The dome of the Capitol is reflected in a puddle in Washington February 17, 2012.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Another debt ceiling debacle could sink the economy

Last year's Congressional debt standoff hurt consumer confidence more than the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Betsey Johnson and Justin Wolfers write. This time could be worse.  Read more at Counterparties  

Fannie, Freddie writedowns too costly: regulator

Related Topics

WASHINGTON | Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:27pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The regulator for Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) told lawmakers that forcing the government-controlled mortgage firms to write down the principal on underwater home loans would require more than $100 billion in fresh taxpayer funds.

In a letter sent on Friday to the Republican and Democratic leaders of a House of Representatives government oversight panel, the Federal Housing Finance Agency explained why it has long opposed principal reductions for borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth. In that situation, the mortgage is deemed "underwater."

About 22 percent of U.S. home mortgages have negative equity totaling about $750 billion, meaning that about one in five U.S. home mortgages is "underwater" with the amount owed exceeding the home's value, according to CoreLogic, a financial information and analytics company based in Santa Ana, California.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency said it had determined that such reductions would be more costly for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than forbearance, which was the less expensive option by comparison. The two mortgage firms have been using forbearance to help borrowers struggling to make payments.

Forbearance lets the borrow reduce or suspend payments on a loan for a specific amount of time.

The regulator, also known as the FHFA, has been under pressure from Democrats to permit the writedown of principal by the two government-controlled mortgage finance providers as a way to help some of the millions of U.S. homeowners whose mortgages are "underwater."

Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has pushed the housing regulator to explain its thinking in deciding not to offer principal reductions.

PRESERVING ASSETS A CONCERN

The FHFA, however, has maintained that widespread principal forgiveness would undercut the finances of Fannie and Freddie, which have already received about $169 billion in taxpayer aid. Republicans have supported the FHFA's decision.

"FHFA has a statutory responsibility as conservator to preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entities," FHFA's acting director, Edward DeMarco, wrote in the letter to lawmakers dated January 20.

The Obama administration wants to secure widespread principal reductions in a legal settlement between the government and some of the biggest mortgage servicers. The settlement is aimed at cleaning up alleged foreclosure abuses.

"Given that any money spent on this endeavor would ultimately come from taxpayers and given that our analysis does not indicate a preservation of assets for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac substantial enough to offset costs, an expenditure of this nature at this time would, in my judgment, require congressional action," DeMarco said in the letter.

In 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government as mortgage losses mounted. Millions of loans issued during the housing bubble, many of them made to subprime borrowers with spotty credit histories, soured after the housing bust -- yet they remain on Fannie's and Freddie's books. Delinquencies on those loans continue to rise.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee roughly half of all outstanding mortgages in the United States. Of the approximately 30 million mortgages guaranteed by the two firms, close to 3 million of those loans were held by underwater borrowers as of last summer, according to an analysis provided in the letter.

Another barrier to principal writedowns, aside from pushing losses at the two firms even higher, DeMarco said, was the cost associated with new technology and training to servicers that would be needed to launch a program that offers principal forgiveness.

The FHFA told lawmakers that forbearance is a less costly option. Principal forbearance limits accounting losses and allows Fannie and Freddie to recoup the principal at some later point, according to the regulatory agency's letter.

"The net result of the analysis is that forbearance achieves marginally lower losses for the taxpayer than forgiveness, although both forgiveness and forbearance reduce the borrower's payment to the same affordable level," the FHFA's letter said.

The housing regulator also assured lawmakers that the FHFA remains committed to helping borrowers stay in their homes and will continue to work on such principal forbearance plans and government initiatives to modify or refinance loans.

The Federal Reserve, in a white paper to Congress earlier this month, said writedowns "had the potential to decrease the probability of default" and "improve migration between labor markets."

However, the Fed stopped short of endorsing such an initiative and noted concern that writing down loan balances would create a moral hazard - the concept that rescue efforts breed further behavior that exacerbates the existing problem - and could prompt other borrowers to stop making timely loan payments.

(Reporting By Margaret Chadbourn; Editing by Jan Paschal)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
wrote:
Thank you for this article. It seems FHFA, Fannie, and Freddie look at solutions for the housing crisis narrowly. They hold about 50% of the mortgages in the U.S. and could significantly boost the economy and stabilize communities by permitting principal write-downs. These agencies are missing an opportunity to pull the country out of our weak economy. Essentially, middle class Americans would have money to spend and create an increased demand for goods and services if principal reductions were finally permitted.

It’s interesting that very recent national legal settlements with the nation’s largest banks will include as part of the deal principal reductions, yet Fannie and Freddie who hold the prime mortgages (i.e. the mortgages for the dependable borrowers) are not electing to offer that same assistance.

Let’s hope that senior government officials convince FHFA, Fannie and Freddie to reconsider their position on the matter ASAP. That’s really the best way for them to control more losses for the taxpayer.

Jan 24, 2012 3:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
Psn8Lady wrote:
To Mr. DeMarco:

I am appalled and infuriated at your declaration that ” FHFA has a statutory responsibility as conservator to preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entities” as a justification for refusal to consider principle write-downs of mortgages for homeowners, directly in the shadow of the announcement last week that a bulk sale of REO properties involving Carrington Holding and Oaktree Capital was going to take place. It’s no secret that “bulk sales” means deep discounts, and THAT means greater losses to the regulated entities.

Please tell me, how do you justify one in light of the other? Is it possible that this is yet another example of favored actions benefiting a select company that just happens to be well connected to FHFA?

I have been in real estate 31 years. For the last three years I’ve dealt exclusively with short sales. I’ve seen the damage that few talk about: divorce, uprooted families, lives ruined. I’ve contended with bank after bank that refused to give a break to homeowners, but who will take a significantly larger loss to sell the home as an reo, and an even greater loss if they package them as bulk sales. I can tell you with assurance, and would gladly stand before you with absolute mathematical proof that principal reductions would not only serve the homeowner and the bank, it would strengthen the economy.

So again, tell me, please, how do you justify your inconsistent actions? Or do you even care?

Jan 24, 2012 10:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.