"Big Banks Win, Taxpayers Lose as FHFA Spikes Fannie Insurance Overhaul," American Banker Article:
"Incompetence or corruption. It's got to be one or the other," said Robert Hunter, a consumer advocate and former Texas insurance commissioner whose opinions dovetail with those of people closer to Fannie.
Fannie officials eventually concluded that the simplest fix was for the GSE to buy insurance for itself. Such a move would cut banks out of the equation and enable Fannie to leverage its size into bulk discounts.
"It seemed like a clear way for the GSE (and hence the taxpayer) to save money," writes Laurie Goodman, a mortgage bond analyst for Amherst Securities, in an email to American Banker. "If Fannie was able to implement its plan, private label [mortgage security] investors would clearly be interested in replicating it."
Fannie officials expected bank insurance industry advocates to push back against price cuts and market changes. But they figured that regulatory probes and bad press had severely hurt the industry's credibility and leverage.
Details of the specific moves to foil Fannie are hazy. What is clear is that by early this year, the industry had shifted its sights from swaying Fannie toward convincing the FHFA to stall the process.
On Friday February 8, the FHFA informed Fannie it was vetoing the plan. GSE staffers were baffled. They became even more so when the FHFA convened a call the following Monday with the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Consumer Mortgage Coalition and other trade groups.
You might ask why a residential income-property buyer or owner should care. Well, Fannie Mae also deals in income properties. If Fannie can't save money via direct insurance deals, then won't the extra costs be past on to the general taxpaying public and won't it also reduce investors' ability to get good deals via Fannie?
Felix Salmon, Reuters, says that it's time to even abolish the FHFA.
With all of that in mind, consider what's going on in the broader sense. Here's an article covering developments that tie in with this maneuver by the FHFA: "Former Regulatory Leaders Propose Government Scaling Back Housing Market Involvement."
The question comes down to one of which path serves the most people the best. Is it only an ideological battle? We have to be careful because Bernie Madoff made off with billions (until he was exposed). Members of the Bipartisan Policy Center may have good intentions, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't check for potential risks/downsides in their "Housing America’s Future: New Directions for National Policy" plan.
It wasn't Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac that caused the subprime problem, and the "private sector" (non-GSE's) made the most loans based upon the lowest standards, or without any standards, loans that could not meet Fannie or Freddie criteria.
Here's a great deal of food for thought from Clifford V. Rossi, Executive-in-Residence and Tyser Teaching Fellow, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland: "Raising FHA's Game ." He keeps in mind that "FHA provides a critical countercyclical role that limits economic and social damage when markets implode." He doesn't want to design the role of the GSE out of existence, but reform/enhance it.
Here's another view of FHA, this one from Gary Thomas, President, National Association of Realtors (NAR).
How's Freddie Mac been doing? Here's a report by Christina Mlynski, HousingWire: Freddie Mac $11 billion annual net income shows improving housing market.
For Fannie Mae info, see:
If you are an investor in 1-4 unit properties in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, or Washington, please do the financially responsible thing and make sure you have proper Landlord Insurance with PropertyPak™. We love focusing on real estate and the economy in general, but we are also here to serve your insurance needs.
Hill & Usher (PropertyPak™ is a division) has many insurance offerings. See our menu above for more info and links.
Did this post help you? Let us know by leaving your comment below.
Note: This blog does not provide legal, financial, or accounting advice. Seek professional counsel.
Furthermore, we, as insurance producers, are prohibited by law from disparaging the insurance industry, carriers, other producers, etc. With that in mind, we provide links without staking out positions that violate the law. We provide them solely from a public-policy standpoint wherein we encourage our industry to be sure our profits, etc., are fair and balanced.
We do not necessarily fact checked the contents of every linked article or page, etc.
If we were to conclude any part or parts of our industry are in violation of fundamental fairness and the legal standards of a state or states, we'd address the issue through proper, legal channels. We trust you understand.
The laws that tie our tongues, so to speak, are designed to keep the public from losing confidence in the industry and the regulatory system overseeing it. Insurance commissioners around the country work very hard to analyze rates and to not allow the industry to be damaged by bad rate-settings and changes in coverages. The proper way for people in the industry to deal with such matters is by adhering to the laws, rules, and regulations of the applicable states and within industry associations where such matters may be discussed in private without giving the industry unnecessary black eyes. Ethics is very high on the list in the insurance industry, and we don't want to lose the people's trust. That said, the industry is not perfect; but what industry is?
For our part, we believe in strong regulations and strong regulators.
We welcome your comments and ask you to keep in mind that we cannot and will not reply in any way or ways where any insurance commissioner could rightly say we've violated the law of the given state.
We are allowed to share rating-bureau data/reports and industry-consultant opinions but make clear here that those opinions are theirs and do not necessarily reflect our position.