Freddie Mac has invested billions of dollars betting that U.S. homeowners won’t be able to refinance their mortgages at today’s lower rates, according to an investigation by NPR and ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit newsroom.
January 30, 2012
Freddie Mac, a taxpayer-owned mortgage company, is supposed to make homeownership easier. One thing that makes owning a home more affordable is getting a cheaper mortgage.
These investments, while legal, raise concerns about a conflict of interest within Freddie Mac.
“We were actually shocked they did this,” says Scott Simon, who heads the mortgage-backed securities team at the giant bond trading and investment firm called PIMCO. “It seemed so out of line with their mission, out of line with what Congress wanted them to do.”
Freddie Mac, formally called the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., was chartered by Congress in 1970. On its website, it says it has “a public mission to stabilize the nation’s residential mortgage markets and expand opportunities for homeownership.” The company is owned by U.S. taxpayers and overseen by a regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
In December, Freddie’s chief executive, Charles Haldeman, assured Congress his company is “helping financially strapped families reduce their mortgage costs through refinancing their mortgages.”
But public documents show that in 2010 and 2011, Freddie Mac set out to make gains for its own investment portfolio by using complex mortgage securities that brought in more money for Freddie Mac when homeowners in higher interest-rate loans were unable to qualify for a refinancing.
Those trades “put them squarely against the homeowner,” PIMCO’s Simon says.
Freddie Mac’s trades came at a time when mortgage rates were falling to record lows. Millions of homeowners wish they could refinance, but their lenders tell them they can’t qualify for today’s low rates because of tight rules. Freddie Mac is one of the gatekeepers with the power to set those rules, and lately, it has been saying no more often to homeowners.
That raises concerns among some industry insiders who see a conflict: Freddie Mac’s own financial health improves when homeowners can’t refinance.
Simply put, “Freddie Mac prevented households from being able to take advantage of today’s mortgage rates — and then bet on it,” says Alan Boyce, a former bond trader who has been involved in efforts to push for more refinancing of home loans.
In the summer of 2010, long lines of hopeful homeowners waited for help from the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America’s “Save the Dream” tour. The tour made stops around the U.S., offering assistance from hundreds of mortgage counselors from various mortgage companies.
Freddie and FHFA repeatedly declined to comment on the specific transactions, but Freddie did say that its employees who make investment decisions are “walled off” from those who decide the rules for homeowners.
When Homeowners Lose, Freddie Mac Wins
Freddie Mac, based in Northern Virginia, says its job is to purchase “loans from lenders to replenish their supply of funds so that they [the lenders] can make more mortgage loans to other borrowers.” That’s one reason why Freddie has a gigantic portfolio containing loans that generate income from mortgage payments. Critics say this investment portfolio has been allowed to grow far larger than necessary to further Freddie’s policy mission.
Plus, in 2010 and 2011, Freddie didn’t just hold a simple pile of loans. Instead, for hundreds of thousands of home loans, it used Wall Street alchemy to chop these loans up into complicated securities — slices of which were sold in financial markets.
This hypothetical example may help explain what happens:
1) Freddie Mac takes, say, $1 billion worth of home loans and packages them. With the help of a Wall Street banker, it can then slice off parts of the bundle to create different investment securities, some riskier than others. The slices could be set up so that, say, $900 million worth are relatively safe investments, based upon homeowners paying the principal on their mortgages.
2) But the one remaining slice, worth $100 million, is the riskiest part. Freddie retains that slice, known as an “inverse floater,” which receives all of the interest payments from the entire $1 billion worth of mortgages.
3) That riskiest investment pays out a lucrative stream of interest payments. But Freddie’s slice also has all the so-called “pre-payment risk” associated with that $1 billion worth of loans. So if lots of people “pre-pay” their old loans and refinance into new, cheaper ones, then Freddie Mac starts to lose money. If people can’t refinance, then Freddie wins because it continues to receive that flow of older, higher interest payments.
If the homeowner is unable to refinance, the Freddie Mac portfolio managers win, Simon says. “And if the homeowner can refinance, they lose.”
Refinancing A Path To Recovery…
“I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low rates,” Obama said during his State of the Union speech last week. “No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks.”
In his State of the Union address, President Obama pushed for legislation to allow “every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage” by refinancing without what he called “red tape” or a “runaround from the banks.”
Columbia University economist Chris Mayer supports such an approach. “A widespread refinancing program would have many benefits — not only helping the economy and putting tens of billions of dollars back in consumers’ pockets, the equivalent of a very long-term tax cut,” he says.
“It also is likely to reduce foreclosures and benefit the U.S. government by having fewer losses that they have to pay,” Mayer adds.
In the long term, he says, allowing more Americans to refinance would help taxpayers as well as mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, because they would suffer fewer losses related to foreclosures. These inverse floater trades, however, give Freddie Mac a short-term incentive to resist such so-called “mass re-fi” programs.
“If there was a mass re-fi program, the bets they made would get absolutely wiped out,” PIMCO’s Simon says. “The way these bets do the best is if the homeowner is barred from refinancing.”
In a written statement, Freddie said it “is actively supporting efforts for borrowers to realize the benefits of refinancing their mortgages to lower rates.” It also says it refinanced loans for hundreds of thousands of borrowers just last year.
Fannie and Freddie have taken part in an existing federal program known as “HARP” to help Americans refinance, but many economists say far more homeowners would benefit if Fannie and Freddie were to implement the program more aggressively. The Silversteins had trouble selling this house after they moved out, forcing them to carry two mortgages for more than two years. “It just drained us,” says Jay Silverstein. Enlarge Chris Arnold/NPR
The Silversteins had trouble selling their house after they moved out, forcing them to carry two mortgages for more than two years. “It just drained us,” says Jay Silverstein.
Stuck In ‘Financial Jail’
Some homeowners believe the current re-fi game is stacked against them. If Jay and Bonnie Silverstein were able to refinance their mortgage, they could save nearly $500 a month.
Jay and Bonnie Silverstein describe themselves as truly stuck in a bad mortgage. They live in an unfinished development of yellow stucco houses north of Philadelphia. The developer went bankrupt.
The Silversteins bought this home before the housing market crashed, and then couldn’t sell their old house. They now say that buying a new home before selling the old one was a mistake — a painful one. Stuck with two mortgages, they started to get behind on their payments on the old house.
“It wound up taking us years to sell that house, so we had two homes and two mortgages for two-and-a-half years,” Jay Silverstein says. “It burned up my 401(k) and drained us.”
Jay Silverstein has a modest pension, and they haven’t missed a mortgage payment on their current home. Still, they are struggling. They could make the monthly payment on their new home if they could just refinance — down from their current interest rate of near 7 percent to today’s rates below 4 percent. That could save them roughly $500 a month.
“You know, we’re living paycheck to paycheck,” he says. A lower rate “might go a long way toward helping us.”
But that’s the problem — getting approved for a refinancing. Here’s why: After the housing market crashed, the Silversteins’ old house had to be sold for less than the mortgage was worth. That’s known as a short sale.
Freddie Mac has been tightening lending restrictions, and one of its restrictions blocks people with a short sale in their past from refinancing for up to four years following that short sale. So the Silversteins are stranded by the rule.
“We’re in financial jail,” Jay says. “We’ve never been there before.” One of Freddie Mac’s restrictions blocks people who have a short sale in their past from refinancing for two to four years following the short sale.
Tight For Homeowners, But Elsewhere, Money Still Flows
Economists say that during the housing bubble, lending standards got too loose. Now many believe the pendulum has swung too far, making rules too tight.
The short-sale restriction may be a good example. For a home purchase, such a rule may be prudent, but allowing people with existing loans to refinance actually lowers the risk that they may default by giving them more affordable mortgage payments.
In a recent analysis of remedies for the stalled housing market, the Federal Reserve criticized Fannie and Freddie for the fees they have charged for refinancing. Such fees are “another possible reason for low rates of refinancing,” the Fed wrote, adding that the charges are “difficult to justify.”
Meanwhile, even though Freddie is a ward of the federal government, its top executives are highly compensated. The Freddie Mac official then in charge of its investment portfolio, Peter Federico, made $2.5 million in 2010, and had target compensation of $2.6 million for last year — the time period during which most of these inverse floater investments were made. ProPublica and NPR made numerous attempts to reach Federico. A woman who answered his home phone said he declined to comment.
NPR’s Uri Berliner and Marilyn Geewax also contributed to this report.
How Homeowner Assistance Fell Short
Freddie Mac: Mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were government-sponsored enterprises that nearly failed during the 2008 financial crisis that brought down the U.S. housing market. The government took over the companies that year; it has sunk more than $169 billion into keeping them afloat. Freddie Mac was chartered by Congress in 1970.
“Our statutory mission is to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the U.S. housing market,” Freddie Mac says on its website. Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee trillions of dollars worth of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged that six former top executives of Frannie and Freddie misled investors about the firms’ exposure to high-risk mortgages.
FHFA: The Federal Housing Finance Agency has regulated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae since the government took them over in 2008. The FHFA was created as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which was designed in part to allow borrowers to refinance with lower-cost, government-backed mortgages.
The Obama administration has been pressing the FHFA to allow more homeowners to refinance their government-backed loans at lower rates. But so far, programs to help millions of homeowners lower their costs have fallen short of expectations.
Refinancing: With mortgage rates at historic lows, millions of homeowners could save hundreds of dollars a month by refinancing their mortgages. Rates for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages have remained below 4 percent for several weeks in a row. But many homeowners can’t qualify for refinancing because their homes are “underwater” — the value has dropped far below the amount that they owe on their mortgages. In many cases, they can’t get a “re-fi” because they have been tripped up by a tangle of complicated eligibility requirements and paperwork.
In the real world, it’s not if you will be asked, but when you will be asked for some kind of personal loan from your great employee(s) or contractors.
Sure it would be easy to announce ‘NEVER Do That!”
but, most investors I know, have a huge heart and truly enjoy helping people.
Here is a proper way to “help your people” and cover your butt.
FYI, you should NOT do this like a Pay Day Cash Advance business. This should be, at most, allowed once every year or two. If you allow this to be “common practice,” you will get beat up and you will LOSE BIG TIME.
This is a very frustrating and pain in the butt activity, and it should be avoided as your first rule.
The Treasury Department will triple payments to mortgage investors for reducing borrower principal through an expanded Home Affordable Modification Program announced Friday.
Officials announced several critical changes to HAMP, including an enrollment extension to Dec. 31, 2013, from its original expiration date at the end of this year.
The Treasury will also require servicers to factor in second liens and other obligations in the debt-to-income ratio calculation. Previously, if a borrower’s first-lien mortgage monthly payment was below 31% of the income, the borrower was deemed ineligible. Factoring other debts to the DTI evaluation will expand the pool of borrowers who could receive the assistance.
To combat blight,
officials said they would also
expand HAMP to investors who are renting properties to tenants.
Since HAMP launched in March 2010, more than 900,000 permanent modifications have been conducted. The Treasury originally estimated the program to reach between 3 million to 4 million borrowers. As of Dec. 1, less than 1 million were estimated to be eligible for the program under past rules.
Of the modifications already given, roughly 36,400 resulted in reduced principal as of Dec. 1. The Treasury paid between six and 21 cents to the investors for each dollar forgiven under HAMP, but that will grow to between 18 and 63 cents, under the rule changes.
In a conference call Friday, Treasury Assistant Secretary Tim Massad would not estimate how many borrowers would be eligible after the changes, but he did say mortgage servicers were signaled some expansion, even for principal reduction.
“We have previewed the changes with the servicers,” Massad said. “We got a very positive initial reaction.”
Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said in the conference call Friday that the Treasury would make these payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if they participate in the principal reduction program.
To date, the GSEs have not committed to such a program.
Both GSEs owe the Treasury $151 billion in bailouts, and their regulator the Federal Housing Finance Agency said a wide-scale principal reduction program would cost Fannie and Freddie $100 billion.
Of the $29.9 billion allocated for HAMP and other housing programs, the Treasury has spent only $2.3 billion. The Treasury still owes another $9 billion to $10 billion for the modifications already done, Massad said.
Donovan renewed calls for servicers to ramp up principal reductions, and reiterated that they would be a main tool in crackdowns stemming from the ongoing foreclosure settlement talks and the securitization investigations launched this week.
“These changes aren’t going to solve all the problems in the housing market, but they shouldn’t have to wait for the market to hit bottom before getting some relief,” Donovan said.
President Obama’s finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.
It is true.
The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.
Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea! http://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud
It’s only 1%! This is a 1% tax on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit Unions, Mutual funds, Brokers, etc.
Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.
Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.
Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.
Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.
If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.
If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.
If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.
If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.
Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.
This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy. Keep your eyes and ears open.
Folks, Nancy says this would be a minimal tax on the people, but 1 percent every time you pay a bill or make a deposit is not minimal. This would no doubt tax investment transactions as well as bank account transactions.
Excerpt from American Debt Relief
Contact Your U.S. Representative AND U.S. Senator Now
Here is the Link for fill-in-the-blank email to Your U.S. Representative
Copyright MMXVII AskMikeButler.com • 4012 Dupont Circle, Suite 203 • Louisville, KY 40207
(502) 896-2595 DISCLAIMER: Per the current FTC guidelines, AskMikeButler.com and MikeButler.com are in the process of collecting results data in order to be able to define the
"typical" or "average" experience of our clients. While we collect this data, we are sharing of potential results based on theoretical numbers for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered income claims. None of these stories in any way represent the "average" or "typical" experience. In fact, as with any product or service, we know some members purchase our system but never use it, and therefore get no results whatsoever. Therefore, the client stories and testimonials neither represent nor guarantee the current or future experience of other past, current, or future 5mWebinars.com clients. Rather, their stories and testimonials represent what is possible with trainings and products. Each of these unique stories and/or testimonials, and any and all results reported by individuals, are the culmination of numerous variables, many of which AskMikeButler.com and our clients cannot control, including pricing,
target market conditions, product/service quality, offer, customer service, personal initiative, and countless other tangible and intangible factors. The information provided on AskMikeButler.com has been prepared with our best efforts, but cannot be warranted for effectiveness in every situation or against change.