January 27th Statement Melvin L Watt $FNMA Statement of Melvin L. Watt Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency

Statement of Melvin L. Watt
Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency
Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services
January 27, 2015
Chairman Hensarling, Ranking Member Waters and members of the Committee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today about our work at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and
for providing my first opportunity to return to this Committee since I left Congress.
FHFA was established by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and is
responsible for the effective supervision, regulation, and housing mission oversight of the
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, which includes 12
Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) and the Office of Finance. FHFA’s mission is to ensure
that these regulated entities operate in a safe and sound manner and that they serve as a reliable
source of liquidity and funding for housing finance and community investment. Since 2008,
FHFA has also served as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (together, the Enterprises).
I am pleased to provide an overview of FHFA’s statutory responsibilities and an update on the
Enterprises’ financial condition, FHFA’s activities as regulator and conservator of the
Enterprises, the FHLBanks’ financial condition, and FHFA’s regulatory activities as regulator of
the FHLBanks.
FHFA’s Statutory Responsibilities
I. FHFA’s Regulatory Oversight of the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac
The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act (the Safety and Soundness
Act), as amended by HERA, requires FHFA to fulfill the following responsibilities in our
oversight of the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLBank System) and the Enterprises:
(A) to oversee the prudential operations of each regulated entity; and
(B) to ensure that–1
(i) each regulated entity operates in a safe and sound manner, including
maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls;
(ii) the operations and activities of each regulated entity foster liquid, efficient,
competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets (including activities
relating to mortgages on housing for low- and moderate-income families
involving a reasonable economic return that may be less than the return earned on
other activities);
(iii) each regulated entity complies with this chapter and the rules, regulations,
guidelines, and orders issued under this chapter and the authorizing statutes;
(iv) each regulated entity carries out its statutory mission only through activities
that are authorized under and consistent with this chapter and the authorizing
statutes; and
(v) the activities of each regulated entity and the manner in which such regulated
entity is operated are consistent with the public interest.
12 U.S.C. § 4513(a)(1).
II. FHFA’s Role as Conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Congress granted the Director of FHFA the discretionary authority in HERA to appoint FHFA as
conservator or receiver of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or any of the Federal Home Loan Banks,
upon determining that specified criteria had been met. On September 6, 2008, FHFA exercised
this authority to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorships. Subsequently, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac together received $187.5 billion in taxpayer support under the Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs) executed with the U.S. Department of the
Treasury. FHFA continues to oversee these conservatorships.
As conservator of the Enterprises, FHFA is mandated to:
(D) …take such action as may be–(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and
(ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and
conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.
12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(D).
As conservator, FHFA must also fulfill the responsibilities enumerated above in 12 U.S.C. §
4513(a)(1). Additionally, FHFA has a statutory responsibility under the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) to “implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for
2
homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and
considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of…available programs to
minimize foreclosures.” 12 U.S.C. § 5220(b)(1).
My goal, as Director of FHFA since January 6, 2014, has been to lead FHFA in meeting the
mandates assigned to it by statute until such time as Congress revises those mandates.
FHFA’s Actions as Regulator and Conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
As regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, FHFA has taken consistent
actions in the past year to ensure their safety and soundness, to ensure that they provide liquidity
to the housing finance market, to preserve and conserve their assets, and to ensure that they meet
their obligations to homeowners under EESA.
I. Financial Performance and Condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Since the Enterprises were placed in conservatorship in 2008, their operations have stabilized
and their financial performance has improved significantly. Fannie Mae has not made a draw
under the PSPA since the fourth quarter of 2011, and Freddie Mac has not made a draw since the
first quarter of 2012. Some of the improvement in the Enterprises’ performance relates to onetime or transitory items, such as the reversal of each Enterprise’s deferred tax asset valuation
allowance, legal settlements, and the release of loan loss reserves as a result of rising house
prices. Part of the improvement is also attributable to other factors, including responsible
business practices, strengthened underwriting practices, rising house prices, and increased
guarantee fees.
While steps taken in the conservatorships have helped stabilize the Enterprises’ financial
condition and the mortgage market, significant challenges remain. Serious delinquencies have
declined but remain historically high compared to pre-crisis levels, and counterparty exposure
remains a concern. While risks from the Enterprises’ mortgage-related investment portfolios are
declining as the size of their portfolios shrinks, revenues from these portfolios are also shrinking.
Both Enterprises continue to work to maintain and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
their operational and information technology infrastructures. Additionally, under the terms of
the PSPAs, the Enterprises do not have the ability to build capital internally while they remain in
conservatorship. Attracting and retaining the best qualified workforce in this period in which the
future of the Enterprises is uncertain also continues to be a challenge.
Other significant financial and performance highlights about the Enterprises include the
following:
3
Fannie Mae
• For the first nine months of 2014, Fannie Mae reported earnings of $12.9 billion
compared to net income of $77.5 billion for the first nine months of 2013, which
reflected a number of one-time or transitory items. Calculations have not yet been
completed for 2014 and, therefore, comparisons are being made here on the basis of three
quarters.
• The cumulative amount of draws that Fannie Mae has received from the Treasury to date
under its PSPA is $116.1 billion. Through September 30, 2014, Fannie Mae has paid
$130.5 billion in cash dividends to Treasury on the company’s senior preferred stock.
Under the PSPA, dividends do not offset prior Treasury draws.
• The credit quality of new single-family acquisitions was strong through the third quarter
of 2014, with a weighted average FICO score of 743 and a weighted average loan-tovalue (LTV) ratio of 77 percent.
• The serious delinquency rate was 1.96 percent for Fannie Mae’s total single-family book
of business as of September 30, 2014. The serious delinquency rate for loans acquired
between 2005 and 2008 was 8.27 percent compared to 0.34 percent for loans acquired
since 2009 as of September 30, 2014. The serious delinquency rate for loans acquired
prior to 2005 was 3.27 percent.
• Fannie Mae continues to reduce its retained portfolio in accordance with the PSPA. As
of September 30, 2014, Fannie Mae’s retained portfolio balance was $438.1 billion,
which represents a decline of $52.6 billion since the beginning of the year, when the
balance was $490.7 billion.
Freddie Mac
• For the first nine months of 2014, Freddie Mac reported earnings of $7.5 billion,
compared to net income of $40.1 billion for the first nine months of 2013, which
reflected a number of one-time or transitory items.
• The cumulative amount of draws that Freddie Mac has received from the Treasury to date
under its PSPA is $71.3 billion. Through September 30, 2014, Freddie Mac has paid
$88.2 billion in cash dividends to Treasury on the company’s senior preferred stock.
Under the PSPA, dividends do not offset prior Treasury draws.
• The credit quality of new single-family acquisitions remained high through the third
quarter of 2014, with a weighted average FICO score of 744 and a weighted average LTV
ratio of 77 percent.
• The serious delinquency rate was 1.96 percent for Freddie Mac’s single-family book of
business as of September 30, 2014. The serious delinquency rate for loans originated
between 2005 and 2008 was 7.66 percent compared to 0.23 percent for loans originated
4
since 2009 as of September 30, 2014. The serious delinquency rate for loans originated
prior to 2005 was 3.12 percent.
• Freddie Mac continues to reduce its retained portfolio in accordance with the PSPA. As
of September 30, 2014, Freddie Mac’s retained portfolio balance was $413.6 billion,
which represents a decline of $47.4 billion since the beginning of the year, when the
balance was $461.0 billion.
II. FHFA’s Supervisory Activities Related to the Enterprises
FHFA’s supervision function evaluates the safety and soundness of the Enterprises’ operations.
Safety and soundness is a top priority in meeting FHFA’s statutory obligations, in execution of
Enterprise strategic initiatives and in all business and control functions. FHFA takes a risk-based
approach to supervision, which prioritizes examination activities based on the risk a given
practice poses to a regulated entity’s safe and sound operation or its compliance with applicable
laws and regulations. FHFA conducts on-site examinations at the regulated entities, ongoing risk
analysis, and off-site review and surveillance. FHFA communicates supervisory standards to the
regulated entities, establishes expectations for strong risk management, identifies risks, and
requires remediation of identified deficiencies.
In 2014, FHFA issued supervisory guidance to the Enterprises on topics related to operational
risk management, counterparty risk management, mortgage servicing transfers, cyber risk
management, and liquidity risk management. This guidance articulates FHFA’s supervisory
expectations related to those matters and informs examination activities. Examples of important
guidance issued during 2014 include the following:
Advisory Bulletin 2014-05, Cyber Risk Management Guidance, describes the characteristics of a
cyber risk management program that FHFA believes will enable the regulated entities to
successfully perform their responsibilities and protect their environments. FHFA’s key
expectations include Enterprise assessment of system vulnerabilities, effective monitoring of
cyber risks, and oversight of third parties with access to Enterprise data.
Advisory Bulletin 2014-06, Mortgage Servicing Transfers, articulated FHFA’s supervisory
expectations for the Enterprises with regard to servicing transfers of mortgage loans that they
hold or guarantee. Pursuant to contracts with their counterparties, the Enterprises must approve
the transfer of servicing operations or servicing rights. FHFA has focused on Enterprise
approval processes for these transactions due in large part to the significant recent transfers of
mortgage servicing operations from federally-regulated banks to non-bank entities that are
generally subject to less regulation and are more concentrated in their operations.
5
Advisory Bulletin 2014-07, Oversight of Single Family Seller/Servicer Relationships, articulated
FHFA’s requirement that the Enterprises assess financial, operational, and compliance risks
associated with their counterparties and develop a risk management framework that can be
applied throughout the Enterprise’s contractual relationship with seller/servicers.
Standards set by FHFA are also reflected in guidance to our examiners, which is provided in
FHFA’s Examination Manual. The manual includes twenty-six modules that cover various
Enterprise operations and provide background on a range of operational, credit, and market risks.
The manual is a valuable tool for implementing FHFA’s risk-based approach to supervision of
the Enterprises and is available on FHFA’s website.
FHFA maintains a team of examiners on-site at each Enterprise, and the examiners receive
support from off-site analysts and subject matter experts. Examination teams perform targeted
examinations of specific Enterprise operations and conduct ongoing monitoring of risk control
functions and business lines. The examination work is performed in accordance with plans
prepared annually for each Enterprise, taking into account factors such as analysis of existing
risks, changes in business operations and strategic initiatives, and mortgage market
developments. Where FHFA’s Enterprise supervision team identifies deficiencies, examiners
communicate expectations for remedial action. Examiner risk assessments are updated during
the year to ensure that emerging risks and Enterprise business changes receive appropriate
examination coverage.
Findings from targeted examinations and ongoing monitoring conducted through the course of
the year are relied upon by examiners in assigning ratings to each Enterprise under the ratings
system adopted by FHFA in 2013. The system, known as CAMELSO, includes separate ratings
for Capital, Asset quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity, Sensitivity to market risk, and
Operations. The examination findings are also incorporated into annual Reports of Examination,
which capture FHFA’s view of the safety and soundness of each Enterprise’s operations.
Information from the Reports of Examination is included in FHFA’s annual Report to Congress.
III. FHFA’s Strategic Goals and Scorecard Objectives for the Conservatorships of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
During 2014, FHFA defined and worked to further the objectives included in the 2014 Strategic
Plan for the Conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (2014 Conservatorship Strategic
Plan) and the 2014 Conservatorship Scorecard.
FHFA has already published the 2015 Scorecard for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Common
Securitization Solutions (2015 Conservatorship Scorecard), which details FHFA’s
6
conservatorship expectations for the Enterprises during 2015 and builds on last year’s Scorecard.
Both the 2014 and 2015 Conservatorship Scorecards are centered around three strategic goals.
A. MAINTAIN, in a safe and sound manner, credit availability and foreclosure
prevention activities for new and refinanced mortgages to foster liquid, efficient,
competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets
FHFA’s first strategic goal, MAINTAIN, requires the Enterprises to support access to credit for
single-family and multifamily mortgages, as well as foreclosure prevention activities. FHFA and
the Enterprises have focused on a number of objectives under this strategic goal in the last year,
including clarifying the Representation and Warranty Framework, providing targeted access to
credit opportunities for creditworthy borrowers, working with small and rural lenders,
implementing loan modification and REO strategies in hardest hit communities, and prioritizing
affordable housing through multifamily loan purchases. In the 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard,
FHFA also expressed an expectation that the Enterprises address other priorities, such as
assessing the reliability of and the operational feasibility of using alternate or updated credit
score models.
Representation and Warranty Framework
FHFA and the Enterprises made substantial progress on updating and clarifying the
Representation and Warranty Framework (Framework) during 2014, and these efforts build on
the agency’s work over the last several years to refine the Framework. The Framework provides
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with remedies – such as requiring a lender to repurchase a loan –
when they discover that a loan purchase does not meet their underwriting guidelines. In updating
and clarifying the Framework, FHFA’s objectives are to continue to support safe and sound
Enterprise operations, encourage lenders to reduce their credit overlays, and complement the
agency’s efforts to strengthen the Enterprises’ quality control process.
FHFA prioritized providing greater clarity around the life-of-loan exclusions used in the
Framework during 2014, and the Enterprises announced further improvements in this area on
November 20, 2014. Specifically, those changes 1) limit repurchase requests under the life-ofloan exclusions to significant matters that impact the overall credit risk of the loan; 2) modify the
life-of-loan exclusions for misrepresentations and data inaccuracies to incorporate a significance
test; 3) clarify the requirements for requesting repurchase related to compliance with applicable
laws and regulations; and 4) provide lenders a list of unacceptable mortgage products. The
changes provide all parties with greater clarity about when the life-of-loan exemptions apply and
when they do not. These revisions also maintain and support safe and sound Enterprise
operations and are consistent with FHFA’s broader efforts to ensure that the Enterprises’ place
more emphasis on upfront quality control reviews and other upfront risk management practices.
7
Earlier in 2014, FHFA and the Enterprises also announced other Framework refinements that
included revising payment history requirements, providing written notification of repurchase
relief to lenders, and eliminating automatic repurchases for mortgage insurance rescissions.
We also started efforts in 2014 to develop an independent dispute resolution program that could
be used as a last step, in certain circumstances, to resolve disputes between lenders and the
Enterprises. This would enable lenders to challenge a repurchase request by allowing them to
request a neutral third party to determine whether there was a breach of the selling
representations and warranties that justifies the repurchase request. Currently, FHFA and the
Enterprises are engaged in outreach activities with a variety of lenders and dispute resolution
providers to solicit their input on the initial design of the dispute resolution process. Under the
2015 Conservatorship Scorecard, FHFA expects the Enterprises to finalize these improvements
to the Representation and Warranty Framework in 2015.
Providing Targeted Access to Credit Opportunities for Creditworthy Borrowers
On December 8, 2014, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced purchase guidelines that enable
creditworthy borrowers who meet stringent criteria and can afford a mortgage, but lack the
resources to pay a substantial down payment plus closing costs, to get a mortgage with a three
percent down payment. These purchase guidelines will provide an important – but targeted –
access to credit opportunity for creditworthy individuals and families.
To appropriately manage the Enterprises’ risk, the Enterprises’ purchase guidelines emphasize
strong underwriting standards and do not allow the kind of risk layering that occurred in the
years leading up to the housing crisis. First, the purchase guidelines for these loans include
compensating factors and risk mitigants – such as housing counseling, stronger credit histories,
or lower debt-to-income ratios – to evaluate a borrower’s creditworthiness. Second, like other
loans purchased by the Enterprises, these loans must have full documentation and cannot include
40-year or interest-only terms. Third, 97 percent LTV loans must be fixed-rate and cannot have
an adjustable rate. Fourth, the products will leverage the Enterprises’ existing automated
underwriting systems. Finally, like other loans with down payments below 20 percent, these
loans require private capital credit enhancement, such as private mortgage insurance.
The Enterprises’ purchase guidelines for the 97 percent LTV loan product provide a responsible
approach to improving access to credit while also furthering safe and sound lending practices.
The product focuses on first-time homebuyers and requires borrowers to be owner-occupants.
Both Enterprises expect to purchase only a small amount of these loans each year compared to
their overall loan purchase volume, and FHFA will be monitoring the ongoing performance of
these loans.
8
Working with Small Lenders, Rural Lenders and Housing Finance Agencies
The Enterprises have also continued efforts to work with small lenders, rural lenders, and
Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) and to strengthen their understanding of how the Enterprises
might be able to better serve these entities. This work is important because we know that
community-based lenders and HFAs play a vital role in serving rural and underserved markets
across the country.
In the first quarter of 2014, the Enterprises issued lender guidance clarifying a number of
property and appraisal requirements for dwellings in small towns and rural areas. Further, as
part of its ongoing effort to serve the affordable housing market and provide liquidity to small
towns and rural areas, Fannie Mae revised its Selling Guide in September 2014 to allow for the
delivery of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-guaranteed Section 184
mortgages and Department of Agriculture Rural Development (RD)-guaranteed Section 502
loans as standard instead of negotiated-only products. Fannie Mae also piloted expanded
partnerships with county-level HFAs which go beyond its traditional state-level approach.
FHFA expects the Enterprises to continue outreach and initiatives with small lenders, rural
lenders, and HFAs in 2015, including exploring the feasibility of purchasing a greater number of
manufactured housing loans that are secured by real estate.
Loss Mitigation and Foreclosure Prevention Activities
Since entering conservatorship, the Enterprises have continued to focus on loss mitigation and
borrower assistance activities. As of October 31, 2014, the Enterprises had conducted nearly 3.4
million foreclosure prevention actions since the start of the conservatorships in September 2008.
The 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard provides updated expectations for the Enterprises
concerning their loss mitigation and foreclosure prevention activities. This includes expectations
for the Enterprises to develop and execute strategies that reduce both the number of severely
aged delinquent loans and the number of vacant real estate owned (REO) properties held by the
Enterprises. These efforts will leverage and build on activities over the last year, including the
Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative. Through this effort, FHFA has selected the City of
Detroit and Cook County, IL for pilot programs. In these areas, the Enterprises have worked to
improve outcomes in hardest hit markets through developing pre-foreclosure strategies, such as
deeper loan modifications, and post-foreclosure strategies that address individual properties.
The 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard expectation that the Enterprises reduce the number of
seriously delinquent loans they hold will also draw upon recent experience with non-performing
loan (NPLs) sales. FHFA’s expectation is that the sale of seriously delinquent loans through
NPL sales will result in more favorable outcomes for borrowers, while also reducing losses to the
Enterprises and, therefore, to taxpayers. In 2014, Freddie Mac conducted a pilot sale of loans
9
serviced by Bank of America that were, on average, more than three years delinquent at the time
of sale. In addition, FHFA is working with both Enterprises to develop additional guidelines for
ongoing NPL sales by the Enterprises, with a focus on guidelines that provide more favorable
outcomes for borrowers, avoid foreclosure wherever possible and require post-sale reporting to
track borrower outcomes. FHFA and the Enterprises plan to release further information about
these NPL sale guidelines in early 2015.
FHFA also expects the Enterprises to continue targeted outreach activities to increase consumer
awareness of the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP). Many borrowers could benefit
from the HARP program, but may not fully understand the benefits or that they qualify. In
addition, FHFA expects the Enterprises to continue refining and improving other loss mitigation
and foreclosure prevention strategies. In 2014, Enterprise activities in this area included
expanding the Streamlined Modification program, which addresses documentation challenges
associated with traditional modifications, to include deeply delinquent loans. Moving forward,
FHFA will continue to review loss mitigation options to help families stay in their homes,
stabilize communities, and meet our conservatorship and EESA obligations.
Multifamily
For individuals and families who rent rather than buy, continuing to support affordable rental
housing is also an ongoing priority for FHFA and the Enterprises. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
have historically played a key role in providing financing to the multifamily housing finance
market throughout all market cycles and their multifamily portfolios demonstrated strong
performance even through the financial crisis.
FHFA’s 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard requires each Enterprise to continue multifamily
purchases, but not to exceed a volume cap of $30 billion each for these purchases. This
continues the approach taken in the 2014 Conservatorship Scorecard. FHFA has also continued
to emphasize the Enterprises’ critical role in the affordable rental housing market by allowing the
Enterprises to provide financing for affordable multifamily properties beyond the volume cap.
Through this approach, the focus is to support the financing of affordable housing and the
housing needs of people in rural and other underserved areas, including areas that rely heavily on
manufactured housing.
On multifamily purchases, we are also requiring the companies to continue to share risk with the
private sector, which Freddie Mac does through a capital markets structure and Fannie Mae does
through a risk sharing model. Both approaches transfer significant risk in the multifamily
business to the private market.
10
B. REDUCE taxpayer risk through increasing the role of private capital in the
mortgage market
FHFA’s second strategic goal, REDUCE, is focused on ways to bring additional private capital
into the system in order to reduce taxpayer risk. This strategic goal, and the related expectations
in the 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard, requires the Enterprises to reduce Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac’s overall risk exposure. FHFA’s objectives include ongoing requirements for the
Enterprises to conduct single-family credit risk transfers, reduce each Enterprises’ retained
portfolio, and update private mortgage insurance eligibility requirements.
Credit Risk Transfers
FHFA and the Enterprises remain focused on increasing the amount of credit risk transferred
from the Enterprises. FHFA increased the targeted levels of single-family credit risk transfers in
2014 and 2015. FHFA increased the 2014 Conservatorship Scorecard target to achieve a
meaningful credit risk transfer of $90 billion in unpaid principal balance (UPB), up from $30
billion in 2013. In the 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard, FHFA increased these targets to $150
billion of UPB for Fannie Mae and $120 billion of UPB for Freddie Mac, subject to market
conditions. In meeting these thresholds, FHFA will continue to expect each Enterprise to execute
a minimum of two different types of credit risk transfer transactions, which includes securitiesbased transactions and insurance transactions. Additionally, FHFA expects all activities
undertaken in fulfillment of these objectives to be conducted in a manner consistent with safety
and soundness.
During 2014, the Enterprises executed credit risk transfers on single-family mortgages with a
combined unpaid principal balance of over $300 billion. In each transaction, the Enterprises
retained a small first-loss position in the underlying loans, sold a significant portion of the risk
beyond the initial loss and then retained the catastrophic risk in the event losses exceeded the
private capital support. As a result, private capital is absorbing significant credit risk on much of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s new purchases, thereby substantially reducing risk to taxpayers
from these purchases. Both Enterprises will also continue to utilize and test different risk
transfer structures.
Retained Portfolio Reductions
Both Enterprises continue to reduce the size of their retained mortgage portfolios consistent with
the terms of the PSPAs, which require them to reduce their portfolios to no more than $250
billion each by 2018. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have developed plans to meet this
target even under adverse market conditions. As their portfolios continue to decline, they are
transferring interest rate risk, credit risk on securities and liquidity risk from these portfolios to
the private sector. As of September 30, 2014, Freddie Mac’s portfolio stood at $414 billion, and
Fannie Mae’s at $438 billion.
11
Under the 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard, FHFA is requiring the Enterprises to implement
their approved retained portfolio reduction plans in order to meet the PSPA requirements.
FHFA’s guidelines require the Enterprises to implement these plans even under adverse market
conditions while taking into consideration the impacts to the market, borrowers, and
neighborhood stability.
Private Mortgage Insurer Eligibility Requirements
FHFA has continued to advance efforts to strengthen Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s
counterparty requirements for private mortgage insurers. When a borrower makes a down
payment of less than 20 percent, these mortgages are required by statute to have a credit
enhancement – private capital standing behind the loan – in order to qualify for purchase by the
Enterprises. Private mortgage insurance has always played an important role in meeting this
requirement and it is critical to make sure that private mortgage insurers are able to cover claims
both in good times and in bad times. To this end, in 2014 FHFA released a Request for Input on
draft Private Mortgage Insurer Eligibility Requirements. Our objective is to have the Enterprises
strengthen their risk management by enhancing the financial, business, and operational
requirements in place for their private mortgage insurer counterparties, thereby enhancing
mortgage insurers’ ability to pay claims over the long-term.
FHFA is in the process of reviewing and considering the public input we received as part of our
comprehensive evaluation of this issue. Consistent with our statutory mandates, our assessments
and policy decisions will take into account both safety and soundness considerations and
potential impacts on access to credit and housing finance market liquidity.
C. BUILD a new single-family securitization infrastructure for use by the
Enterprises and adaptable for use by other participants in the secondary market
in the future
FHFA’s final strategic goal is to BUILD a new infrastructure for the Enterprises’ securitization
functions. This includes ongoing work to develop the Common Securitization Platform (CSP)
infrastructure and to improve the liquidity of Enterprise securities. FHFA has established that
FHFA’s first objective for the CSP is to make sure that it works for the benefit of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. We are also requiring that the CSP leverage the systems, software and
standards used in the private sector wherever possible, which will ensure that the CSP will be
adaptable for use by other secondary market actors – including private-label securities issuers –
in the future. In addition, FHFA has worked with the Enterprises to leverage the CSP in order to
develop a Single Security, which we believe will improve liquidity in the housing finance
markets. FHFA and the Enterprises have made significant progress on both the CSP and the
Single Security in the past year, and we expect the Enterprises to continue moving aggressively
on these multiyear initiatives in 2015.
12
Common Securitization Platform
The Enterprises made important progress during 2014 in establishing the organizational
infrastructure for the CSP. This includes the announcement of a Chief Executive Officer for
Common Securitization Solutions (CSS) – the entity that we expect to house and operate the
CSP.
In addition, FHFA and the Enterprises made considerable progress on the design-and-build phase
of the CSP. Each Enterprise has designated staff to work on the project at the CSS location, and
this team has been developing the technology and infrastructure of the CSP platform during the
last year. This includes work to incorporate the Single Security into the development of the CSP.
Furthermore, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have reorganized their staffs with business operations
and information technology experts to develop the systems and processes needed to integrate
with the CSP. As this work continues, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac staff will engage in
continuous testing and will develop operating policies and procedures to ensure a smooth
transition to the CSP. FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are committed to achieving a
seamless CSP launch, and the actions taken so far are moving us in the right direction toward this
multiyear goal.
Single Security
FHFA’s top priority in pursuing the Single Security is to deepen and strengthen liquidity in the
housing finance markets. In today’s market, the mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac trade in separate “to-be-announced” (TBA) markets. The forward-trading
that takes place in TBA securities allows borrowers to lock in a mortgage rate. The TBA market
also adds efficiencies to the process, which reduce transaction costs and result in lower mortgage
rates for borrowers. In today’s TBA market, there is a price disparity between Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac securities largely due to greater trading volumes of Fannie Mae securities. This
price disparity imposes an additional cost on Freddie Mac – and therefore on taxpayers. We
believe that a Single Security can further strengthen market liquidity by reducing the trading
disparities between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities.
FHFA issued a Request for Input on FHFA’s proposed Single Security structure last year as the
first step in a multiyear process. FHFA is working with the Enterprises to process the feedback
we received and will move forward in a deliberative and transparent manner. FHFA will release
a Progress Report on this initiative in the coming months. As part of the 2015 Conservatorship
Scorecard, FHFA established the expectation that the Enterprises would finalize the Single
Security structure during 2015 and would begin the process of developing a plan to implement
the Single Security in the market. This remains a multiyear process, but we made significant
progress during 2014.
13
IV. Additional Matters and Initiatives Impacting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
In addition to the activities outlined above, FHFA continues to work on a number of other
matters and initiatives that impact Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, several of which are highlighted
below.
Guarantee Fees
One of the first decisions I made as Director of FHFA was to suspend increases in guarantee fees
that had been announced by FHFA in December of 2013. Given the impact of these fees on the
Enterprises, the housing finance markets, and on borrowers, I believed that it was critical to do
further evaluation and to get feedback from stakeholders. After additional assessment at FHFA,
we issued a Request for Input that provided further details on how the Enterprises set these fees
and posed a number of questions to prompt substantive feedback about how guarantee fee levels
affect various aspects of the mortgage market.
FHFA is now reviewing and considering the input we received as part of our comprehensive
evaluation of this issue. Consistent with our statutory mandates, our assessments and policy
decisions will take into account both safety and soundness and possible impacts on access to
credit and housing finance market liquidity.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Housing Goals
On August 29, 2014, FHFA issued a proposed rule to set the Enterprises’ housing goals for 2015
through 2017 for both single-family and multifamily loan purchases. FHFA’s proposed rule
raised questions for public comment about how best to set Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s
housing goals to encourage responsible lending that is done in a safe and sound manner and that
also serves the single-family and rental housing needs of lower-income families as required in
HERA. FHFA is in the process of evaluating comments submitted to the agency and finalizing
the rule.
Housing Trust Fund and Capital Magnet Fund
Last month, FHFA directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to begin setting aside funds to be
allocated to the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund pursuant to HERA. The
statute authorized FHFA to temporarily suspend these allocations, and FHFA informed Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac of a temporary suspension on November 13, 2008. In letters sent to the
Enterprises on December 11, 2014, FHFA notified Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the agency’s
decision to reverse the temporary suspension. These letters, copies of which were provided to
Members of Congress who had communicated views to FHFA about whether or not the
temporary suspension should continue, established prudent safeguards in the event of adverse
changes in the Enterprises’ financial condition or draws under the PSPAs.
14
Certain Super Priority Lien Programs and Risk to the Enterprises
During 2014, FHFA has continued to monitor and assess two areas of state-level actions that
threaten the legal priority of single-family loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac: 1) through certain energy retrofit financing programs structured as tax assessments
and 2) through granting priority rights in foreclosure proceedings for homeowner associations.
While FHFA is not opposed to energy retrofit financing programs that allow homeowners to
improve energy efficiency, these programs must be structured to ensure protection of the core
financing for the home and, therefore, cannot undermine the first-lien status of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac mortgages. Concerning certain energy retrofit financing programs, such as firstlien Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs, FHFA has reiterated that Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac’s policies prohibit the purchase of a mortgage on property that has a first-lien
PACE loan attached to it. This restriction has two potential implications for borrowers. First, a
homeowner with a first-lien PACE loan cannot refinance their existing mortgage with a Fannie
Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage. Second, anyone wanting to buy a home that already has a firstlien PACE loan cannot use a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan for the purchase. In addition to
aggressive enforcement of these existing policies, FHFA is continuing to evaluate or explore
other possible remedies and legal actions to protect the Enterprises’ lien position.
Additionally, FHFA has taken legal action in some instances in which unpaid homeowners
association dues may be deemed under the laws of a state to be senior to preexisting mortgage
liens owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac on a homeowner’s property. As
conservator, FHFA has an obligation to protect Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s rights, and will
aggressively do so.
FHFA’s Actions as Regulator of the Federal Home Loan Banks
The FHLBanks continue to play an important role in housing finance by providing a reliable
funding source and other services to member institutions, including smaller institutions that
would otherwise have limited access to these services. In addition, the FHLBanks have specific
statutory requirements related to affordable housing and, as a result, the FHLBanks annually
contribute substantially toward the development of affordable housing.
I. Financial Performance and Condition of the Federal Home Loan Banks
The financial performance and condition of the FHLBank System remain strong. Led by growth
in advances, the aggregate balance sheet of the FHLBanks has increased over the past two years,
but remains considerably smaller than in peak years. Advances totaled $545 billion as the end of
the third quarter of 2014, up from $499 billion at year-end 2013, but down approximately 50
15
percent from a peak of $1.01 trillion in the third quarter of 2008. The overall decline in advance
volume from the peak is a result of increased market liquidity from deposits and sluggish
economic growth.
Following are highlights of the financial performance of the FHLBanks:
• The FHLBanks, in aggregate, reported net income of $1.7 billion for the first three
quarters of 2014 after earning $1.8 billion in the first three quarters of 2013. All twelve
FHLBanks were profitable during these quarters.
• The FHLBanks saw substantial asset growth during the first nine months of 2014, driven
by advances to members. As of the end of the third quarter of 2014, aggregate FHLBank
assets totaled $883 billion and $545 billion in advances – up from $835 billion and $499
billion at the end of 2013. Advances constituted 62 percent of assets at the FHLBanks in
aggregate at the end of the third quarter of 2014, up from 60 percent at the end of 2013.
• Retained earnings have grown significantly in recent years and totaled $13.0 billion, or
1.5 percent of assets, as of the third quarter of 2014.
• Also at the end of the third quarter of 2014, the FHLBanks had an aggregate regulatory
capital ratio of 5.6 percent – comfortably above the statutory minimum of 4.0 percent.
• All FHLBanks had net asset values (equity values) in excess of the par value of their
members’ stock holdings. The market value of the FHLBanks was 142 percent of the par
value of capital stock as of the third quarter of 2014, the highest ratio since FHFA started
tracking this metric in 2002.
II. FHFA’s Supervisory and Regulatory Activities Related to the FHLBanks
FHFA conducts annual safety and soundness and affordable housing program examinations of all
12 FHLBanks and the Office of Finance based on well-defined supervisory strategies. Similar to
the approach utilized in supervision of the Enterprises, FHFA uses a risk-based approach to
conducting supervisory examinations of the FHLBanks, which prioritizes examination activities
based on the risks given practices pose to a regulated entity’s safe and sound operations or to its
compliance with applicable laws and regulations. FHFA’s FHLBank supervision also utilizes
the CAMELSO ratings system and incorporates these ratings into each FHLBanks’ Report of
Examination. Information from the Reports of Examination is included in FHFA’s annual
Report to Congress.
Over the last few years, FHFA’s supervisory work has included assessments of FHLBank
mortgage purchase programs, the substantial increase in advances to a few very large member
institutions, the FHLBanks’ changing capital composition in light of their increasing retained
16
earnings and reduced activity stock requirements, and their management of unsecured credit.
We are also currently conducting reviews of FHLBank enterprise risk management structures
and approaches to vendor management.
FHFA also provides the FHLBanks supervisory guidance in the form of Advisory Bulletins that
outline the agency’s regulatory expectations. In 2014, FHFA issued Advisory Bulletins 2014-02,
Operational Risk Management, and 2014-05, Cyber Risk Management. Other Advisory
Bulletins applicable to the FHLBanks covered areas such as model risk management, collateral
valuation and management, and the classification of risky assets.
FHFA’s supervision of the FHLBanks’ expanding mortgage programs involves oversight of the
operational issues raised by two new products – Mortgage Partner Finance (MPF) Direct and
MPF Government MBS. The FHLBank of Chicago expects to begin offering these new products
in early 2015, although this could change. Under MPF Direct, participating members may sell
non-conforming and conforming, single-family, fixed-rate mortgage loans to the Chicago
FHLBank, which would concurrently sell the loans to a third-party private investor that would
accumulate the loans for securitization. The Chicago FHLBank expects, at least initially, that
loans sold would be “jumbo conforming” loans capped at $729,750 for a single unit in the
contiguous United States.
Under the MPF Government MBS program, the Chicago FHLBank would purchase government
guaranteed or insured loans, accumulate the loans on its balance sheet as held for sale, and pool
the loans in securities guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie
Mae). The Chicago FHLBank would then sell the securities to other FHLBanks, members
approved to participate in the mortgage programs, and external investors.
The mission focus of the FHLBank System is an important component of FHFA’s regulatory
activities. FHFA has undertaken three recent efforts related to the housing finance mission of the
FHLBanks. First, in September 2014, FHFA released a proposed rulemaking involving
membership requirements for the FHLBanks. Congress established the FHLBank System in
1932 as a government sponsored enterprise with a focus on housing finance. Over time,
Congress has expanded the membership base, expanded the types of assets that are eligible
collateral for advances, and made other incremental changes to the System. However, over
eighty years later, the FHLBanks are still grounded in supporting housing finance.
Under the current membership rule, institutions may gain access to the benefits of FHLBank
membership by meeting a one-time test showing the minimum required housing finance assets at
the time of application. FHFA has proposed eliminating this one-time test and, instead, requiring
that FHLBank members maintain a minimum amount of housing finance assets on an ongoing
basis. In addition, FHFA has proposed defining an insurance company in such a way that
17
captive insurers would no longer be eligible for FHLBank membership. A captive insurance
company provides benefits only for its parent company, which itself is often not eligible for
FHLBank membership. While captive insurers may in some cases be involved in housing
finance, allowing them to have access to the FHLBank System raises a number of policy issues
that are discussed in the proposed rule.
The comment period for this proposed rule ended on January 12, 2015, and we received
approximately 1,300 comments. FHFA is in the process of reviewing and considering these
comments. As I have consistently emphasized since becoming Director of FHFA, getting input
and feedback from stakeholders is a crucial part of FHFA’s policymaking process, and we will
carefully consider comments made by members of this Committee as well as the public in
determining our final rule.
Second, FHFA has been in continued dialogue with the FHLBanks about “core mission assets.”
This also relates to the fundamental issue of how the FHLBanks use the benefits of their
government-sponsored status to support their housing finance and community investment
mission. In partnership with the FHLBanks, I believe we are making progress in developing a
framework to describe the fundamental characteristics of what a FHLBank’s balance sheet
should look like in order to demonstrate a satisfactory mission commitment.
FHFA’s third ongoing effort related to the mission of FHLBanks is a review of FHFA’s
Affordable Housing Program (AHP) regulation. The AHP program provides funding for both
single-family and rental affordable housing – including housing affordable to very low-income
individuals and families. In 2013, the FHLBanks allocated $297 million to their AHPs for the
purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of over 37,800 housing units. FHFA is committed to
working with the FHLBanks to make this program more efficient by reviewing, and possibly
updating, our AHP regulation.
A new area of FHFA’s recent regulatory work has involved the merger of the FHLBanks of Des
Moines and Seattle, which would be the first merger ever of two FHLBanks. There has been
considerable change in our nation’s financial system, in the membership base of the FHLBanks,
and in market conditions across the various FHLBank districts since the FHLBank System was
established in 1932. As a result, the FHLBanks have seen changes in advance demand and
membership composition which, in turn, has affected the fundamental franchise values of some
of the FHLBanks.
These changes, in part, have led the Boards of Directors of the FHLBank of Des Moines and the
FHLBank of Seattle to determine that a combined entity would better serve the needs of their
members. The Boards of both FHLBanks voted to approve their merger on September 25, 2014.
FHFA reviewed and evaluated the merger application submitted by the FHLBanks of Des
18
Moines and Seattle to ensure that the merger would be accomplished in a safe and sound manner
and would result in a financially strong FHLBank that supports the interests of all its members.
FHFA issued an approval of the merger application on December 22, 2014, contingent upon the
members of both FHLBanks ratifying the merger and meeting other specified conditions. If
ratified, the merger could be finalized as early as the second quarter of 2015.
Conclusion
While I have not focused in my statement on administrative matters at FHFA, I would be remiss
if I did not point out that none of the activities or initiatives described in this statement would be
possible without the dedication of the staff at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Since I
became Director at FHFA last year, it has been a pleasure getting to know the very qualified staff
at FHFA and working with them to reevaluate and pursue FHFA’s priorities. I thank them for
their service. I also want to recognize the hard work of the boards, management and staffs of
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHLBanks, who continue to restore and provide critical
contributions to our nation’s housing finance system.
In the coming year, FHFA will continue to work to meet the agency’s statutory mandates to
ensure the safe and sound operations of our regulated entities and to ensure that they provide
liquidity in the national housing finance market. In addition, FHFA will continue to advance its
Office of Minority and Women Inclusion responsibilities, which include furthering diversity in
management, employment and business activities at FHFA, as well as at our regulated entities.
Thank you again for having me here this morning, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
19