Tag Archives: Trump Administration

The FHFA’s @Pulte Acts on X Alone

Posted on by
Reply

Adam Fagen Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Business Insider quoted me in Mortgage Regulator Bill Pulte Has Posted at Least 13 Agency Orders on His Personal X Account (behind a paywall). The story reads, in part,

Until he became the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and a warrior in President Trump’s fight with the Federal Reserve, Bill Pulte was mostly known for posting on X. Under the handle @pulte, the businessman frequently sent groceries and gas money to people in need.

In his governmental role, which he assumed in March, Pulte has continued to use X as a megaphone. Over the last six months, he has posted at least 13 official orders on his personal account — and they don’t appear to be posted publicly anywhere else.

The practice is unusual for the head of an agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two housing-finance companies under federal conservatorship central to the $21 trillion residential mortgage market.

*    *     *

“This is very abnormal,” said David Reiss, a law professor at Cornell University who focuses on housing policy and real-estate finance. “I don’t know what a court would do if someone sued based on an order that he only posted on X.” He added by email that impacted parties might argue that carrying out official acts by an X post doesn’t comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The FHFA did not respond to questions about Pulte’s posts. Pulte didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Bullying the Fed

Posted on by

Fed Chair Jerome Powell

Central Banking quoted me in Economists Denounce Trump’s ‘Bullying’ of Fed Chair (sign up required). It opens,

Economists have attacked what they regard as US president Donald Trump’s bullying of Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, describing it as dangerous for the central bank’s continued independence.

On June 30, Trump posted on his social media platform a copy of a handwritten letter to Powell showing interest rates around the world. In the letter, Trump had written: “Jerome, you are as usual, too late. You have cost the USA a fortune, and continue to do so. You should lower the rate by a lot. Hundreds of billions of dollars being lost. No inflation.”

Along with the note, Trump posted that “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell, and his entire Board, should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen to the United States. They have one of the easiest, yet most prestigious, jobs in America, and they have FAILED — And continue to do so”.

He added: “If they were doing their job properly, our Country would be saving Trillions of Dollars in Interest Cost. The Board just sits there and watches, so they are equally to blame. We should be paying 1% Interest, or better!”

On July 1, Powell said the Fed would probably have lowered rates already had it not been for the tariffs and trade policies introduced by the Trump administration.

Ralf Fendel, professor of economics at WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management in Germany, says Trump’s note bears all the hallmarks of political interference.

“Handwritten personal correspondence is traditionally reserved for heartfelt gratitude or strategic diplomacy, but not for exerting pressure on an independent central bank,” he tells Central Banking. “In resisting such pressure, Mr Powell is upholding the Fed’s institutional credibility and responding appropriately to a macroeconomic environment clouded by trade policy uncertainty and various economic risks.”

Fendel adds that Fed decisions must be guided by economic data and not the demands of the White House.

William English – professor of economics at Yale University, and a former director of the Fed’s monetary affairs division and secretary to the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) – says that having a president who is so publicly critical makes the Fed’s job more complicated. “But they have their mandate and will do their best to achieve that,” he says. “We’ll see how it goes!”

Francesco Bianchi, professor of economics and department chair at Johns Hopkins University, says the most recent remarks by Trump represent a turn for the worse.

“Such a confrontational stance cannot be good for central bank independence,” he says. “Powell probably feels that he needs to push back against the pressure and that he has a bit more freedom given that his second term is coming to an end.”

Fed historian Robert Hetzel adds that Trump appears to want to return to a time when the central bank was subservient to the US Treasury.

David Reiss, professor of law at Cornell University, says there is an extensive history of presidents “jawboning” the Fed chair to lower rates. However, he says central banks work better when “insulated from the political exigencies of political leaders”.

“Paradoxically, bullying the central bank can lead to interest rates increasing, as markets demand a higher risk premium as trust in the central bank’s decision-making decreases,” he says. He also concurs with Powell’s assessment that tariffs are inflationary through many channels.

Fannie, Freddie and Trump

Posted on by
Profile picture for William J. Pulte

FHFA Director Bill Pulte

Central Banking quoted me in Fannie, Freddie . . . and Donald. It reads, in part,

IIn a client note on May 13, investment management firm Pimco said any privatisation of Fannie and Freddie would be a solution in search of a problem.

“If the GSEs are released but the government remains accountable to come to their rescue, wouldn’t taxpayers ultimately be the biggest loser, once again, by seeing GSE gains privatised but losses socialised?” it said, adding: “Don’t fix what’s not broken.”

David Reiss, professor at Cornell Law School, says Pimco’s view reflects the fact that the mortgage market has been functioning “pretty smoothly” since Fannie and Freddie were nationalised. According to this viewpoint, there is “no need to release them from conservatorship”.

However, Reiss says he does not like to see so much power and influence concentrated in the GSEs, and he believes the private sector would do a better job of evaluating credit risk.

“Some people – mostly investors in Fannie and Freddie securities – think [privatisation] is the right thing to do because the conservatorships were supposed to be temporary and the companies should be returned to private control and investors should be able to get some kind of return on their investments,” he says.

Reiss adds that some members of the Trump administration think privatisation would generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that could be used to help pay down the national debt, offset tax cuts and seed a sovereign wealth fund.

Joe Tracy, senior fellow with think-tank the American Enterprise Institute and a former official with the Federal Reserve banks of New York and Dallas, agrees with Reiss. “The problem is that they are in conservatorship limbo, so the government has effectively nationalised a large segment of mortgage finance,” he says. “This should be carried out by the private sector.”

    *     *     *

Lawrence White, professor at New York University and co-author of Guaranteed to Fail: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Debacle of Mortgage Finance, says the GSEs are unlikely to become boring unless they are broken down. He believes that if Fannie and Freddie are privatised in their current form, each enterprise will be likely to pose a systemic risk from a financial stability perspective.

“The implication is that their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency [FHFAI, will need to have strong powers of examination and supervision and will need to impose substantial, risk-adjusted capital requirements,” he says.

“It is unclear whether there will be implications for the Fed as lender of last resort, since the Fed’s lending function is currently limited to banks.”

Reiss agrees that the two lenders are systemically important. If they “had to significantly scale back their lending, it would likely cause a crisis in the financial markets”, he says. “If that crisis were not quickly addressed it would cause a crisis in the real economy as well, freezing up credit for new construction and resales.”

Given that the two GSEs issue more than 70% of the outstanding $9 trillion of mortgage-backed securities in the US and, if privatised, would be two of the country’s largest publicly traded companies, the financial stability risks are clear, he says.

Reiss adds that if the privatisations were poorly planned, and if this were priced in by the markets, it would lead to “higher mortgage rates, with all of the knock-on effects that would have”. This, he says, would “increase the magnitude of a financial crisis if the two companies were to report poor financial results down the line”

Reiss’s interpretation of the Fed’s role is different to that of White, and he believes history may end up repeating itself. He says that although the FHFA is Fannie and Freddie’s primary regulator, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 requires the Fed to be consulted about any federal government processes related to the companies.

“The Fed may also co-ordinate with other parts of the federal government in responding to a financial crisis, such as purchasing Fannie and Freddie securities, as they did during the financial crisis of 2007-08,” he says. “One could well imagine the Fed playing a similar role in future crises involving Fannie and Freddie.

What Happens if Fannie and Freddie Go Private?

Posted on by
Photo by <a href="https://stockcake.com/i/burglar-at-night_1027750_1000871">Stockcake</a>

AI Generated from StockCake

I was quoted in Fintech Nexus’ Home Invasion: What Happens if Fannie and Freddie Go Private. It reads, in part,

The Trump Administration has telegraphed significant changes to GSE mortgage lenders — with massive implications for the industry

Since his swearing in on March 14 as the fifth Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), construction mogul William J. Pulte has executed major policy and personnel changes. Among other moves, Pulte has named himself board chair of the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, removed 14 of the GSEs’ 25 sitting board members, fired most of the companies’ audit boards, generally slashed headcount, and rescinded several Biden-era oversight-related advisory bulletins.

According to Professor David Reiss of Cornell Law School, a scholar of real estate finance and housing policy, Pulte’s simultaneous leadership of the FHFA in addition to roles at the GSEs, which have been under federal conservatorship since the 2008 financial crisis, is not normal.

“The whole point of regulation is you have somebody who’s overseeing an industry,” he told Fintech Nexus. “This is like the left hand [knowing] what the right hand is doing: You’re overseeing yourself, so it’s … kind of inconsistent with the notion of a supervisory regulator.”

Fintech Nexus contacted the FHFA, requesting that it comment on the impetus behind Pulte’s simultaneous self-appointments to Fannie and Freddie. The FHFA did not respond.

*     *    *

CAPITAL IDEAS

One idea percolating is for the Trump Administration to use Fannie and Freddie as a pool of capital to inject into a sovereign wealth fund. An op-ed in the Financial Times by Stifel CEO Ronald Kruszewski suggested this reconfiguration could provide “continued government backing,” “stabilize investor confidence,” and “pave the way for a $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund by 2040.”

However, in a letter to the editor in the Financial Times, Dini Ajmani, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, suggested the idea would fail, as any privatization of the GSEs would require proper capitalization, taxpayer compensation, and adequate confidence of securities investors.

“I believe the difficulty in meeting all three conditions is why [the] status quo has persisted,” Ajmani told Fintech Nexus. “To build capital, Fannie/Freddie must retain earnings, which means the taxpayer is not compensated. If the taxpayer is compensated through dividend payments, private capital will be uninterested because the agencies will be undercapitalized.”

To this end, FHFA Director Pulte may continue to atrophy many forms of GSE oversight as a way to prime the pump: Pre-empting congressional activity by deregulating Fannie and Freddie can accelerate their transition toward open-market frameworks.

The Trump Administration may see it as its only viable short-term  avenue, as many members of Congress are uninterested in bringing Fannie and Freddie out of conservatorship; Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, called the move “Great for billionaires, terrible for hardworking people.”

Should the Trump Administration succeed in its quest, we may see states attempting to fill in the gaps on regulatory accountability, rhyming with blue-state attorneys-general’s litigiousness in the wake of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s de-clawing, though this is unlikely.

“State regulators do not generally play a role similar to the two companies (except to some small extent state Housing Finance Agencies),” Reiss of Cornell Law School said. “I could imagine state agencies trying to increase consumer protection for mortgage borrowers, if the federal regulatory environment changes, but we would have to see how that plays out to understand how the states would respond.”

Trump’s Plans to Privatize Fannie and Freddie

Posted on by
from Cato Institute website, https://www.cato.org/people/mark-calabria

Mark Calabria, OMB Associate Director for Treasury, Housing, and Commerce

I was interviewed on  WBUR-FM’s On Point (distributed by American Public Radio), hosted by Meghna Chakrabarti for an episode on How Trump Plans To Get Government out of the Mortgage Business. The link has the recording of the show as well as a transcript.

The transcript of the interview starts,

CHAKRABARTI: Now that President Trump is back in the White House, it seems that he intends to get the job done this time around. Mark Calabria has returned to Trump’s administration, this time working on housing policy at the Office of Management and Budget. Bill Pulte is now director of FHFA, and he just made the highly unusual move of appointing himself chair of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, making the regulator and the regulated basically the same.

Pulte also fired 14 of the 25 sitting board members at Fannie and Freddie. A shakeup many are suspecting is a first step in leading these two companies out of government control and into privatization. We’re talking about a huge part of the U.S. economy that underpins the housing market. So this hour, we want to explore what privatization of Fannie and Freddie actually means, what it should look like, and how it might have an impact on homeowners and the housing market.

So to do that, David Reiss joins us. He’s a clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and Cornell Tech, an expert in housing finance and policy. Professor Reiss, welcome to On Point.

DAVID REISS: Meghna, thank you so much.

CHAKRABARTI: I have to tell you that I actually can’t believe that it’s been 17 years since the financial crisis of 2008.

Let’s dust off the memory banks professor and go back to before 2008 and start there. Can you just remind us like what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, what their purpose was, who owned them, et cetera?

REISS: I’m gonna go even a little bit further back than Fannie and Freddie’s creation, because I think it’s really gonna help people visualize what’s at stake here.

And if you think back to the 19th century and somebody was trying to buy a house, they didn’t have that many options. A house has always been a very expensive thing to buy, so they need to borrow some money to buy a house. And how could you do that?

Maybe if you’re rich, you could do it, or had a rich uncle, but otherwise you need to go to somebody who has capital and that you could borrow it and give them some interest in return. And pay them back over time, and be able to live in that house while you’re paying back the amount of money that you borrowed. And so if people think of It’s a Wonderful Life where there’s the Bailey Brothers building in loans and where they, people deposit their small savings into the buildings and loan.

And then some people are then able to borrow some money from the buildings and loan for mortgages. And there’s the famous scene where there’s a panic at the bank. And Jimmy Stewart says, Mrs. Kennedy, your money is in Mrs. Smith’s house. And Mrs. Smith, your money is in Ms. Macklin’s house.

And that’s the way it was done in the 19th century and the early 20th century. But there were real limitations to that. Sometimes communities didn’t have a lot of capital to lend people, so maybe in out west or in the Midwest there wasn’t a lot of capital, like there might’ve been back east in Boston or New York.

And so people who could have handled the mortgage just didn’t have access to it. It was like they were living in a dry area, and the fresh flowing credit didn’t reach their dry community. So during the Great Depression and the New Deal the government started to intervene, to spread credit out across the country in a way that kind of provided liquidity to all the communities where people wanted to borrow.

And Fannie Mae was a creature of the New Deal, but really took off in the ’70s along with its sibling Freddie Mac. And effectively, what those two companies were designed by Congress to do was to ensure that capital could go across state borders in a way that banks were typically not allowed to do. And they effectively created at first a national market for mortgage credit, and effectively when they access the global credit markets over time, an international global market for credit. So they’re really intermediaries.

The Brewing Constitutional Crisis

Posted on by

Benjamin Franklin bust by Jean-Antoine Houdon

437 law professors (myself included) from across the country have signed the following statement to call attention to the constitutional crisis that the nation is now facing.

A CALL TO URGENCY

The opening weeks of the second Trump administration convince us, as law professors who have spent years studying the American legal system, that we are beginning to see unfold the gravest threat to the rule of law and its constituent principles – the separation of governmental powers, the independence of prosecutorial authority, the inviolability of human rights, the transparency of government action, and the sanctity of constitutional accountability itself – ever presented in our lifetimes. The president’s and his associates’ actions, and threats of action, profoundly undermine the bedrock principle of our federal government system – that the Chief Executive and his agents are constrained by the United States Constitution. The fundamental guardrails of our constitutional democracy itself are threatened and notably battered. They are, as we write, at risk of complete collapse.

We recall that Benjamin Franklin warned, when asked by Elizabeth Willing Powell whether he and his colleagues had delivered “a republic or a monarchy,” that we have “a republic” but only “if you can keep it.” We hope that all Americans, and especially all lawyers, will recognize the gravity of this situation and will be prepared to answer that challenge with the urgency required in the days, weeks, and months ahead.

You can find the current list of signatories here.

Hope for GSE Shareholders

Posted on by

Judge Lamberth issued an opinion in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. FHFA (Civ. No.13-1439) (Sept. 28, 2018) that gives some hope to the private shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These shareholders have been on the losing end of nearly every case brought against the government relating to its handling of the conservatorships of the two companies.  Readers of this blog know that I have long been a skeptic of the shareholders’ claims because of the broad powers granted the government by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, passed during the height of the financial crisis, as well as the highly regulated environment in which the two companies operate. This highly regulated environment means that GSE profits are driven by regulatory decisions much more than those of other financial institutions. As such, Fannie and Freddie live and die by the sword of government intervention in the mortgage market.

Judge Lamberth had dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety, but was reversed in part on appeal. In this case, he revisits the issues arising from the reversal of his earlier dismissal. Once again, Judge Lamberth dismisses a number of the plaintiffs’ claims, but he finds that that their claim that the government breached the duty of good faith survives.

The opinion gives a road map that shareholders can follow to success. The judge identifies allegations that, if true, would be a sufficient factual basis for a holding that the government breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It is plausible that the preponderance of proof may support these allegations. Some evidence has already come to light that indicates that at least some government actors had good reason to believe that Fannie and Freddie were on the cusp of sustained profitability when the government implemented the net worth sweep. The net worth sweep had redirected the net profits of the two companies to the U.S. Treasury.

Judge Lamberth highlights some of aspects of the plaintiffs’ argument that he found compelling at the motion to dismiss phase of this litigation. First, he notes that absence of “any increased funding commitment” is atypical when senior shareholders receive “enhanced disbursement rights,” as was the case when the government implemented the net worth sweep. (21) He also states that the plaintiffs would not have expected that the GSEs would have extinguished “the possibility of dividends arbitrarily or unreasonably.” (22)

While this opinion is good news for the plaintiffs, it is still unclear what their endgame would be if they were to get a final judgment that the net worth sweep was invalid. Depending on the outcome of regulatory and legislative debates about the future of the two companies, the win may be a pyrrhic one. Time will tell. In the interim, expect more discovery battles, motions for summary judgment and even a trial in this case. So, while this opinion gives shareholders some hope of ultimate success, and perhaps some leverage in political and regulatory debates, I do not see it as a game changer in itself.

In terms of the bigger picture, there are a lot of changes on the horizon regarding the future of the housing finance system. The midterm elections; Hensarling and Corker’s departure from Congress; and the Trump Administration’s priorities are all bigger drivers of the housing finance reform train, at least for now.