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

All three components of the index rose in July. Current sales conditions rose five points to 60—the highest level since early 2006. The component gauging sales expectations in the next six months gained seven points to 67, and the component gauging traffic of prospective buyers rose five points to 45—marking the strongest readings for each since late 2005.

“Builders are seeing more motivated buyers coming through their doors as the inventory of existing homes for sale continues to tighten,” noted NAHB Chief Economist David Crowe. “Meanwhile, as the infrastructure that supplies home building returns, some previously skyrocketing building material costs have begun to soften.”Sales of newly built homes rose just over 2 percent from May to June. Single family housing starts were flat. But permits, considered a more reliable indicator, gained 1.3 percent month-to-month.

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100889688

The difference this quarter is that the dividend is huge. Thanks to the company’s new profitability, Fannie Mae is able to take a tax credit from years ago worth over $50 billion, according to its earnings release:

As a result of actions to strengthen its financial performance and continued improvement in the housing market, Fannie Mae’s financial results have improved significantly over the past five quarters. Based on analysis of all relevant factors, Fannie Mae determined that the release of the valuation allowance on its deferred tax assets was appropriate.

Therefore, Fannie Mae will pay the Treasury $59 billion by the end of this quarter, bringing its total tally of dividend payments to $95 billion—close to the $117 billion it originally drew. Again, the money does not go to pay back that draw. So where does it go?

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

“It’s up to the Treasury to decide what to do with it,” said Fannie Mae CEO Timothy Mayopoulos in a conference call with reporters.

With Fannie Mae and its smaller cohort, Freddie Mac, turning so much profit, the push to dismantle them becomes far more complicated. Unlike several years ago, they are now making the government money at the same time that the feds should be winding them down.

“There is a risk that policy makers will look at our profitability and conclude that they don’t need to take action to reform the housing finance system,” said Mayopoulos. “That would be a mistake.”

As of now, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Agency—all government sponsored entities (GSEs)—provide the bulk of the nation’s housing finance. The private market has yet to dive back in with both feet. Fannie and Freddie are still crucial to the housing recovery, but should the government reap all the rewards rather than mortgage holders or investors?

“It seems strange that everyone else who borrowed from U.S. Treasury in the crisis is allowed to pay back, but the GSEs are neither allowed to rebuild capital nor repay. Shouldn’t we get to reform rather than use them as a budget tool?” asks Joshua Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher.

Lawmakers are busy debating how to create a private housing finance system with at least a modest government back-stop. Simultaneously, Washington is fighting a wider budget battle, owing to an enormous federal deficit. The two are now intimately connected, and Fannie’s new profitability is the link.

“If Fannie and Freddie this year effectively ‘pay back’ all the bailout money they received since late 2008, I think we need to think long and hard about the need to continue collecting money from the firms. Is it punishment for past sins? Or is it because the government needs cash cows?” asks Guy Cecala of Inside Mortgage Finance.

“And while it may sound like crazy talk, we probably also need to at least discuss whether Fannie and Freddie should be taken out of conservatorship once they pay back the money Treasury advanced them and they are in fact solvent,” he added. “Unfortunately, the current Treasury agreement treats them as wards of the state regardless of how much money they return to the government or how much money they earn.”

The housing crash was a game-changer for housing finance in the United States. That said, the recovery of both the overall housing market and the companies that fund it will necessitate new thinking as well.

—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/100724407

For those of you worried that the scheduled expiration of higher loan limits at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA will have a negative effect on the housing market by raising the cost of home ownership, you can be rest assured the chairman of the Federal Reserve is fine with it.

“As far as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are concerned, there is a tradeoff there between supporting the higher priced homes and weaning the housing finance system off of unusual limits it was put under during the crisis,” Ben Bernanke told a Congressional Committee today.

“I understand the private sector is taking at least a significant number of the jumbo mortgage market but at a higher cost,” Bernanke said.

There have been numerous and varied contentions about the future state of the mortgage market once loan limits drop from the maximum $729,750 to $625,500. The home builders think it will be catastrophic while some economists and academics say it will have little effect, especially at the FHA.

Bernanke admits that jumbo loans will come, “at a higher cost,” but we have to put in perspective what exactly that higher cost will be. Mortgage rates on conforming loans are already near historic lows, hovering around 4.5 percent on the 30-year fixed. Today’s talk about the potential for QE3 pushed bond yields lower, which in turn keep mortgage rates low.

Page 1 of 2 | Next Page
Show Entire Article

JPMorgan Posts Higher Second-Quarter Profit

Buying US Debt ‘Mind-Boggling’: Marc Faber

Yield on Italy Bonds in Auction Highest Since 2008

Bernanke Fears Will Help Obama in 2012: Analyst

Oil Giant ConocoPhillips to Split in Two, CEO to Retire

More Top Stories

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43744143?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS