Callahan Clients, please log in for direct access to:
Learn What You're Missing
Upgrade Your Subscription
Thank you for your interest in reading the fantastic content we have on CreditUnions.com! However, the page you are trying to access is for subscribers-only. To learn more, select an option below.
All users must now log in to read, research, browse, and have fun on CreditUnions.com. Yes, we still offer freebies. And, yes, it’s worth the extra effort.
Print or PDF this article today because you won't have access to it later. Or, click here to learn how to get 24/7 access.
By Mortgage Cadence
Legislation to reform the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is a hot legislative topic this year for mortgage lenders of all sizes. If you are the largest of the industry’s lenders, it is a fair bet you are fully supportive of most every provision in both the House and Senate bills. Both were reported out of committee this summer.
If, on the other hand, you are not one of the industry’s giants (and most of us are not), then you either are or should be concerned about the provisions in both bills that are not directly related to regulatory and capital reform.
In Case You Missed the Earlier Episodes
A little background might be helpful. Early in this legislative session, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced S. 190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. Hagel’s bill introduced several provisions with which no one can argue: creation of a single, stronger regulator for the GSEs, and flexible, regulator-managed capital requirements. Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are charged with providing a steady supply of capital for housing finance, these provisions are enjoying broad-based support. Other of the bill’s provisions, however, fundamentally change and negatively impact the ways in which smaller lenders such as credit unions will access the secondary markets.
Meanwhile in the House, Congressmen Richard Baker (R-LA) and Michael Oxley (R-OH) introduced HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. Similar in nature to Hagel’s bill from a regulatory and capital perspective, it too contained provisions that severely restrict the ability of credit unions to meet their members’ needs for housing finance.
The House Bill was reported out of committee in June with the Bright Lines provisions largely intact. More on that in a minute. Mark-up on the Senate Bill was completed just before the summer recess. Along a straight party-line vote, among other things, it eliminates Freddie Mac’s and Fannie Mae’s portfolio. Read on to learn why this is troublesome.
Credit unions should be concerned for three reasons:
Implications for the US Housing Market
This is a bad omen for the US housing market. And I can give you at least four reasons.
First, neither Freddie Mac nor Fannie Mae will be able to perform the basic function of their charter: to provide a consistent source of capital to the housing market. Will the private-sector step in, you ask? Yes and no. While the private sector will provide capital under most conditions, in times of domestic or international financial duress, recent events suggest that the private sector will severely curtail lending until a sense of normalcy returns. Remember the 1998 Russian and Asian financial crises that threatened market liquidity? The GSEs helped to shore up the markets. In the terrible aftermath of September 11, 2001, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remained open while the US private markets shut down. There will inevitably be another crisis. Who will step in for the next crisis when the GSEs cannot?
Second, while the housing market is busy financing $2.3 trillion per year in housing transactions, it will have to absorb another $1.4 trillion as Fannie and Freddie sell off their holdings. Harken back to your days in Econ 101. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise. During the sell off, mortgage interest rates will rise and housing will become less affordable. Post sell-off it is unlikely mortgage rates will return to their previous lows. It is a simple supply and demand equation.
Third, as the cost of financing a home increases, the demand for housing decreases as homes become less affordable. Housing prices will slump, wiping out billions in homeowner equity. The US will return to being a nation of renters.
Treasury Secretary John Snow, in testimony he gave to Congress on this topic earlier this year, believes eliminating the portfolios is a bad idea for the reasons stated above. We agree.
Fourth, the GSEs use their portfolios for liquidity and as a means to launch new mortgage products. Products such as the 40-year mortgage did not have a secondary market when introduced last year. No matter. Fannie Mae placed these loans in their portfolio until investors figured out how to fit them in their own portfolios. Here is yet another example of how the legislation adversely impacts the cost of homeownership.
What Can You Do?
Educate your lawmakers, especially Republican Senators, about why the non-regulatory and non-capital provisions of the GSE reform bills are bad public policy. Enacted into law in their present state, these bills force credit unions to work directly with big banks—their competitors—for mortgage liquidity. The big banks, not coincidentally, are the mini-skirt wearing, pom-pom waiving cheerleaders providing the rah-rah for this Congressional game. To them it’s just one more covert way to prosecute Operation Credit Union. Banks have everything to gain. Credit unions and homeowners have everything to lose.
This sponsored content article is provided to the credit union community for shared insights and knowledge from a recognized solutions provider in the industry. Please note that the views and opinions offered here do not reflect those of Callahan & Associates, and Callahan does not endorse vendors or the solutions they offer.
If you are interested in contributing an article on CreditUnions.com, please contact our Callahan Media team at email@example.com or 1-800-446-7453.
August 29, 2005
7/26/2012 04:13 PM
I just stumbled on this page while searching for articles talking about the origin the housing bubble and subsequent crash.You got what you wanted and stopped reform legislation in 2005. How did that work out for you?
7/26/2012 04:10 PM
I am a Mortgage CUSO CEO. You hit the nail on the head. The large banks want to eliminate the tools FNMA and FHLMC provide. We will either have to do without, or buy their proprietary products. Either way we, and our members, lose big time. We have dropped out of the Mortgage Bankers Assoc because of this. They support this because their large constituents do. Dave Toepp-Mortgage Center
Extremely thought provoking. Great info.
If this issue was a consumer loan issue, credit unions would be in the streets protesting. I fear because it is a mortgage lending issue, creit unions will be "asleep at the wheel."
This article is long over due. The one issue that you did not cover is the provision for "high-cost" areas contained in the house bill and not in the senate. Currently Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and the Virgin Islands have a 50% higher conforming loan limit. Tnis limit needs to be extended to all areas of the country where real estate prices far exceed the national average.
7/26/2012 04:06 PM
The market will create better underwritng standards then the GSEs ever could. There is no underwriting standard today, what there is are a couple of underwriting monopolies - a monopoly is not a public standard.
Submit your email address to receive daily industry updates and web-only features.
P: (800) 446-7453 | F: (800) 878-4712
1001 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 1001
Washington, DC 20036