Tag Archives: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Fannie/Freddie 2015 Scorecard

Posted on by

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) released its 2015 Scorecard for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Common Securitization Solutions. The scorecard identifies priorities for the two companies and their joint venture, Common Securitization Solutions (CSC). The scorecard builds on the FHFA’s Strategic Plan for the Conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These priorities include maintaining credit availability for residential mortgages; reducing taxpayer risk by increasing private capital in the residential mortgage market; and building a new single-family securitization platform for the  secondary mortgage market, the CSC.

There is nothing particularly notable in the scorecard, other than the sense that the FHFA is continuing to move in the direction that it has publicly charted for some time. I was happy to see that the FHFA is still focusing on increasing the role of private capital in the mortgage market:

  • Fannie Mae will transact credit risk transfers on reference pools of single-family mortgages with an unpaid principal balance (UPB) of at least $150 billion. This UPB requirement will be reviewed periodically and adjusted as necessary to reflect market conditions.
  • Freddie Mac will transact credit risk transfers on reference pools of single-family mortgages with a UPB of at least $120 billion. This UPB requirement will be reviewed periodically and adjusted as necessary to reflect market conditions.
  • In meeting the above targets, the Enterprises must each utilize at least two types of risk transfer structures. (3)

The FHFA is clearly trying to get Fannie and Freddie to experiment with risk transfer structures in order to identify approaches that minimize risks for the taxpayers who ultimately backstop the two companies. The FHFA is also trying to keep the cost of doing so to reasonable levels. These steps should be applauded by both Democrats and Republicans who are seeking to reform Fannie and Freddie and change how they operate within the secondary mortgage market.

Romano’s Iron Law of Financial Regulation

Posted on by

Roberta Romano has posted an essay, Further Assessment of the the Iron Law of Financial Regulation:  A Postscript to Regulating in the Dark, to SSRN. The abstract reads,

In an earlier companion essay, Regulating in the Dark, I contended that there is a systemic pattern in major U.S. financial regulation: (i) enactment is invariably crisis driven, adopted at a time when there is a paucity of information regarding what has transpired, (ii) resulting in off-the-rack solutions often poorly fashioned to the problem at hand, (iii) with inevitable flaws given the dynamic uncertainty of financial markets, (iv) but arduous to revise or repeal because of the stickiness of the status quo in the U.S. political framework of checks and balances. This pattern constitutes an “Iron Law” of U.S. financial regulation. The ensuing one-way regulatory ratchet generated by repeated financial crises has produced not only costly policy mistakes accompanied by unintended consequences but also a regulatory state whose cumulative regulatory impact produces over time an increasingly ineffective regulatory apparatus.

This Postscript analyzes the experience with regulators’ implementation of Dodd-Frank since the publication of the earlier essay. After a discussion of broad issues related to the statute and its implementation, the analysis focuses on two provisions by which Dodd-Frank exemplifies the difficulties that are created by legislative strategies conventionally adopted in crisis-driven legislation, off-the-rack solutions along with open-ended delegation to regulatory agencies as legislators, who perceive a political necessity to act quickly, adopt ready-to-go proposals offered by the policy entrepreneurs to whom they afford access: the Volcker rule, which prohibits banks’ proprietary trading, and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The analysis bolsters the original essay’s contention regarding the inherent flaws in major financial legislation and the corresponding benefit for improving decision-making that would be obtained from employing, as best practice, the legislative tools of sunsetting and experimentation to financial regulation. The use of those techniques, properly implemented, advances means-ends rationality, by better coupling the two, and improves the quality of decision-making by providing a means for measuring and remedying regulatory errors.

This is a foray into the dark heart of financial regulation. Romano finds much to be unhappy with. I disagree, however, with some of her main points. For instance, I think that her assessment of the role of the CFPB in the broader context of financial regulation misses the mark. She argues that the “absence of a designated consumer-product regulator” did “not contribute to the financial crisis.” (28) In fact, regulating exotic loan terms like Option ARMs and teaser rates would have slowed the expansion of the subprime market. Those exotic terms allowed lenders to keep the party going longer than it would have otherwise. And that would have limited the exposure of financial institutions to subprime mortgage-backed securities.

Notwithstanding my disagreements with this essay, I think that Romano’s “Iron Law” of financial regulation remains, unfortunately, quite strong.

 

Premature End to Foreclosure Review

Posted on by

Congressman Cummings (D), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has sent a letter to Congressman Issa, the Chairman of the Committee, regarding the Independent Foreclosure Review. It opens,

I am writing to request that the Committee hold a hearing on widespread foreclosure abuses and illegal activities engaged in by mortgage servicing companies.  I request that the hearing also examine why the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) appear to have prematurely ended the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) and entered into a major settlement agreement with most of the servicers just as the full extent of their harm was beginning to be revealed. (1)

It goes on to assert that “some mortgage servicing companies engaged in widespread and systemic foreclosure abuses, including charging improper and excessive fees, failing to process loan modifications in accordance with federal guidelines, and violating automatic stays after borrowers filed for bankruptcy.” (2) It concludes that it “remains unclear why the regulators terminated the IFR prematurely, how regulators determined the compensation amounts servicers were required to pay under the settlement, and how regulators could  claim that borrowers who were harmed by these servicers would benefit more from the settlement . . . than by allowing the IFR to be completed.” (2)

The letter raises a number of important concerns, but I will focus on just one — “how did the regulators arrive at the compensation amounts in the settlement?” (9) This particular settlement was for billions of dollars from BoA, PNC, JPMorgan and Citibank. This is an extraordinarily large sum, but the public is left with no sense of whether this sum is proportional to the harm done. I have raised this concern with other billion dollar settlements. As the federal government moves forward with these large settlements, it should carefully consider their expressive function — does the penalty fit the wrongdoing?  And if so, how was that calculated? People want to know.