Tag Archives: housing finance

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.

Reiss on Real Estate Cases To Watch In 2015

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in Real Estate Cases To Watch In 2015 (behind a paywall). It reads, in part,

As the real estate deals market has heated up, so have litigation dockets. And several cases with national or regional importance for developers and lenders on foreclosure practices, land use rights and housing finance reform are primed to see major developments in 2015, experts say.

A number of real estate cases wending their way through the court system – from state appeals courts to the U.S. Supreme Court – could affect how apartment owners, developers and lenders do business. And with the real estate market heating up, experts are also expecting a new wave of litigation to pop up in connection with an increasing pipeline of public-private partnership projects.

The cases are as varied as a high court suit that could throw open an avenue of Fair Housing Act litigation and a New Jersey matter that could give developers leverage to push forward on blocked projects. Here are a few cases and trends to watch in 2015:

*     *    *

Hedge fund Fairholme Capital Management LLC’s challenge to the government’s directing all the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac toward the U.S. Department of the Treasury has been closely watched for more than a year, and it is expected to come to a head in 2015.

The company alleges the government acted unconstitutionally when it altered its bailout deal for the government-sponsored enterprises to keep the companies’ profits for itself.

“If the plaintiffs win, it could have a dramatic impact on how housing finance reform plays out,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. “And even if they don’t win, the case can have a negative impact on housing finance reform if it casts a cloud over the whole project.”

Shareholders lost a related case in the D.C. district court, “but if they win the Fairholme case, things will get complicated,” Reiss said.

The case is Fairholme Funds Inc. v. U.S., case number 13-cv-00465, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Reforming Fannie & Freddie’s Multifamily Business

Posted on by

Mark Willis & Andrew Neidhardt’s article, Reforming the National Housing Finance System: What’s at Risk for the Multifamily Rental Market if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Go Away?, was recently published in a special issue of the NYU Journal of Law & Business. Most of the ink spilled about the reform of Fannie and Freddie addresses their single-family lines of business. The single-family business is much bigger, but the multifamily business is also an important part of what they do.

The author’s conclude that

Reform of the nation’s housing finance system needs to be careful not to disrupt unnecessarily the existing multifamily housing market. The near collapse of Fannie and Freddie’s single-family business over five years ago resulted in conservatorship and has spawned calls for their termination. While a general consensus has since emerged that Fannie and Freddie should be phased out over time, no consensus exists as to which, if any, of their functions need to be replaced in order to preserve the affordability and availability of housing in general, and multifamily rentals in particular.

On the multifamily side, Fannie and Freddie have built specialized units using financing models that involve private sector risk-sharing (i.e., DUS lender capital at risk or investors holding subordinate tranches of K-series securities) and that have resulted in low default rates and limited credit losses. These units have benefited from an implicit government guarantee of their corporate debt, which has expanded their access to capital and lowered its cost. As a result of the implicit guarantee, Fannie and Freddie have been able to: 1) offer longer term mortgages than generally available from banks, 2) provide countercyclical support to the rental market by funding new mortgages throughout the recent housing and economic downturn, and 3) ensure that the vast majority of the mortgages they fund offer rents affordable to households earning less than even 80% of area median income.

The potential for moral hazard can be reduced without disrupting the multifamily housing market simply by separating out and nationalizing the government guarantee It would then be possible to: 1) spin off the multifamily businesses of Fannie and Freddie into self-contained entities and 2) create an explicit government guarantee, offered by a government entity, and paid for through premiums on the insured MBS. The first step could happen now with FHFA authorization. These new subsidiaries could also begin to pay their respective holding companies for providing the guarantee on their MBS. The second step requires Congressional legislation. Once the public guarantor is up and running, the guarantee would be purchased from it and these subsidiaries could then be sold to private investors. As for other reforms that would explicitly restrict market access to the government guarantee, the best approach would be to first test the private sector’s appetite for risk on higher-end deals. (539-40)

This article has a lot to offer in terms of analyzing how Fannie and Freddie’s multifamily business is distinct from their single-family business. But I do not think that it fully makes the case that the multifamily sector suffers from some sort of market failure that requires so much government intervention as it advocates. I suspect that private capital could be put into a first loss position for much more of the lending in this sector. The government could continue to support the low- and moderate-income rental market without being on the hook for the rest of the multifamily market.

GSE Shareholder Litigation Issue

Posted on by

The NYU Journal of Law & Business has posted a special issue devoted to the GSE shareholder litigation. Here are the links for the the individual articles:

The Government Takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Upending Capital Markets with Lax Business and Constitutional Standards
Richard A. Epstein
The Fannie and Freddie Bailouts Through the Corporate Lens
Adam B. Badawi & Anthony J. Casey
An Overview of the Fannie and Freddie Conservatorship Litigation
Davis Reiss
Back to the Future: Returning to Private-Sector Residential Mortgage Finance
Lawrence J. White
Reforming the National Housing Finance System: What’s at Risk for the Multifamily Rental Market if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Go Away?
Mark Willis & Andrew Neidhardt

I have blogged about drafts of some of the articles here (Epstein), here (Badawi and Casey) and here (my contribution) and I may very well blog about the rest of them over the next few weeks. Given the nature of legal scholarship, these articles were written well before many of this year’s developments in the GSE shareholder litigations (such as Judge Lamberth’s ruling in the District Court for the District of Columbia case).  Nonetheless, these articles have a lot to offer in terms of understanding the broader issues at stake in the ongoing litigation (the first three articles) and in terms of reform efforts going forward (the last two articles).

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.

FHA’s Financial Health Looking Up

Posted on by

HUD has released the Annual Report to Congress Regarding the Financial Status of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund Fiscal Year 2014. It appears that things are looking up for the FHA, particularly after last year’s mandatory appropriation from the Treasury, the first in the FHA’s 80 year history. For those of you who are not housing finance nerds, the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) is the financial backbone of the FHA’s single-family mortgage insurance program.  When it is in bad shape, the FHA is in bad shape.

As Secretary Castro notes in his forward to the report,

The value of the Fund has improved significantly, now standing at $4.8 billion. The increased economic value represents a capital reserve ratio of 0.41. This improvement shows tremendous progress, especially considering that the Fund had a negative value of $16.3 billion just two years ago. The two-year gain in Fund value is an impressive $21 billion. The performance of the portfolio has improved dramatically in a short period of time. Foreclosures are down 68 percent since the height of the crisis and recoveries to the Fund have improved 68 percent from their lowest level–saving billions of dollars. While FHA must still respond to challenges presented by legacy books and market volatility, the independent actuary’s report demonstrates that FHA is firmly on the right track and is projected to continue improving. (1)
The MMIF is supposed to have a capital reserve ratio of 2 percent, so the FHA is still quite a bit away from receiving a clean bill of health. But according to projections, it should achieve that level in 2016 and then continue to improve from there. (35, Ex. II-3)
While this is all pretty abstract, there are some pretty concrete aspects to the health of the MMIF. The size of FHA premiums, paid by homeowners borrowing FHA-insured mortgages, is set in the context of the health of the MMIF because the FHA is a self-funded government agency. So low reserves means that it is harder to cut premiums. Higher FHA premiums mean that  mortgages are more expensive for the low- and moderate income borrowers who make up a large part of the FHA’s book of business. So the health of the MMIF is an indicator of sorts of the health of the housing market overall.

Reiss on Privatization of Fannie and Freddie

Posted on by

BadCredit.org profiled an article of mine in Brooklaw Professor Pushes for Privatization of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. The profile opens,

Since the end of the Great Recession, policymakers, academics and economists have been struggling with a very difficult question — what should we do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Should the government continue its role in providing mortgage credit to millions of American?

Fordham University Associate Professor of Law and Ethics Brent J. Horton made a proposal in his forthcoming paper “For the Protection of Investors and the Public: Why Fannie Mae’s Mortgage-Backed Securities Should Be Subject to the Disclosure Requirements of the Securities Act of 1933“:

“The best way to reduce risk taking at Fannie Mae is to subject its MBS offerings to the disclosure requirements of the Securities Act of 1933,” Horton writes.

However, Brooklyn Law School Professor of Law David Reiss believes “the problems inherent in Fannie Mae’s structure are greater than those that increased disclosure can address.”

In his response, titled “Who Should Be Providing Mortgage Credit to American Households?” Reiss points to increased privatization as one way to address the question of what to do with Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac.