Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might find themselves merged into a single government-run entity. Representative Gary Miller (R-CA) is set to unveil a bill that would create a utility-like entity and phase out government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The new company would buy mortgages and repackage them as government-backed securities. The major difference from Fannie and Freddie lies in the fact that it would not have shareholder investors. The National Association of Homebuilders and the National Association of Realtors are expected to support the proposal, which reflects concerns by the industry, consumer groups and some policymakers that a complete withdrawal of government support for home lending could make the housing recession go further downhill.
A competing proposal by Representatives Gary Peters (D-MI) and John Campbell (R-CA) would create a minimum of five private companies to replace the two co-called government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs. The point of contention for many lawmakers is whether to provide a government backstop for mortgages and on what terms to provide the guarantee. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) is trying to forge a consensus among Republican members. Any bill that is generated by Bachus’ committee and is passed by the Republican-led House would likely still be in jeopardy once it reaches the Democratic-controlled Senate.
“There was the idea that people were so tired of taxpayer losses related to housing that the traditional housing lobby would not be able to retaliate effectively,” said Jim Vogel, chief of agency debt research at Memphis-based FTN Financial. “It’s time to start waving the housing flag again.”
That would represent a sea change from February, when the Treasury Department recommended selling off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac holdings within 10 years; Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) wanted to do it in half that time. Since then, homebuilders, real estate agents, investment banks, civil rights leaders and consumer advocates have lobbied to retain a government role — including the unspoken federal guarantee behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress created the programs as private companies to expand home ownership.
Already, the government is slowing its efforts to prop up the housing market. Beginning this fall, the cap on Fannie and Freddie-backed mortgages — loans where taxpayers are on the hook if borrowers don’t pay — will decline in some regions. At the height of the housing crisis, Congress raised the cap to $729,750 in areas where homes are most expensive. After October, that will fall to $625,500. The limit varies by county. Mortgages that are too expensive to get backing from Fannie and Freddie are called jumbo loans and usually have higher interest rates and require larger downpayments. That maximum was set by Congress in 2008 in an attempt to ensure that borrowers could continue to obtain loans in particularly expensive housing markets during the credit crunch, especially in prime real estate locations, such as New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.
The Deal Book column in the New York Times thinks that the idea of merging Fannie and Freddie is not as outrageous as it may at first seem. “Consider the math: For the first six months of this year, both companies spent $1.825 billion in overhead costs combined; on an annualized basis, that means the companies are spending about $3.65 billion. Given that the companies do pretty much the same thing – buying mortgages from banks, insuring them and creating mortgage-backed securities – there might be opportunities for savings if many of their managers and staff are, to put it politely, redundant. Conservatively, a combined Fannie and Freddie could probably cut a third of its overhead and staff, saving some $1.2 billion annually. The way Wall Street values companies, that means – presto – billions more in value, perhaps as much as $18 billion or $19 billion, could be created overnight.”
“It would instill a huge amount of confidence. The market will know that both entities combined will have much more consistent, stable margins,” John Lekas, chief executive of Leader Capital, an investment firm, said on CNBC last week. He added that it “doesn’t cost taxpayers one nickel.”
Additionally, Fannie and Freddie are on track in 2011 to spend about $1.8 billion on what is known as “foreclosure costs,” which means maintaining and selling thousands of homes that became part of their ownership portfolios after the owners were unable to pay the mortgage. The costs are staggering, given that Fannie and Freddie together own approximately 153,000 foreclosed homes. “This is just one of the costs that Fannie and the rest of us will pay to dig out of a very big hole,” says Karen Petrou, of Federal Financial Analytics. When she says “the rest of us,” she is telling the truth. Fannie Mae’s tab to American taxpayers is up to $86 billion since September 2008 when it was taken into government conservatorship. During the 1st quarter of 2011, Fannie racked up $488 million in foreclosure-related expenses, including holding costs (insurance, taxes and maintenance); valuation adjustments for changes in market value; gains/loss when the property is sold; legal fees; eviction costs; weatherization costs to prevent pipes from bursting; costs to secure the property; and repair costs.
“We want to make sure that we’re comparable with the market or with the neighborhood,” said Elonda Crocket, a Fannie Mae executives who is part of the management team of its massive portfolio of foreclosed properties. The goal is to stabilize the neighborhoods where there are foreclosed homes and get the properties to a condition where first-time homebuyers want to purchase them. “We want to make sure that we can maximize our return on the investment,” she said. In 2010, Fannie Mae repaired 87,000 foreclosed homes.
“It makes them — I think — indisputably the largest purchaser of paint and general appliances for these homes they’re fixing up,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance. “If they don’t maintain the houses, then the neighborhoods go downhill, other people are put at risk and the housing crisis gets worse because you have still more downward pressure on overall house prices,” Petrou said.