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

Mortgage bankers shed 1,200 jobs, as their refinance business has dropped dramatically due to higher rates. The unemployment rate for young adults rose to 7.8 percent, with just 74.8 percent of them working, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is the lowest share in a year.

(Read more: Jobs growth misses high hopes; rate drops to 7.3% )

“Without jobs, fewer young adults will buy, rent, or even move out of their parents’ homes, which holds back future household formation and longer-term demand for new construction,” noted Jed Kolko, chief economist for Trulia.

On the other hand, large downward revisions in overall jobs in July kept mortgage rates from rising even further. Conforming loan rates are tied to mortgage-backed-securities, or MBS, which tend to correlate with U.S. Treasuries.

Conforming loans are those backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other government agencies. Their limit is $417,000 but can be as high as $625,500 in high-cost housing markets.

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101014193

“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

The bill instructs lenders with loans backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration, (which is about 90 percent of the market) to account for expected energy cost savings.

Those savings must then be factored into how much the borrower can afford in a monthly mortgage payment, so the energy savings are essentially subtracted from a borrowers expenses.

“You would be amazed at how a few dollars can make a difference in a transaction, $50 in a monthly payment, because people calculate their purchase and what to borrow based upon what it’s going to cost them per month,” argued Isakson.

The bill also tells lenders to add the value of expected energy savings to the value of the home in the appraisal. Since mortgage amounts are based on a percentage of the value of the home, this would allow borrowers to get a bigger mortgage.

(Read more: Housing starts stall, optimism doesn’t)

That’s where homeowners, like Tamara Lyons in Darnestown, Md., who already have green technology in their homes, will be able to make more money when they sell. The value of green will be in the appraisal.

“A lot of my neighbors feel that it’s too much of an initial investment, and they don’t want to put that money down,” explained Lyons, “But, if they see that it’s going to add to the value of their home for resale purposes I think it would definitely make the idea more sexy and more appealing.”

The legislation could also benefit companies that are investing heavily in green product development.

“Certainly companies like Dow or Home Depot who have been working on selling and highlighting their energy-efficient products. Insulation manufacturers … the whole host of manufacturers who make the products that go into the homes that make them more energy efficient,” said Stephen Cowell, CEO of Conservation Services Group.

“So we have a host of technologies and this would give manufacturers, builders, retailers and retrofit companies all an opportunity to begin reaching consumers to say ‘if you take advantage, if you put these products in, you can increase your home’s value’ because it’s now available to a broader range of homebuyers in the marketplace.”

Article source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100899584

What a difference two months (and 1.11%) makes: Higher rates mean this Brisbane condo would now pencil out to $254 more a month (Kiesha Stephens/Redfin)

Mortgage interest rates are on a tear. Last week they registered their sharpest one-week spike in years, hitting 4.46% for a fixed-rate 30-year home loan, according to Freddie Mac. Less than two months earlier, the rate was 3.35%.

Today’s Chronicle looks at the impact on the housing market; click here for the story.

Is a percentage more really that big a deal? Well, just ask all the folks who refinanced to carve that 1% off their mortgage rate.

Those who have not yet refinanced, perhaps because they were either underwater or close to it (lacking that magic 20% equity) are getting worried they may be out of luck. It’s a balancing act to see what will happen faster: Higher home values to increase their equity or higher mortgage rates that will make a refi less attractive.

Some home buyers, as well as those refinancing, may see the rising rates as motivation to get in the game.

“The rate increase spurred a lot of people to pull the trigger,” said Jay Voorhees, owner/broker of JVM Lending in Walnut Creek. “We’ve had an uptick in volume recently with both purchases and refinances.”

In his blog, mortgage broker Julian Hebron of RPM Mortgage in San Francisco discusses the possibility that rates could hit 5% in the near future.

While many experts say the housing market as a whole is likely to shrug off the higher rates, for some individual buyers, especially those on a shoestring budget, the impact will be stronger.

Consider these two homes now on the market, a condo very close to the Bay Area median, and a more high end home. Assuming a standard 20% down payment, look at what the monthly mortgage payments would be under today’s rate, and what it would have been in early May with the 3.35% rate.

This Brisbane two-bedroom condo “steps from the great outdoors,” (at top) is listed at $499,000. At today’s rate of 4.6%, monthly mortgage payments would be $2,017.  Monthly payments at 3.35% would be $1,763, or $254 less.

This San Jose 5-bedroom with an “inviting floor plan” and “lush backyard” in the Cambrian neighborhood (below)  lists at $889,000. The monthly cost at 4.6%: $3,587.  At 3.35%: 3,135. The difference: $452 a month. (Caveat: In reality this jumbo mortgage might mean a higher rate, but the spread between two months ago and now would be consistent.)

Carolyn Said is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. For Bay Area real estate news and insights, follow  her on Twitter: @csaid

This 5-bedroom in San Jose’s Cambrian neighborhood lists for $889,000. (Ashley Rabello/Redfin)

Article source: http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2013/06/30/mortgage-interest-rates-on-upswing-heres-the-pocketbook-impact/

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