Tag Archives: freddie

The Second Frannie Bailout: Who Could’ve Known?

Posted on by

There is a good chance that five or so years from now, Fannie and Freddie will be in the midst of another bailout. This next crisis will be directly caused by the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government. But members of those branches will say, “Nobody could have known that this crisis was going to happen, nobody is at fault.” That won’t be true, but nobody will be punished in any case. That’s because the crisis will result from inaction, that most fearsome of government flaws.

Who is the Cassandra, warning us of this impending crisis? None other than Donald Layton, the CEO of Freddie. You may think that he is speaking merely from self-interest and you would probably be right. But his self-interest happens to align with the truth in this matter.

In a letter to FHFA Director Watt, Layton writes:

the ability of Freddie Mac to continue to support the mortgage markets and the U.S. economy duling an unprecedentedly lengthy transition period should be one of the most important objectives of a housing finance reform proposal, such as the Johnson-Crapo Bill. The existing Bill draft does not focus on this issue and so, in my personal but experienced opinion, leaves the risk of a failure in Freddie Mac’ss Core Policy Function unacceptably high. With certain specific changes, none of which alter the fundamental nature of the future state envisioned or even the key aspects of the transition, l believe this risk can be reduced, although it would still remain high. (7)

Layton highlights the extraordinary complexity of Freddie’s activities in an appendix to the letter. The highlights include the fact that Freddie Mac guarantees  “about  17% of all U.S. mortgage debt outstanding;” 1,400 Servicers and 2,000 Sellers work with Freddie; and Freddie manages 44,600 REO properties. (8)

Layton states that “It goes without saying that Freddie Mac cannot deliver upon its Core Policy Function, its support of the transition to a future state, or its support of Conservatorship initiatives without experienced and knowledgeable people in place at the executive level, at the Subject matter expert level and at the “been-here-a-long-time-to-know-how-everything-works level.” (3) He believes that departures are likely to cripple the company as experienced staff move on to other, more stable opportunities, leaving behind the quagmire that life in a GSE has become.

The Executive and Legislative branches are not really moving toward some kind of resolution of the Fannie and Freddie conservatorships, although we are now five years past the initial crisis. There is a good chance that the federal government will not move us to the next phase of housing finance in the next couple of years. Operations at the two GSEs will thus continue to suffer and will likely build up to a new crisis. And it will be a totally predictable crisis.

I am the kind of person who likes to say, “I told you so.” But the stakes here are so humungous and so important for the health of the economy, that I could take no pleasure in saying I told you in 2014 that our entire housing finance edifice was going to crumble a second time in a decade. But it will, if nothing is done to prevent it today.

Stressing out on Fannie and Freddie

Posted on by

The Federal Housing Finance Agency issued Projections of the Enterprises’ Financial Performance (Stress Tests) (Apr. 30, 2014). This is a pretty technical, but important, document. The Background section provides some needed context:

This report provides updated information on possible ranges of future financial results of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “Enterprises”) under specified scenarios, using consistent economic conditions for both Enterprises.

*     *     *

. . . the Dodd-Frank Act requires certain financial companies with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion, and which are regulated by a primary Federal financial regulatory agency, to conduct annual stress tests to determine whether the companies have the capital necessary to absorb losses as a result of adverse economic conditions. This year is the initial implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests.

In addition to stress tests required per the Dodd-Frank Act, this year as in previous years, FHFA worked with the Enterprises to develop forward-looking financial projections across three possible house price paths (the “FHFA scenarios”). The Enterprises were required to conduct the FHFA scenarios as they have in the past, in conjunction with the initial implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests.

*     *     *

The projections reported here are not expected outcomes. They are modeled projections in response to “what if” exercises based on assumptions about Enterprise operations, loan performance, macroeconomic and financial market conditions, and house prices. The projections do not define the full range of possible outcomes. Actual outcomes may be very different. (4, emphasis in the original)

 The stress test results are as follows:

Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests Severely Adverse Scenario

  • As of September 30, 2013, the Enterprises have drawn $187.5 billion from the U.S. Treasury under the terms of the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (the “PSPAs”).
  • The combined remaining funding commitment under the PSPAs as of September 30, 2013 was $258.1 billion.
  • In the Severely Adverse scenario, incremental Treasury Draws range between $84.4 billion and $190.0 billion depending on the treatment of deferred tax assets.
  • The remaining funding commitment under the PSPAs ranges between $173.7 billion and $68.0 billion. (3)

FHFA Scenarios

  • In the FHFA scenarios, cumulative, combined Treasury draws at the end of 2015 remain unchanged at $187.5 billion as neither Enterprise requires additional Treasury draws in any of the three scenarios.
  • The combined remaining commitment under the PSPAs is unchanged at $258.1 billion.
  • In the three scenarios the Enterprises pay additional senior preferred dividends to the US Treasury ranging between $54.0 billion to $36.3 billion. (3)

There are a number of important points to keep in mind when reviewing this report. First, it addresses just four scenarios out of the the multitude of possible ones. But hopefully the Severely Adverse Scenario gives us a sense of the outer limits of what a crisis could do to the Enterprises and the taxpayers who backstop them.

Second, the report is another corrective to arguments that the federal government’s bailout of the Enterprises can be measured by the amount of money that they actually advanced to the two companies, as opposed to a measure that also accounts for the additional amount that the federal government is committed to provide them if their financial situation takes a turn for the worse.

Finally, as I have noted before, there is an important political battle for control of the narrative of the bailout of the Enterprises. The only narrative during the crisis itself was that the federal government bailed out the two companies because they were insolvent. Revisionist histories, put forward in the main by private shareholders of the two Enterprises, challenge that narrative. The shareholders put forth another version of history: the federal government effectively stole  solvent, viable Fannie and Freddie from them. It will be important for objective third parties to document the truth about this in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. From my understanding of the facts, however, it is clear that the two companies were as good as dead when the federal government put them into conservatorship in 2008 and started advancing them tens of billions of dollars year after year until their fortunes turned around in 2012.

Reiss on Hedge Funds’ GSE Strategy

Posted on by

American Banker quoted me in Everything Lenders Need to Know About GSE Shareholders’ Lawsuits (behind a paywall, but available in full here). It reads in part,

A powerful group of shareholders is amplifying attacks on housing finance reform legislation as they await resolution of a major legal battle, attempting to slow momentum on the bill before it likely passes the Senate Banking Committee.

Several big hedge funds that stand to possibly win billions of dollars for their shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are leading the charge, both in federal court and in the court of public opinion.

New investors’ rights groups said to be backed by the funds have popped up in recent weeks attacking legislation by Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Mike Crapo, the panel’s top Republican.

Their presence is yet another complicating factor in the tumult ahead of a scheduled April 29 vote by the committee, potentially hurting efforts to secure additional support for the measure.

“Now that different people have come out with their bills, it’s been laid bare that the people working on [government-sponsored enterprise] reform aren’t going to do major favors for the shareholders,” said Jeb Mason, a managing director at Cypress Group. “As a result, the shareholders have adjusted their strategy to muddy the waters – and, if they can, kill the Johnson-Crapo bill.”

*     *     *

As part of their effort, investors have begun taking their concerns public through new tax-exempt groups in Washington. The investors argue they were on the receiving end of a rotten deal from the government, particularly those that bought the stocks before the enterprises were put into conservatorship.

“The hedge funds have this incredibly sophisticated, multi-pronged strategy – lawsuits, legislation, academics on the payroll, funding anonymous PR campaigns, offering to buy the companies. They’re coming at it from all angles,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

*     *     *

Given the size and complexity of the cases, it’s likely to take years before the matter is resolved entirely. Analysts have suggested that if both sides continue to push the issue, it could even rise up to the Supreme Court over the next several years.

“You’re talking about many-year or potentially, decades-long lawsuits,” said Reiss. “The stakes are humongous and the parties are incredibly sophisticated and well financed. The government parties’ incentives to settle are not the same as a private party – I could imagine them seeing this all the way through.”

Open Season on Homeowners

Posted on by

A case coming out of California, Peng v. Chase Home Finance LLC et al., No. B245436 (California Courts of Appeal Second App. Dist., Div. 8, April 8th, 2014, has attracted a lot of attention in the blogosphere. This is particularly notable because this case is not to be published in the official reports and thus has no precedential value. Judge Rubin’s dissent has attracted much of the attention. It opens,

The promissory note signed by appellants Jeffry and Grace Peng obligated them to repay their home loan. In August 2007, Freddie Mac acquired the promissory note from Chase. Based on Freddie Mac owning the note, appellants seek to amend their complaint to allege Chase did not have authority to enforce the promissory note or to foreclose on their home, but the majority rejects appellants’ proposed amendment. Relying on case law rebuffing a homeowner’s challenge to a creditor-beneficiary’s authority to foreclose, the majority notes that courts have traditionally reasoned that the homeowner’s challenge is futile because, even if successful, the homeowner “merely substitute[s] one creditor for another, without changing [the homeowner’s] obligations under the note.” (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 271.) The only party prejudiced by an illegitimate creditor-beneficiary’s enforcement of the homeowner’s debt, courts have reasoned, is the bona fide creditor-beneficiary, not the homeowner.

Such reasoning troubles me. I wonder whether the law would apply the same reasoning if we were dealing with debtors other than homeowners. I wonder how most of us would react if, for example, a third-party purporting to act for one’s credit card company knocked on one’s door, demanding we pay our credit card’s monthly statement to the third party. Could we insist that the third party prove it owned our credit card debt? By the reasoning of Fontenot and similar cases, we could not because, after all, we owe the debt to someone, and the only truly aggrieved party if we paid the wrong party would, according to those cases, be our credit card company. I doubt anyone would stand for such a thing. (Dissent, 1)

The dissent’s concern is justified. As Professor Whitman has recently noted on the Dirt Listserv and elsewhere, it is a “bizarre notion that anyone can foreclose a mortgage without showing that they have the right to enforce the note.” He also notes that the majority (and even the dissent) in Peng confuse ownership of the note with the right to enforce it. Until courts fully understand how the UCC governs the enforcement of notes, one should worry that some state court judges might declare an open season on homeowners as the majority does here in Peng.

Inside Johnson-Crapo

Posted on by

Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. has posted Inside Johnson-Crapo: What the Senate Housing Finance Reform Bill Could Mean for Low- and Moderate-income Communities. Parsing the various Congressional proposals for housing finance reform is hard enough for an expert, let alone for an interested observer. This policy brief provides a helpful overview of the proposal that is setting the terms for the debate today, with a focus on low- and moderate-income homeownership. Its key findings include:

  • The bill, called the Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2014 or S. 1217, lays a clear and thoughtful path forward for the nation’s housing finance system, including the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  • A new federal agency, modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, would oversee the entire secondary mortgage market and establish a new system of government-insured mortgage-backed securities (MBS). In exchange for a fee, the agency would provide limited insurance against catastrophic losses on qualifying securities issued by private companies. Investors in the private companies would need to incur significant losses before the insurance pays out to holders of the MBS. The bill also winds down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that were placed under government conservatorship in 2008.
  • The bill includes several provisions to ensure that the new system adequately serves low- and moderate-income communities. First, it requires any issuer of government-insured securities to serve all eligible single-family and multifamily mortgages. Second, it preserves the GSEs’ current businesses for financing rental housing, while ensuring that those businesses continue to support apartments that are affordable to low-income families. Third, it requires issuers to contribute funding to programs that support the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Finally, it creates new market-based incentives to serve traditionally underserved segments of the housing market.
  • Enterprise strongly supports the direction laid out in this bill and appreciates the inclusion of important multifamily provisions. At the same time, we suggest several proposals to further strengthen the bill. Among other things, we recommend that lawmakers promote a level playing field among eligible risk-sharing models; authorize the federal regulator to enforce the bill’s “equitable access” rule; expand the scope of the affordable housing fee; simplify the incentives for supporting underserved market segments; and establish separate insurance funds for single-family and multifamily securities. (1)

The left has criticized Johnson-Crapo for not doing enough for low- and moderate-income homeownership. The right has criticized it for leaving too much risk with the taxpayer. But it seems that a broad center finds that the outline provided by the bill provides a way forward from the zombie-state housing finance finds itself in, with a Fannie and Freddie neither fully alive nor fully dead. Nobody seems to think that a bill will pass this year. But hopefully Congress will keep attending to this issue and we can soon see a resurrected housing finance system, one that can take us through much of the 21st Century just as Fannie and Freddie got us through the 20th.

 

Reiss on BoA-FHFA Settlement

Posted on by

Inside The GSEs quoted me in BofA MBS Lawsuit Settlement Shrinks List of FHFA Defendants (behind a paywall). It reads,

It’s only a matter of time before the remaining big bank defendants settle lawsuits filed by the Federal Housing Finance Agency over billions in non-agency mortgage-backed securities sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the years leading up to the housing crisis, predicts a legal expert.

Last week, Bank of America agreed to a $9.3 billion settlement that covers its own dealings as well as those of Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch, which it acquired in 2008. The agreement covers some $57 billion of MBS issued or underwritten by these firms.

BofA did not admit liability or wrongdoing but it will pay $5.8 billion in cash to Fannie and Freddie and repurchase about $3.5 billion in residential MBS at market value. In return, FHFA’s lawsuits against the bank will be dismissed with prejudice.

The FHFA said it is working to resolve the remaining lawsuits regarding non-agency MBS purchased by the GSEs between 2005 and 2007. The suits involve alleged violations of federal and state securities laws and allegations of common law fraud. One week earlier, the Finance Agency announced that Credit Suisse Group had agreed to pay $885 million to settle a similar lawsuit.

Under the terms of that agreement, Credit Suisse will pay approximately $234 million to Fannie and approximately $651 million to Freddie. In exchange, certain claims against Credit Suisse related to the securities involved will be released.

So far, the FHFA’s lawsuits have recovered $19.5 billion in total payments. Expect more where that came from, said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

“Every case is different and each institution has a different risk profile in terms of litigation strategy,” said Reiss. “The BofA settlement is so high profile because it’s Countrywide. It gives a lodestar when trying to figure out how low [defendants] can go in a settlement offer.”

Prior to the BofA deal, the FHFA had collected $8.9 billion in prior settlements. The Morgan Stanley settlement is the fourth largest of those settlements, behind Deutsche Bank, which agreed to pay $1.93 billion in December, and JPMorgan Chase, which reached a $4 billion settlement in October.

The bank defendants have repeatedly tried and failed to dismiss the FHFA suits on procedural grounds, including a claim that the cases were no longer timely.

In October, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the banks, prompting the expectation in legal circles that few, if any, of the remaining cases will ever go to trial.

“I don’t think that if you are a [big bank] defendant, that you see a particularly favorable judiciary,” said Reiss. “You see that the government is able to reach deals with companies in front of you and I think you’re thinking about settling.”

Entities that have yet to settle non-agency MBS claims with the FHFA include Barclays Bank, First Horizon National Corp., Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Nomura Holding America and the Royal Bank of Scotland.

GSE Litigation Through Corporate Law Lens

Posted on by

Adam Badawi and Anthony Casey have posted The Fannie and Freddie Bailouts Through the Corporate Lens to SSRN. The paper takes a look at the bailouts as if they were simple insolvent private firms. This is a helpful thought experiment even though the two federally chartered and heavily regulated firms are anything but simple, private firms. They write that while it is politically controversial to wipe out the shareholder equity in the two firms, doing so

is consistent with what often happens to stockholders of distressed companies. Indeed that is the more likely outcome when a corporation is sold or reorganized under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. There remains little doubt that the Entities [Fannie and Freddie] were highly distressed at the time of the PSPAs [Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements] and Amendments [to the PSPAs]. Thus, while procedurally suspect, these actions did not substantively violate the norms of corporate law and finance that would apply to private companies in the same position. To the contrary, in the private context there may have been no action available that would have legally allocated any future interest in the Entities to the (junior) preferred and common shareholders. (1, footnotes omitted)

They add, that in “the private context, there would have been pressure to file for bankruptcy to liquidate the assets and eliminate the risk to creditors. And once in bankruptcy, the directors would have been entirely barred from taking actions to benefit equity at the expense of creditors.” (3) And they conclude that “the substance of Treasury’s and the Entities’ actions – in September 2008 and August 2012 – were generally in line with acceptable actions of creditors and debtors involved in restructuring distressed corporations in Chapter 11 bankruptcy or in out-of-court reorganizations.” (3-4)

I could excerpt selection after selection, but instead, I recommend that you read this interesting paper for yourself!