Quantcast
BANKTHINK
RISK DOCTOR
Partner Insights

Combining Fannie and Freddie: The Logical Next Step

Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (6)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

The Treasury's plan to accelerate the wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by replacing the 10% dividend payment established as part of the conservatorship with a quarterly sweep of their profits signals the beginning of the end of the GSEs as we have known them. 

The logical next step toward revitalizing the housing finance system is to combine both agencies, with the goals of the Federal Housing Finance Agency's strategic plan released earlier this year as the guide for such realignment.

Merging the agencies would once and for all announce the final chapter for the companies and end a variety of business practices that are inefficient and illogical in light of their conservatorship status.  One of these is the pretense that the agencies are really engaged in a competitive business.  The companies continue to maintain separate agreements with lenders over the pricing and terms of business offered in exchange for their loans, introducing unnecessary frictions in the market. 

One such friction is related to the growing pricing wedge between Fannie and Freddie mortgage-backed securities.  Although Freddie Mac securities have historically traded behind Fannie's in the market for a variety of technical reasons, the gap has widened considerably over time.  In earlier years, the perception that Freddie Mac's securities may prepay faster than Fannie's created part of the pricing drag, which itself may have been partially self-inflicted due to the inherent competing risks of default and prepayment within a mortgage contract.  For mortgages, higher credit quality reduces the probability of default, but raises incentives for mortgage refinancing when such opportunities are available to the borrower.  Years before the crisis then, Freddie's credit discipline may have played a role in the securities pricing gap. In response to the securities pricing differential, Freddie has had to make side payments to lenders in the form of refunds to induce lenders to do business with it.

Continuing this practice by maintaining separate securities perpetuates the myth that any real competition remains between the GSEs in their current state. Calls from various constituencies in the mortgage business to establish a single security are sensible. But why stop there?

Treasury should convene a blue ribbon bipartisan commission comprised of industry experts and practitioners to form a detailed plan for what comes next in resolving the agencies and replacing them.  Admittedly, we only have to look to tax policy to see how such commissions have fared over time.  However, there is some common ground by which both parties could empower such a commission to recharge efforts to restructure the secondary mortgage market. 

Placing one of the agencies into receivership may literally take an act of Congress given their charters.  Nonetheless, the housing recovery that both parties and homeowners long for can't get off the ground with the existing business-as-usual approach to handling the GSE issue. 

Combining the agencies would bring a number of benefits.  First, via a single security, any remaining differences in credit standards would be eliminated, creating greater clarity for mortgage underwriting.  Second, combining the agencies would achieve certain efficiencies that would allow the merged entity to better allocate resources for activities that support the FHFA's strategic plan. This would provide further cost savings to taxpayers. For example, why should there be two automated underwriting systems maintained by separate staff on separate systems at this point, four years into the conservatorship?

Right now the taxpayer owns two of every process and system used to source loans, securitize, and manage legacy portfolio and mortgage modification activities.  This creates confusion among lenders, perpetuates a dying business model where resource duplication results in extra costs to taxpayers, and prevents more focus on needed improvements.  By reallocating resources between the agencies, efforts toward realizing a common securitization platform could be redoubled, and portfolio reduction activities and distressed homeowner remedies accelerated.

Some argue that before we can fully proceed with a true wind-down of Fannie and Freddie, the future structure of the secondary market has to be established.  While it is critical that the contours of the future housing finance system should be vigorously pursued, given the time it will take to implement the new process, taking the next step with the GSEs to restructure them as a legacy business model directly telegraphs to the market that meaningful change lies ahead. 

When Cortes arrived in the New World, to motivate his troops he burned his ships.  Combining the GSEs serves this same purpose while offering so many tangible benefits.

Clifford Rossi is an executive-in-residence and Tyser Teaching Fellow at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. He has held senior risk management and credit positions at Citigroup, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(6) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

'I Want a Tom O'Brien Action Figure Doll': Comments of the Week

American Banker readers share their views on the most pressing banking topics of the week. Comments are excerpted from reader response sections of AmericanBanker.com articles and from our social media platforms.

(Image: Bloomberg News)

Comments (6)
It is absolutely false that the appointment of a receiver requires an "Act of Congress given their charters." This should and can be done if the grounds under law are met. 12 USC 4617 clearly gives the Director of FHFA this power either as a discretionary appointment (4617(a)(2)) or mandatory (4617(a)(4)). In fact, FHFA has hired PwC to look into the practical feasibility of receivership: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-getting-receivership-contingency-plan.html
Posted by Vern McKinley | Wednesday, August 29 2012 at 1:09PM ET
It certainly makes sense to combine the two as an interim step. The ultimate goal should be for FHFA to issue lending (underwriting)guidelines to which lenders must adhere in order to issue MBSs that fall under the new "conforming" guidelines. No more federal backstop, only increased competion by the players in the market, which should at least offset any increases in required yields due to the discontinuation of the government guaruntee.
Posted by BidOnRealty | Wednesday, August 29 2012 at 1:33PM ET
Yes this seems logical but far more benefit to tax payers can be gained by removing some of the growing complexity and uncertainty from current regulatory environment.
Posted by TaxPayer | Wednesday, August 29 2012 at 2:51PM ET
Rossi makes sense, my view is that if you strip the residentian operations from both, merge them into a liquidating trust, disband FHFA & resell the remaining entities to the public you'll get the best outcome for the taxpayer.
Posted by kinpowell | Wednesday, August 29 2012 at 4:57PM ET
Cliff is right, and so is kinpowell, but it should go further and rationalize the R/E out there in Tysons and on Wisconsin.

There's no need for a fancy commission or for bipartisanship. Just do it. It has been far too long. Also, one should be careful about what appear to be Wells Fargo's ambitions to become a GSE; actually it already is, but it seems to have ambitions of dominating this market, and that would raise familiar issues again, which has been the theme of the ongoing financial crisis.

Whoever wants to participate going forward should come with capital, something that is lacking in a financial services industry grown comfortable on federal support and complicit so-called regulators.
Posted by bob-dc | Wednesday, August 29 2012 at 11:21PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.