March 26, 2025
Trump’s Plans to Privatize Fannie and Freddie
Mark Calabria, OMB Associate Director for Treasury, Housing, and Commerce
I was interviewed on WBUR-FM’s On Point (distributed by American Public Radio), hosted by Meghna Chakrabarti for an episode on How Trump Plans To Get Government out of the Mortgage Business. The link has the recording of the show as well as a transcript.
The transcript of the interview starts,
CHAKRABARTI: Now that President Trump is back in the White House, it seems that he intends to get the job done this time around. Mark Calabria has returned to Trump’s administration, this time working on housing policy at the Office of Management and Budget. Bill Pulte is now director of FHFA, and he just made the highly unusual move of appointing himself chair of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, making the regulator and the regulated basically the same.
Pulte also fired 14 of the 25 sitting board members at Fannie and Freddie. A shakeup many are suspecting is a first step in leading these two companies out of government control and into privatization. We’re talking about a huge part of the U.S. economy that underpins the housing market. So this hour, we want to explore what privatization of Fannie and Freddie actually means, what it should look like, and how it might have an impact on homeowners and the housing market.
So to do that, David Reiss joins us. He’s a clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and Cornell Tech, an expert in housing finance and policy. Professor Reiss, welcome to On Point.
DAVID REISS: Meghna, thank you so much.
CHAKRABARTI: I have to tell you that I actually can’t believe that it’s been 17 years since the financial crisis of 2008.
Let’s dust off the memory banks professor and go back to before 2008 and start there. Can you just remind us like what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, what their purpose was, who owned them, et cetera?
REISS: I’m gonna go even a little bit further back than Fannie and Freddie’s creation, because I think it’s really gonna help people visualize what’s at stake here.
And if you think back to the 19th century and somebody was trying to buy a house, they didn’t have that many options. A house has always been a very expensive thing to buy, so they need to borrow some money to buy a house. And how could you do that?
Maybe if you’re rich, you could do it, or had a rich uncle, but otherwise you need to go to somebody who has capital and that you could borrow it and give them some interest in return. And pay them back over time, and be able to live in that house while you’re paying back the amount of money that you borrowed. And so if people think of It’s a Wonderful Life where there’s the Bailey Brothers building in loans and where they, people deposit their small savings into the buildings and loan.
And then some people are then able to borrow some money from the buildings and loan for mortgages. And there’s the famous scene where there’s a panic at the bank. And Jimmy Stewart says, Mrs. Kennedy, your money is in Mrs. Smith’s house. And Mrs. Smith, your money is in Ms. Macklin’s house.
And that’s the way it was done in the 19th century and the early 20th century. But there were real limitations to that. Sometimes communities didn’t have a lot of capital to lend people, so maybe in out west or in the Midwest there wasn’t a lot of capital, like there might’ve been back east in Boston or New York.
And so people who could have handled the mortgage just didn’t have access to it. It was like they were living in a dry area, and the fresh flowing credit didn’t reach their dry community. So during the Great Depression and the New Deal the government started to intervene, to spread credit out across the country in a way that kind of provided liquidity to all the communities where people wanted to borrow.
And Fannie Mae was a creature of the New Deal, but really took off in the ’70s along with its sibling Freddie Mac. And effectively, what those two companies were designed by Congress to do was to ensure that capital could go across state borders in a way that banks were typically not allowed to do. And they effectively created at first a national market for mortgage credit, and effectively when they access the global credit markets over time, an international global market for credit. So they’re really intermediaries.
March 26, 2025 | Permalink | No Comments
March 21, 2025
Move Fast and Break the Mortgage Market
Bill Pulte, FHFA Director and Chair of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
I was quoted in the American Prospect’s story, Move Fast and Break the Mortgage Market. It reads, in part,
This week, the Donald Trump–appointed chief regulator for the two quasi-governmental companies that own or control about half of the residential housing market anointed himself the board chair of both those companies. This maneuver could signal a host of shenanigans: the culmination of a 17-year hedge fund get-rich-quick scheme, a balance-sheet fiction to justify tax cuts, a new favor factory for apartment developers with ties to the president, a data transfer so Elon Musk’s everything app can learn how to sell mortgages, or something equally problematic.
But what gives former board members, market observers, and officials at the regulator greater concern is the distinct possibility that mucking around with the $7.7 trillion secondary mortgage market could lead to breaking it.
If that happens, homebuyers may not be able to get mortgages, homebuilders may be reluctant to break ground, and uncertainty would abound in a market that has brought down the economy on more than one occasion in U.S. history, most recently in 2008. “It could freeze sales, freeze refinances, stop people from forming households, cause people to be afraid of moving, freeze up developers of housing and the secondary market,” said David Reiss, a professor at Cornell Law School.
Multifamily Glad-Handing
The GSEs have a pretty sober business on the single-family side, and since the housing collapse really originated there, a lot of work was done to clean up that part of the business. But Fannie and Freddie also make loans in the multifamily market to support building of apartments and condos. A former official with one of the GSEs told me that business is a little looser, with ways to enhance those loans.
This president, of course, is a multifamily real estate developer himself, who has friends in multifamily real estate development. Hamara, one of the new board members, is a vice president at Tri Pointe Homes, a major homebuilder. You could imagine these relationships leading to the GSEs pushing risk limits, loosening credit standards, or raising loan-to-value ratios for favored borrowers. There is a secret mortgage blacklist at Fannie Mae for condos without enough property insurance or in need of repairs; controlling the board could make that blacklist go away, at least for certain developers.
This kind of setup resembles the opportunity zones that were a feature of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. They gave significant tax breaks to investors in certain communities deemed in need of development. Trump administration officials credit opportunity zones with increasing housing construction, but critics argue that the investments were rife with corruption and favor-trading.
That could also be the case here: New criteria guiding the new boards might lead to more multifamily housing, but with uneven results, favors to friends, and idiosyncratic deals that would be more about boosting allies than building housing. And as Calabria has pointed out, Fannie and Freddie are likely under Trump to cancel affordable-housing initiatives, meaning that sweetheart deals might only extend to the developers, rather than the public. Plus, there is the potential for dramatic losses if lending standards erode.
Reiss, of Cornell, agreed that this was all a possibility. “If someone gets to one of the directors, and they are there not acting as a fiduciary for the company, it opens the door to political favoritism,” he said.
* * *
What If It Breaks
Pulte is expected to force job cuts at the GSEs, which employ roughly 15,000 people. He has already been making familiar noises about DEI and remote work. One possibility on the table at the GSEs is merging Fannie and Freddie; you don’t usually have the same person chair the boards of two direct competitors. The regulatory agency is also likely to see cuts; already at FHFA, according to one source, fair lending and consumer protection groups have been put on administrative leave, along with employees at the Division of Research and Statistics.
Controlling the boards would limit dissent about these actions. But cuts in the name of efficiency could strain or even rupture the numerous functions the GSEs carry out, with consequences for the entire housing market.
Due to the conservatorship, the GSEs are limited in what they can pay their employees, which has led to a talent drain. Some systems have not been integrated, and others are not up to industry standards. Fannie and Freddie have a cautious internal culture that doesn’t move quickly. Hacking away at their already weakened structure could easily create operational harm.
But Reiss explained that nothing has to overtly break to lose the confidence of the markets; even a lack of workforce to move the paper around could create that impression, and disrupt the flow of credit. “If there is any kind of uncertainty, the spread between Fannie and Freddie securities and Treasury bonds will increase,” he said. “Investors will ask if the government will make good on Fannie and Freddie bonds. This uncertainty and direction could increase costs over time for all borrowers.”
March 21, 2025 | Permalink | No Comments
March 4, 2025
Protecting the CFPB’s Overdraft Fee Rule
I am a signatory to a letter being sent to the House’s Committee on Financial Services, in opposition to H.J. Res. 59 (Hill), CRA Resolution to Overturn CFPB Rule on Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions. The letter states,
The undersigned 278 consumer, civil rights, labor, legal services and community organizations and academics write to urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 59 (Hill) and any other effort to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s overdraft fee rule, which will reduce most overdraft fees from $35 to $5, stop manipulative practices by big banks, improve transparency, and put $5 billion back into the pockets of everyday people and their families. The public widely views current overdraft fee practices as unfair.
The overdraft fee rule closes a paper-check era loophole that has allowed big banks to trick people into paying excessive overdraft fees and earn billions in profits off of the most vulnerable families. The rule lowers most so-called “courtesy” overdraft fees from $35 to $5, saving households that pay overdraft fees an average of $225 a year. The rule gives big banks a variety of options to cover overdrafts, including safer, more transparent overdraft lines of credit with no price limit and the same disclosure requirements as credit cards. The rule only applies to very large institutions with over $10 billion in assets, many of which have already adopted similar protections. Smaller banks and credit unions are completely exempt.
We urge you to stand with everyday people over big banks. Banks should not profit off the struggles of working families through excessive, back-end overdraft junk fees. Please oppose H.J. Res. 59.
March 4, 2025 | Permalink | No Comments
February 12, 2025
The Brewing Constitutional Crisis
Benjamin Franklin bust by Jean-Antoine Houdon
437 law professors (myself included) from across the country have signed the following statement to call attention to the constitutional crisis that the nation is now facing.
A CALL TO URGENCY
The opening weeks of the second Trump administration convince us, as law professors who have spent years studying the American legal system, that we are beginning to see unfold the gravest threat to the rule of law and its constituent principles – the separation of governmental powers, the independence of prosecutorial authority, the inviolability of human rights, the transparency of government action, and the sanctity of constitutional accountability itself – ever presented in our lifetimes. The president’s and his associates’ actions, and threats of action, profoundly undermine the bedrock principle of our federal government system – that the Chief Executive and his agents are constrained by the United States Constitution. The fundamental guardrails of our constitutional democracy itself are threatened and notably battered. They are, as we write, at risk of complete collapse.
We recall that Benjamin Franklin warned, when asked by Elizabeth Willing Powell whether he and his colleagues had delivered “a republic or a monarchy,” that we have “a republic” but only “if you can keep it.” We hope that all Americans, and especially all lawyers, will recognize the gravity of this situation and will be prepared to answer that challenge with the urgency required in the days, weeks, and months ahead.
You can find the current list of signatories here.
February 12, 2025 | Permalink | No Comments
December 17, 2024
Federal Home Loan Banks’ Liquidity Role During Financial Crises
The historic Federal Home Loan Bank Board Building CC BY-SA 4.0
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has invited me to participate in a review of the Federal Home Loan Banks’ Liquidity Role During Financial Crises. I have previously written about the FHLBs here. The invite reads in part,
GAO is an independent, nonpartisan federal agency that supports Congress by evaluating federal programs and activities. In response to a request from the House Committee on Financial Services, our team is conducting a review of the Federal Home Loan Banks’ (FHLBank) liquidity role during financial crises.
As part of our work, we plan to provide Congress and the public more information on the strengths, limitations, and feasibility of certain changes that academics, interest groups, and others have suggested to address perceived issues with FHLBank lending during crises. We identified the changes through a review of academic, trade, and grey (dissertations, blog posts, etc.) literature since 2007. We then narrowed the list down to a shorter list of changes for further discussion. While we recognize there is currently substantial discussion around the FHLBanks’ housing mission and membership, we are focusing on FHLBanks’ lending to banks. Please note that the changes to be discussed are not GAO recommendations.
The GAO is seeking input “from individuals, organizations, federal agencies, and FHLBanks on the list of changes to address concerns with FHLBank lending during crises.” I had previously written that while the FHLBank System
was originally designed to support homeownership, it has morphed into a provider of liquidity for large financial institutions.
Banks like JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citibank NA and Wells Fargo & Co. are among its biggest beneficiaries and homeownership is only incidentally supported by their involvement with it.
As part of the comprehensive review of the system, we should give thought to at least changing the name of the system so that it cannot trade on its history as a supporter of affordable homeownership. But we should go even farther and give some thought to spinning off its functions into other parts of the federal financial infrastructure as its functions are redundant with theirs.
This GAO review is a good start to subjecting the System to such a comprehensive review!
December 17, 2024 | Permalink | No Comments
October 28, 2024
Social Housing, Federal Style
U.S. Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) and Representative Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) recently introduced the Homes Act which would establish a Housing Development Authority. The HDA is based on the Social Housing Development Authority bill introduced in New York earlier this year.
I was on a panel that discussed the pros and cons of the New York bill. The recording of the panel can be found here.
More specifically the federal bill would
- Establish a national Housing Development Authority to acquire and develop real estate to create and maintain a stock of permanent, sustainable, affordable housing, including single- and multi-family housing, with robust tenant protections.
- Empower local communities to address their specific housing needs by financing real estate acquisition or conveying property to public housing authorities, mission-driven nonprofits, tenant- or resident-owned cooperatives, state or local governments, and community land trusts.
- Require the housing development authority to maintain portfolio-wide affordability by setting aside 40% of units for extremely-low income households and 30% of units for low-income households.
- Cap rents for units financed under the Act at 25% of a household’s adjusted gross income and cannot increase more than 3% per year.
- Support homeownership by allowing residents to purchase homes under shared equity models and providing relief to mortgage borrowers at risk of foreclosure due to market instability or economic distress.
- Provide workers with strong labor protections building this new housing.
- Provide tenants with opportunities to come together to purchase their buildings prior to large, for-profit developers buying them.
- Provide funding to rehabilitate and address the backlog of necessary improvements for public housing and repeal the Faircloth Amendment to allow new public housing.
- Authorize $30 billion in annual appropriations, combined with a revolving loan fund to recoup and reinvest funds back into housing. Annual appropriations include a 5% minimum set aside for Tribal communities and a 10% minimum set aside for rural communities.
(This is from AOC’s press release, linked to above.)
October 28, 2024 | Permalink | No Comments
October 23, 2024
Foreclosure Rescue Scam Shut Down
I recently served as an expert witness in a forfeiture proceeding that stemmed from an expansive criminal scheme to defraud vulnerable New York City residents out of their homes. I was a pro bono expert on behalf of one of the homeowners. Judge Ramos (SDNY) ruled in favor of the homeowner, relying in part on my testimony regarding due diligence norms in real estate transactions. United States v. Meiri, 15 Cr. 627 (ER), 2024 WL 451230 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2024), The opinion can be found here.
The Opinion & Order opens,
This forfeiture proceeding stems from an expansive criminal scheme to defraud vulnerable New York City residents out of their homes or other properties. From around January 2013 to May 2015, Herzel and Amir Meiri, along with five other defendants, operated an organization known as “Homeowner Assistance Services of New York” (HASNY). The defendants targeted owners of distressed properties, inviting them to seek HASNY’s assistance to save their homes from foreclosure. Under the pretense of a loan modification or a short sale, the defendants then tricked the victims into transferring their properties to one of the defendants’ entities. The defendants generated millions of dollars in profits through this fraudulent enterprise.
The scheme eventually came undone, and criminal proceedings were initiated. The Meiris pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and they agreed to forfeit more than thirty properties to the United States. Two of those properties, both located in Brooklyn, are at issue here. the first is 2146 and 2148 Fulton Street, which the defendants stole from Mary and Samuel Nyamekye. The second is 644 Chauncey Street, which the defendants stole from Olive and Vincent Holmes.
After stealing those properties, the Meiris used them as collateral to secure loans from Petermark II LLC and Advill Capital LLC. Petermark and Advill have filed third-party petitions asserting an interest in the forfeited properties. The companies maintain that they made the loans without actual or constructive knowledge of the Meiris’ fraud. The United States, however, contends that Petermark and Advill were on notice of the fraud due to numerous red flags. Mr. Nyamekye and Mr. Holmes have filed third-party petitions as well.
October 23, 2024 | Permalink | No Comments
