Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac: What you should know

By
Services for Real Estate Pros with SendOutCards

Given the extraordinary move by the Federal Reserve to take the driver's seats at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac this past weekend, we thought we would share some information we have gathered and provide some color on the action.

The most succinct we have seen is Cantor Fitzgerald's summary (see attachments also).  It reads as follows:

The government's action on FNMA and FHLMC (collectively Government-Sponsored Entities, GSEs) has four basic points of action:

First:        The Federal Housing Finance Agency will become conservator of each firm - effectively running the firms under new management. It will be "business as usual" for the firms for the time being.

                  While there is no explicit guarantee on agency debt, given that government's equity position, it is likely that the debt of the agencies will trade tighter.    

Second:   The US will take a position in newly issued Senior Preferred equity in both firms. This position will be senior to current equity and preferred holders. The initial position will be $1 billion with capacity of $100 billion each. These preferred shares come with a 10% coupon and include warrants to purchase up to 79.9% of the common of each firm.

                       As a part of this, the current common and preferred equity will remain outstanding, although, there will be no dividends paid and losses will flow through these positions before the new senior preferred is hit.

                       Depositories that hold agency preferred should have already been marking the positions to market through equity and should continue to do so. If such a charge result in too large a reduction in capital, the FDIC is prepared to work with depositories to "develop capital-restoration plans pursuant to the capital regulations and the prompt corrective action provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act".

Third:      The Treasury will provide a credit facility to the agencies to facilitate short-term liquidity needs. These borrowings will be collateralized by agency MBS holdings.

                  This facility is also available to the Federal Home Loan Banks. Any use by the FHLB's will be collateralized by advances.

Four:        The Treasury will purchase agency MBS in the open market in an undetermined amount.

                  This is being done to increase liquidity and bring in spreads on FN/FH mortgage loans - a very big, new buyer in the space.

Below are our thoughts.  We welcome your comments.

Overview

We believe that Treasury Secretary Paulson and the Bush Administration determined Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were unable to perform their housing missions at a time when they were most needed because the GSEs were trying (unsuccessfully) to address safety and soundness issues associated with raising capital.   As a result of this plan, Treasury has indicated that the GSEs will now not be under any pressure to sell assets.

In the short-term, we expect mortgage liquidity should improve.  Rates should decline as the risk spreads built into the GSE pricing (due, in part, to fear of potential GSE failure) should be reduced if not eliminated.  The extent of the decline will depend on what happens to Treasury yields in the coming days. 

Without capital constraints in the near term and based on Secretary Paulson's comments (see below) , we believe the new Fannie and Freddie will likely rollback at least some of their price increases and loosen underwriting requirements to some extent.  It will be curious to see the MI reaction to this government intervention as their tightening of guidelines will now be "front and center" in the effort to expand mortgage financing availability. 

On a longer term basis, there will be a "heavyweight" debate next year and beyond about the future size and structure of the GSEs (e.g.  public or private entities).  That debate will not occur until the new Congress and Administration take office next year. 

Why did Treasury/FHFA take this action?

It appears to us that Treasury/FHFA lost confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie's Mac's ability to support the housing recovery while, at the same time, addressing their safety and soundness responsibilities by preserving and raising capital.  Below are some of Secretary Paulson and Director Lockhart's remarks which lead us to this conclusion.

Director Lockhart said:

(bold and italics added)

"Their market share of all new mortgages reached over 80 percent earlier this year, but it is now falling. During the turmoil last year, they (the GSEs) played a very important role in providing liquidity to the conforming mortgage market. That has required a very careful and delicate balance of mission and safety and soundness. A key component of this balance has been their ability to raise and maintain capital. Given recent market conditions, the balance has been lost. Unfortunately, as house prices, earnings and capital have continued to deteriorate, their ability to fulfill their mission has deteriorated. In particular, the capacity of their capital to absorb further losses while supporting new business activity is in doubt. Today's action addresses safety and soundness concerns. ... The result has been that they have been unable to provide needed stability to the market. They also find themselves unable to meet their affordable housing mission. Rather than letting these conditions fester and worsen and put our markets in jeopardy, FHFA, after painstaking review, has decided to take action now. "

Secretary Paulson said:

"I attribute the need for today's action primarily to the inherent conflict and the flawed business model imbedded in the GSE structure and the ongoing housing correction".   He added that he has "long said the housing correction poses the biggest risk to the economy"

"Our economy and our markets will not recover until the bulk of this housing correction is behind us.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are critical to turning the corner" and that "the primary mission of these enterprises will now be to proactively work to increase the availability of mortgage finance including by examining the guaranty fee structure with an eye toward mortgage affordability".

Comment

We have all seen the steps that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have taken to preserve and raise capital throughout this year.  These measures have included raising prices on mortgages and tightening underwriting guidelines.  As some of you may also be aware, they have been aggressively trying to put back loans to seller-servicers who, in turn, are going back to originators.    

Secretary Paulson in particular appeared to conclude that GSEs cannot serve two masters (i.e. its housing mission and its shareholders) during the housing crisis. 

What does this mean?

To state the obvious, we are in uncharted waters.   This plan is not a "silver bullet" that will address the underlying problems (i.e. record mortgage delinquency and foreclosures) that caused the need for this unprecedented action.  MBA's National Delinquency Survey last week indicated that over 9% of all mortgages are either delinquent or in the foreclosure process.  While the new GSE approach to mortgage availability will increase the number of potentially eligible borrowers, it will likely not have any significant impact on affordability (borrowers must still qualify and make downpayments) in those markets where house prices increased the most during the "housing bubble" until house prices and borrower incomes are in line.   With this as a caveat, below are our immediate thoughts.

·      Short term goals

Two of the immediate goals of this action are:  1) "to increase the availability of mortgage finance" as Secretary Paulson said and 2) to lower mortgage interest rates through the Government guarantee of GSE debt. 

·      Long term objectives

On a longer term basis, the Government's action yesterday raises the fundamental question about the government's role in housing going forward.  Secretary Paulson deferred the discussion of this question and the "flawed GSE business model" (i.e. serving two masters ---public and private objectives) to the next Administration and Congress.    

In this update, we will focus on short-term impact since the debate about the GSEs' future structure and size will depend on who wins the election and the make-up of the Congress.

Short term Impact

For the housing industry, the short-term impact of the Government takeover appears to be positive.

·      Mortgage rates should decline

·      Liquidity should be increased

o  GSEs should loosen standards (somewhat)

o  GSEs should reduce fees

·      Some housing experts feel house prices may stabilize sooner and the level of further house price decline will be moderated as a result

Potential Impact

·      There could be a mini-refinance boom if the rate decline materializes.

o  Hedging of servicing portfolios and pipeline problems will have to be addressed

·      More aggressive GSEs could slow down FHA's growth

o  FHA appeared on the way to 50% market share later this year. 

o  What will be the impact on pricing?

There are many questions to be answered in the coming days and weeks.  We felt the biggest is how the mortgage insurance companies will react.  We will be watching and let you know of changes as they occur. 

  Thanks

Comments (2)

Associate Broker Falmouth MA Cape Cod Heath Coker
https://teamcoker.robertpaul.com - Falmouth, MA
Heath Coker Berkshire Hathaway HS Robert Paul Prop

The losened standards would have helped before.  What they need is to figure out how to unbundle some of the MBS so the "trouble" loans can be dealt with on a more constructive basis.  The problem is, how do you "reorganize" a bundle that has become a MBS so you can get to one or the few poorly performing loans in the bundle?

Most of the bundle is performing, but because there are numerous that are not in the same bundle, how do you dismantle the bundle to get workouts done on the needy ones without changing the value of the MBS formed by the bundle?

The big picture and reasons seem good.  It is the details of the workout that are going to be problematic because of the amount of loans that the two control/own.

Sep 08, 2008 09:23 AM
Mike Wong
Keller Williams Realty Southwest - Sugar Land, TX
Realtor: Commercial, Residential, Leasing, Invest

Thanks for the explaination and your perspective. Im curious to see the short and long term effects myself and trying to view this from a consumer perspective so that I understand how to communicate to them better.

Sep 08, 2008 09:46 AM

What's the reason you're reporting this blog entry?

Are you sure you want to report this blog entry as spam?