12 U.S.C. section 4617(b)(2)(D)) As a result, the FHFA’s actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” (33, quoting the APA, 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A))
  • The plaintiffs’ relationship with Treasury as Fannie and Freddie’s controlling shareholders is governed by state corporate law and thus Treasury owes “fiduciary duties to minority shareholders.” (38)
  • “Implicit in every contract is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The implied covenant requires a party in a contractual relationship to refrain from arbitrary or unreasonable conduct which has the effect of preventing the other party to the contract from receiving the fruits of the bargain.” (41) Plaintiffs argue that their contractual rights pursuant to their preferred shares have been breached by FHFA’s consent to the Net Worth Sweep.

The validity of these claims should not be assessed superficially. The courts will need to read HERA in the context of the APA and the amendment to the terms of the government’s preferred shares in the context of the contractual obligations found in the private preferred shares. The court will also need to assess the extent to which state corporate law governs the actions of the federal government when it is acting in the multiple capacities of lender, investor, regulator and conservator.  Let the memoranda in support and in opposition to motions to dismiss come forth and enlighten us as to how it should all play out . . ..