Comment Letter: FHFA Single Security

Yesterday, USMI submitted comments on the request for input from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) regarding the proposed structure for a single security to be issued and guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”).  USMI supports FHFA’s goal of maintaining a highly liquid secondary market while developing a single security, and believes that private MI will help to achieve that objective.  Private MI works seamlessly with the to-be-announced (“TBA”) market today and  enhances market liquidity by serving as a source of private capital.  Preserving the current role of MI and expanding the use of MI as part of any transition will maximize taxpayer protection and enable an efficient and liquid market that benefits lenders, investors, taxpayers and borrowers.  USMI looks forward to working with FHFA as work on this initiative progresses.

USMI Header 750

BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Office of Strategic Initiatives Constitution Center
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20024

Re: Request for Input – Proposed Single Security Structure Ladies and Gentlemen:

U.S. Mortgage Insurers (“USMI”) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments on the request for input from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA” or “Agency”) regarding the proposed structure for a single security (“Single Security”) to be issued and guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the “Enterprises”). USMI supports FHFA’s goal of maintaining a highly liquid secondary mortgage market in developing the Single Security structure and believes that potential disruptions that might arise from moving to the structure can be mitigated through the preservation of key elements of the existing to-be-announced (“TBA”) market, including the use of private mortgage insurance (“MI”) as a form of credit enhancement. A liquid, well-functioning TBA market is essential to providing single-family borrowers an affordable and accessible 30-year fixed rate mortgage, and large and small lenders alike rely on this market to securitize loans and manage risk.

As further discussed below, USMI supports FHFA’s efforts to work to implement a Single Security. In particular, we note that:

  1. MI works seamlessly today with the TBA market and enhances the liquidity of the market by serving as a source of private capital that enables the TBA market to operate very effectively for investors, lenders, taxpayers and, most importantly, borrowers. Also, as MI continues to expand access to homeownership, larger securitization volumes will support greater liquidity in the TBA market.
  2. In any transition to a Single Security structure, preserving the current role of MI and expanding the use of MI will maximize taxpayer protection from credit risk while obtaining the full liquidity potential benefit of the Single Security structure.

The TBA market, as FHFA notes in its proposal, is a cornerstone of a strong and highly liquid secondary mortgage market that benefits taxpayers, lenders, investors, and borrowers. A transition to a Single Security structure will undoubtedly produce some anxiety among stakeholders in the housing industry. Retaining the elements of the current TBA market that lenders and investors have relied upon for years, such as standard cover MI, will help ensure that such anxiety does not disrupt the housing market.

MI is an essential component of the TBA market because of the many benefits it provides taxpayers, lenders, investors, and borrowers. MI has transparent pricing and credit terms that enable participants in the housing market to make informed judgments when assessing mortgages with MI. These terms also create an additional oversight mechanism for the housing market by serving as a form of review of creditors’ and other market participants’ standards.

MI provides a source of private capital that serves to reduce the risk to taxpayers from the Enterprises’ operations by placing MI’s private capital in a first loss position and to enable the Enterprises to support low down payment mortgages with loan-to-value ratios in excess of 80 percent. Without MI, many borrowers, especially first-time homebuyers, low-to-moderate income homebuyers, and homebuyers in underserved communities, would not be able to afford the purchase of a home. MI thus ensures liquidity for a critical part of the residential mortgage market. MI companies have a demonstrated history of making credit available to low down payment borrowers through times of financial stress. Finally, MI contributes to market stability during challenging housing conditions by facilitating foreclosure prevention and loss mitigation to the extent borrowers experience financial hardship.

Earlier this year, FHFA published a draft of revised MI eligibility requirements (“PMIERs”). When finalized and implemented, the PMIERs will be a unified set of standards applicable to all MI companies seeking to do business with the Enterprises. The final PMIERs will solidify MI’s value in the U.S. housing finance system and also will help promote fungible Enterprise mortgage backed securities (“MBS”); a key step towards a Single Security structure.

The remainder of this comment letter responds to two specific questions in the Agency’s request for input.

1. What key factors regarding TBA eligibility status should be considered in the design of and transition to a Single Security?

Because of the extensive benefits of MI described above, FHFA should ensure that all legacy Enterprise MBS reflecting loans with MI remain eligible for the TBA market and that MI’s role as a form of credit enhancement is fully recognized in the analytics calculating the Enterprises’ estimated costs of providing a credit guarantee in a Single Security structure. Recognizing that not all loan level credit enhancements have the same or even similar regulatory environments, the TBA market would be well-served by ensuring that loan level credit enhancements have equivalent capital, reserve, liquidity, and leverage requirements in order to preserve the uniformity and fungibility that is in place in this sector of the market today. By fully recognizing MI in a Single Security structure, the Agency will maximize liquidity in the secondary mortgage market.

4. What can be done to ensure a smooth implementation of a Single Security with minimal risk of market disruption?

Market disruption from the transition to a Single Security framework can be mitigated by preserving the role that MI plays as a form of credit enhancement. FHFA’s implementation of a Single Security structure will require significant changes to the Enterprises’ MBS and disclosure and notice to the housing industry well in advance of the effectiveness of such changes. By refraining from making any changes to either the status or effect of MI, the Agency will leave unaltered an important component of the secondary mortgage market. This will give housing industry stakeholders certainty that, amidst many changes, MI will continue to play an important role in the Enterprises’ securitization activities.

* * * * *

USMI appreciates the opportunity to comment on FHFA’s Single Security proposal. Questions or requests for further information may be directed to the co-chairs of USMI, Rohit Gupta and Adolfo Marzol, at info@usmi.org.

Sincerely,

U.S. Mortgage Insurers

Download as PDF

Press Release: USMI Submits FHFA Strategic Plan Comment Letter

USMI Header 750

For Immediate Release

September 15, 2014

Media Contacts

Robert Schwartz 202-207-3665 (rschwartz@prismpublicaffairs.com)

USMI Submits FHFA Strategic Plan Comment Letter

Highlights How MI Can Help Advance Housing Finance Goals

USMI today submitted its response to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) request for input regarding its strategic plan for fiscal years 2015 through 2019. USMI believes that FHFA’s Plan should further take into account mortgage insurance’s (“MI”) role as a reliable source of credit enhancement that can help advance and support the strategic goals of the Plan to ensure liquidity, stability, and access in housing, benefitting taxpayers, borrowers, and lenders.

FHFA regulates the government sponsored housing finance enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). The FHFA Plan identifies three strategic goals for the GSEs: (1) ensuring safe and sound regulated entities; (2) ensuring liquidity, stability, and access in housing finance; and (3) managing the GSEs’ ongoing conservatorships.

USMI highlighted a number of specific ways that MI can help advance and support FHFA’s strategic goals, including:

  • Because of the many risk-reducing benefits of MI to protect taxpayers against losses, FHFA should expand and deepen MI’s use on a wider range of GSE loans to help meet the FHFA goal of Ensuring Safe and Sound Regulated Entities.
  • FHFA should fully recognize MI when calculating GSE guarantee fees (g-fees) to avoid double charging consumers and to help meet the FHFA goal of Ensuring Liquidity, Stability, and Access in Housing Finance.
  • In further support of this goal, the GSEs should restore widespread access to a prudently underwritten 97 percent LTV fixed-rate mortgage to further promote responsible access to credit for creditworthy borrowers
The full USMI comment letter is available here.

###

U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) is dedicated to a housing finance system backed by private capital that enables access to housing finance for borrowers while protecting taxpayers. Mortgage insurance offers an effective way to make mortgage credit available to more people. USMI is ready to help build the future of homeownership.  Learn more at www.usmi.org.

Download as PDF

 

Comment Letter: To FHFA on G-Fees

USMI Header

For Immediate Release

August 14, 2014

Media Contacts

Robert Schwartz 202-207-3665 (rschwartz@prismpublicaffairs.com)
Michael Timberlake 202-207-3637 (mtimberlake@prismpublicaffairs.com)

Full Recognition of MI Benefits Needed to Avoid Double Charging Consumers

USMI today submitted its response to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) request for input (RFI) regarding the guarantee fees (g-fees) that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae charge to lenders.  The RFI follows FHFA’s suspension in January 2014 of proposed increases to g-fees.  USMI comments focused on the following key issues:

  • The g-fee framework should fully take into account MI’s risk-reducing benefits in order to minimize costs to borrowers.  While the framework for calculating g-fees in the RFI is intended to price actual credit risk, USMI believes it fails to fully take into account the risk-reducing benefits of private mortgage insurance (“MI”).  As a result, consumers are charged twice for the same credit risk mitigation.  This disproportionately disadvantages low- and moderate-income and first time homebuyers.  MI is a well accepted and well regarded form of credit enhancement that has made homeownership possible for millions of people who otherwise would not have qualified for mortgage loans.  Full recognition of MI should reduce the cost of mortgages with MI, and create stronger incentives for credit risk to be served by private capital in a competitive market.
  • Increased transparency of the models used to compute g-fees is needed by market participants.  USMI strongly believes that there should be significantly greater transparency with respect to the models (the analytical framework, its assumptions, and its inputs) that are used for pricing and to compute g-fees because these models have an extraordinary impact on the U.S. housing market.  Disclosing the specific parameters of the models used and soliciting public input regarding the parameters would be a helpful first step.
  • G-fees should not be increased to attempt to “crowd in” private capital.  Private label securities historically have been an unreliable source of liquidity in times of economic stress.  In addition, increasing g-fees in this manner would result in increased costs to borrowers and potentially other unintended consequences.  In the absence of a mandate to use g-fees to attempt to crowd in private capital, there is no justification for such increased costs or other unintended consequences.  As such, FHFA should formally withdraw the proposed g-fee increases announced on December 9, 2013.

The full USMI comment letter is available here.

###

U.S. Mortgage Insurers (USMI) is dedicated to a housing finance system backed by private capital that enables access to housing finance for borrowers while protecting taxpayers. Mortgage insurance offers an effective way to make mortgage credit available to more people. USMI is ready to help build the future of homeownership. Learn more at www.usmi.org.

Download as PDF

Comment Letter: Housing Trade Groups File National Mortgage Database

The following letter was delivered to the Federal Housing Finance Agency:

 

May 16, 2014

Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel
Attention: Comments/2014-N-03
Federal Housing Finance Agency
400 Seventh Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024

Via Email at RegComments@fhfa.gov

RE: 2014-N-03
Dear Mr. Pollard:

The undersigned associations appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Notice of revision to an existing system of records (2014-N-03) regarding the National Mortgage Database (the “NMDB”) under development by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The NMDB has two stated purposes: to facilitate mandatory reporting under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and to conduct “research, performance modeling and examination monitoring.” In addition to borrower records based on credit repository data, the database will include results of ongoing borrower surveying. Records will be matched with records within other datasets and then personal identifiers will be “deidentified” before the NMDB is used for research. This matching function makes the NMDB unique and uniquely valuable as a research tool.

In July 2013, representatives of FHFA, the CFPB and Freddie Mac presented at the International Conference of Collateral Risk: Moderating Housing Cycles and their Systemic Impact. The presenters explained that the NMDB is being set up as “a public good” that is needed because existing databases (HMDA, LPS McDash , CoreLogic and NY Fed Equifax) are not fully representative, and in the case of HMDA, also do not report data until 9-21 months after a mortgage is originated. For some, the cost of obtaining information from the existing databases is prohibitive.

By closing these existing data gaps, the NMDB will serve as a valuable research tool that should be made broadly available for housing finance research and analysis. However, it is currently contemplated that access to the NMDB will be allowed only for certain employees of federal government agencies, reserve banks and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (“the Enterprises”). The undersigned believe that it is inappropriate and unnecessary to restrict access to the NMDB in this way. The NMDB will facilitate important undertakings within the private sector, including market analysis, product development and evaluation of credit risk standards. It will also enable third parties to assess work done by federal agencies or the Enterprises based on the NMDB, and will promote robust policy discussions and help to drive sound outcomes. Consumer identifying information will be removed from the NMDB, thus minimizing any potential threat to consumer privacy. However, if FHFA or the CFPB has lingering concerns about privacy issues, a simple user agreement to refrain from reverse engineering records would provide added protections.

The undersigned appreciate your consideration of this important issue. Feel free to contact any of us if we may be of further assistance.

 

Very truly yours,

Mortgage Bankers Association
Attn: Stephen A. O’Connor (soconnor@mba.org)

National Association of Home Builders
Attn: David L. Ledford (dledford@nahb.org)

U.S. Mortgage Insurers
Attn: Rohit Gupta (rohit.gupta@genworth.com)
Adolfo F. Marzol (adolfo.marzol@essent.us) .

 

Download as PDF

Letter: To FHFA regarding GSE Loan Limits

March 20, 2014

Federal Housing Finance Agency
Office of Policy Analysis and Research
Constitution Center
400 Seventh Street, SW., Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20024
Attn: No. 2013-N-18
Submitted via email at loanpurchaselimitinput@fhfa.gov

Re: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Loan Purchase Limits: Request for Public Input on Implementation Issues (2013-N-18)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The undersigned organizations appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) proposal to reduce the loan purchase limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (“the Enterprises”).

The nation’s housing markets are on a slow and cautious recovery. The credit box for home lending is exceedingly tight with the average FICO score for a loan sold to the Enterprises at 753 and the average loan-to-value ratio at 70 percent. As Congress considers comprehensive housing finance system reform, we strongly support maintaining the Enterprises’ current conforming and high-cost loan purchase limits at the levels determined by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 or $417,000 and $625,500 respectively. For areas with loan purchase limits between $417,000 and $625,500, we also believe that you should maintain the current formula for tying the maximum limit to median home prices in those areas.

Congress is making incremental progress on legislation to reform the housing finance system. Plans under consideration in both chambers of Congress directly address loan limits. Setting loan limits is a significant component of housing policy and, as such, is best left to Congress’ discretion, especially while many of the nation’s housing markets remain fragile. In addition, we note that while this proposal is in part premised on shrinking the government’s footprint in the mortgage market, the reduction of the Enterprises’ loan purchase limits could simply shift borrowers to other government-insured programs.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this important issue. We strongly support FHFA’s efforts to stabilize and strengthen the mortgage market, but we believe that the proposed reductions will have the opposite effect. Should you have questions or wish to discuss any aspect of these comments further, please contact any or all of our organizations.

Sincerely,

Asian Real Estate Association of America (AREAA)
Community Mortgage Lenders of America
Independent Community Bankers of America
Leading Builders of America
Mortgage Bankers Association
National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals (NAHREP)
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of REALTORS®
National Community Reinvestment Coalition
U.S. Mortgage Insurers

Download as PDF