During the next several years, as the housing market crashed and then began to eke its way back, Fannie and Freddie drew $188 billion from the Treasury. They were in turn forced to pay 10 percent stock dividends back. Then in 2012, the Treasury announced that that agreement would be replaced by a quarterly sweep of every dollar of profit that each institution earned in the future.

(Read more: Map: Tracking the recovery)

The move was designed to, “help expedite the wind down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, make sure that every dollar of earnings each firm generates is used to benefit taxpayers, and support the continued flow of mortgage credit during a responsible transition to a reformed housing finance market,” went the 2012 release.

By 2012, with the housing market rebounding and newly originated loans faring better than any in history, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began turning annual profits. By 2013, those profits were growing dynamically, and the two are now nearing the amount they originally drew from the Treasury, although the payments do not go to pay back the draw. The Treasury still owns the preferred stock. The money simply goes to the government.

Now, as individual investors in Fannie and Freddie stock cry foul, launching lawsuits against the government and demanding their share, lawmakers are under increased pressure to find a fitting end for the conservatorship and the entities. The question is whether or not to put a government backstop into the market yet again.

“The construct of a government-guaranteed, mortgage-backed security is absolutely going to be needed,” said David Stevens, CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association. “You can’t have a functioning housing finance system where private capital just leaves it in the next recession. You need to have constant liquidity provided to the U.S. system, and that comes from the guaranteed mortgage-backed security.”

Confidence is key going forward, and investors are unlikely to pour money back into the mortgage market without a guarantee that in another catastrophic crash there won’t be some government backstop. One of the leading bipartisan proposals in Congress, introduced by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Mark Warner, D-Va., does create an investor and borrower-funded backstop. It will make loans slightly more costly, but the government guarantee on mortgage-backed securities would be there.

“The biggest problem is that Congress wants supercheap mortgages and they want to eliminate taxpayer risk for the housing market, and that’s just a holy grail to get,” said Guggenheim’s Seiberg. “Anything less than 100 percent government backstop is going to raise questions about whether fixed income investors are really going to be there to pick up the slack and to buy those securities.”

Federal regulators are already trying to shrink the portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even as Congress still debates their future. They have layered on heavy fees to lenders, which have actually made conforming loans (those backed by Fannie and Freddie) more costly than jumbo loans funded by banks. There is also a move to lower the loan limits on conforming loans, which would push banks and investors to take on more of the markets.

(Read more: Jobs report tempers mortgage rates)

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018586

During the next several years, as the housing market crashed and then began to eke its way back, Fannie and Freddie drew $188 billion from the Treasury. They were in turn forced to pay 10 percent stock dividends back. Then in 2012, the Treasury announced that that agreement would be replaced by a quarterly sweep of every dollar of profit that each institution earned in the future.

(Read more: Map: Tracking the recovery)

The move was designed to, “help expedite the wind down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, make sure that every dollar of earnings each firm generates is used to benefit taxpayers, and support the continued flow of mortgage credit during a responsible transition to a reformed housing finance market,” went the 2012 release.

By 2012, with the housing market rebounding and newly originated loans faring better than any in history, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began turning annual profits. By 2013, those profits were growing dynamically, and the two are now nearing the amount they originally drew from the Treasury, although the payments do not go to pay back the draw. The Treasury still owns the preferred stock. The money simply goes to the government.

Now, as individual investors in Fannie and Freddie stock cry foul, launching lawsuits against the government and demanding their share, lawmakers are under increased pressure to find a fitting end for the conservatorship and the entities. The question is whether or not to put a government backstop into the market yet again.

“The construct of a government-guaranteed, mortgage-backed security is absolutely going to be needed,” said David Stevens, CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association. “You can’t have a functioning housing finance system where private capital just leaves it in the next recession. You need to have constant liquidity provided to the U.S. system, and that comes from the guaranteed mortgage-backed security.”

Confidence is key going forward, and investors are unlikely to pour money back into the mortgage market without a guarantee that in another catastrophic crash there won’t be some government backstop. One of the leading bipartisan proposals in Congress, introduced by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Mark Warner, D-Va., does create an investor and borrower-funded backstop. It will make loans slightly more costly, but the government guarantee on mortgage-backed securities would be there.

“The biggest problem is that Congress wants supercheap mortgages and they want to eliminate taxpayer risk for the housing market, and that’s just a holy grail to get,” said Guggenheim’s Seiberg. “Anything less than 100 percent government backstop is going to raise questions about whether fixed income investors are really going to be there to pick up the slack and to buy those securities.”

Federal regulators are already trying to shrink the portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even as Congress still debates their future. They have layered on heavy fees to lenders, which have actually made conforming loans (those backed by Fannie and Freddie) more costly than jumbo loans funded by banks. There is also a move to lower the loan limits on conforming loans, which would push banks and investors to take on more of the markets.

(Read more: Jobs report tempers mortgage rates)

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101018586

“Nonagency jumbo lenders began dipping their toes in the water as early as 2011, and even more so into the end of 2012. Strong loan quality due to tight underwriting combined with competition between large banks and securitzers has led to relatively increased demand. Wells and Chase are keen to compete with securitizers like Redwood or Sequoia in order to capture potential income streams from jumbo clients’ bank business.”

(Read more: Higher mortgage rates may mean easier credit)

In addition, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which back and bundle two-thirds of conventional loans, have been raising the fees they charge to banks, so-called guarantee fees, mostly to protect themselves against default. Guarantee fees have nearly doubled in just the past year.

“As G-fees move higher, this increase gets added into conforming mortgage rates,” said Guy Cecala of Inside Mortgage Finance. “It’s a factor, but not the biggest one, allowing portfolio jumbo lenders to match or undercut conforming mortgage rates.”

The bigger factor, said Cecala, is that 92 percent of jumbo mortgages are made by banks that fund the loans with their deposits and then hold them in a portfolio. Given that the interest paid on consumer deposits in banks is still incredibly low, lenders can still make a profit on mortgages priced at 4 percent or less if they want to. In fact, jumbo loans, by some lenders, can actually cost less than conforming.

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100962728

She also added that the president was part of a LinkedIn town hall meeting with CEO Jeff Weiner and a Facebook chat with CEO Mark Zuckerburg, although those were not specifically about social media companies but about the broader economy.

(Read more: Higher mortgage rates, easier credit?)

Zillow employees have contributed to the campaigns of several Democrats, including Obama, although the company does not have a PAC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Rascoff, in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawkbox,” said the interview makes “perfect sense” and is part of Zillow’s mission to empower its users, which now number 60 million.

“It’s an unprecedented opportunity to connect our audience at Zillow directly with the president,” he said. “We are a fantastic platform to connect directly with consumers.”

—By CNBC’s Diana Olick. Follow her on Twitter @Diana_Olick.

Questions?Comments? facebook.com/DianaOlickCNBC

Editor’s note: Posts from Zillowblog.com are sometimes republished on NBCNews.com.

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100946724

In the first three months of this year, there were nearly 1.4 million refinances on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages alone, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Of those, 22 percent were through HARP, which was recently extended through 2015. More than 2.4 million borrowers so far have taken advantage of that program.

For borrowers who don’t have government-backed loans and therefore don’t qualify for that program, rising home prices have helped allow more of them to qualify for refinances. Among borrowers, 850,000 rose above water on their mortgages, moving into a positive equity position in the first three months of this year, according to a new report from CoreLogic. While nearly 10 million are still underwater, the more that rise above, the more refinances can happen.

More From CNBC.com
Investors Sue Over Fannie, Freddie Stock
Big Banks Bet on Jumbo Mortgages Again
Tracking the US Real Estate Recovery

“We are still far below peak home price levels, but tight supplies in many areas coupled with continued demand for single family homes should help us close the gap,” said Anand Nallathambi, the CEO of CoreLogic.

Rising prices, however, are a double-edged sword, especially in a rising interest rate environment. Potential buyers are losing purchasing power every day, just as demand is surging.

—By CNBC’s Diana Olick. Follow her on Twitter @Diana_Olick or on Facebook at facebook.com/DianaOlickCNBC.

Questions? Comments? RealtyCheck@cnbc.com.

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100810389

(Read More: Inside America’s Economic Crisis)

That is why their stocks initially plummeted in value in 2008 and were delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. The shares would only have value if Congress were to take them out of conservatorship and allow them to recapitalize. That, most analysts say, is a very long shot.

“This is a congress that needs and wants a lot of money. Why would they ever give up this revenue stream, especially if it’s going to speculative bets on Wall Street?” asked Ed Mills of FBR Capital Markets.

Mills said investors are weaving an exciting tale, but one unlikely to have a happy ending. At first it was small individual investors, but now larger hedge funds, like Paulson and Co and Perry Capital, are getting in, according to several published reports. While members of Congress have yet to pass any legislation toward dismantling Fannie and Freddie or returning them to private companies, with or without a government backstop, the idea that they would just give them back to shareholders is, again, unlikely.

(Read More: Paulson Raised Bet on Mortgage Insurers in First Quarter Filing)

Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee who is sponsoring legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has been clear that stockholders will get nothing in his plan, despite the recent profitability of the two:

“If Treasury were to decide to sell its preferred share investment without Congress having first reformed our housing sector, we would just be returning to a time where gains are for private shareholders and losses are for taxpayers. Neither of these is an acceptable outcome,” according to a recent release.

Still, it is enticing to think about.

“Fannie/Freddie is an extremely exciting story. This year, Fannie and Freddie are likely to post combined net income of over $100 Billion—more than the combined estimated earnings of both Exxonand Apple. Pretty good for two entities left for dead in the fall of 2008,” said James Fenkner, a California-based investor who has owned Fannie Mae shares. “I’m a long term believer in the eventual recovery of Fannie and Freddie, but also believe that the story of the commons and [less so] junior preferred are not yet ready for prime time. Should Fannie and Freddie recover to their pre 2008 highs, the common shares could rally eight times and the preferred five times their current prices. Yet, such gains assumes a fairly tale ending, and that is a probability asymptotically close to zero.”

As Fannie Mae’s dividend payments to Treasury, so far $95 billion, now approach the amount it drew, $116.1 billion, investors have a better case to make.

(Read More: Fannie Mae Should Be Abolished, Says Barney Frank)

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100754423

(Read More: Inside America’s Economic Crisis)

That is why their stocks initially plummeted in value in 2008 and were delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. The shares would only have value if Congress were to take them out of conservatorship and allow them to recapitalize. That, most analysts say, is a very long shot.

“This is a congress that needs and wants a lot of money. Why would they ever give up this revenue stream, especially if it’s going to speculative bets on Wall Street?” asked Ed Mills of FBR Capital Markets.

Mills said investors are weaving an exciting tale, but one unlikely to have a happy ending. At first it was small individual investors, but now larger hedge funds, like Paulson and Co and Perry Capital, are getting in, according to several published reports. While members of Congress have yet to pass any legislation toward dismantling Fannie and Freddie or returning them to private companies, with or without a government backstop, the idea that they would just give them back to shareholders is, again, unlikely.

(Read More: Paulson Raised Bet on Mortgage Insurers in First Quarter Filing)

Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee who is sponsoring legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has been clear that stockholders will get nothing in his plan, despite the recent profitability of the two:

“If Treasury were to decide to sell its preferred share investment without Congress having first reformed our housing sector, we would just be returning to a time where gains are for private shareholders and losses are for taxpayers. Neither of these is an acceptable outcome,” according to a recent release.

Still, it is enticing to think about.

“Fannie/Freddie is an extremely exciting story. This year, Fannie and Freddie are likely to post combined net income of over $100 Billion—more than the combined estimated earnings of both Exxonand Apple. Pretty good for two entities left for dead in the fall of 2008,” said James Fenkner, a California-based investor who has owned Fannie Mae shares. “I’m a long term believer in the eventual recovery of Fannie and Freddie, but also believe that the story of the commons and [less so] junior preferred are not yet ready for prime time. Should Fannie and Freddie recover to their pre 2008 highs, the common shares could rally eight times and the preferred five times their current prices. Yet, such gains assumes a fairly tale ending, and that is a probability asymptotically close to zero.”

As Fannie Mae’s dividend payments to Treasury, so far $95 billion, now approach the amount it drew, $116.1 billion, investors have a better case to make.

(Read More: Fannie Mae Should Be Abolished, Says Barney Frank)

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100754423

(Read More: Housing Recovery Is Leaving Behind First-Time Buyers)

Congress raised guarantee fees in 2011 to pay for a payroll tax cut. There is yet another plan to raise fees further to fund immigration reform, although the bill is widely expected to fail.

“Dipping back into the housing piggybank to pay for unrelated policy items on the backs of America’s homebuyers ends the wrong message at a time when the housing market is starting to show signs of recovery,” wrote David Stevens, President and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association in a statement last month.

(Read More: Big Money Is Making Big Bets on a Housing Rebound )

Raising guarantee fees is another way for government to wind down the two mortgage giants it still backs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but that comes at a cost to borrowers who are already hampered by stricter underwriting standards.

“G-fees will continue to increase as a way to run down the GSEs’ role in the mortgage market,” writes Paul Diggle of Capital Economics. “Stronger mortgage demand suggests that would-be buyers are growing in confidence. Nevertheless, mortgage lending will continue to be held back by tight credit.”

(Read More: Home Builders Beg for Skilled Workers)

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100301299

(Read More: Economy Faces Slow Growth No Matter Who Wins Election)

“We will ask for greater focus from this administration on ensuring that this regulation coming from so many different regulators is being considered more thoughtfully,” said David Stevens, president and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association. The MBA is renewing its call on the President to appoint a federal housing policy coordinator to act as something of a “traffic cop” to ensure “a coordinated housing policy where federal and regulatory agencies are effectively talking to each other” during the rulemaking process.

(Read More:Surprisingly, Obama Won on the Economy)

As for the millions of borrowers who still owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth, the Obama administration has consistently said it wants to extend mortgage refinancing to take advantage of today’s record low rates. With Democrats still holding the Senate, it seems more likely they could get new legislation on mortgage refinancing, but analysts bet again the removal of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator, Edward DeMarco, who has stood staunchly in the way of lowering mortgage principal.

Click on ticker to follow real estate news:

US Home Builders

—Toll Brothers
[TOL 
Loading... 
 
 
()
 
]

—DR Horton
[DHI 
Loading... 
 
 
()
 
]

—Hovnanian Enterprises
[HOV 
Loading... 
 
 
()
 
]

—PulteGroup
[PHM 
Loading... 
 
 
()
 
]

—Ryland Group
[RYL 
Loading... 
 
 
()
 
]

—Lennar Corp
[LEN 
Loading... 
 
 
()
 
]

—Beazer Homes USA
[BZH 
Loading... 
 
 
()
 
]

—Meritage Homes
[MTH 
Loading... 
 
 
()
 
]

—KB Home
[KBH 
Loading... 
 
 
()
 
]

Questions?  Comments?