-
GCA FORUMS HOUSING AND MORTGAGE NEWS for Wednesday February 19th 2025
-
Rents are dropping across the state of Florida according to a new report from Redfin. Especially in the Tampa-St Pete metro, where asking rents are down -8% YoY. These declining rents are now causing big problems for landlords across the state, and causing many to sell. Rental rates boomed in Florida during the pandemic, increasing as much as 30-40% in some markets. But now they are on the way down. Cap Rates in Florida are dropping as a result, and we’re seeing more inventory hit the market for sale in cities like Naples, Sarasota, and Tampa as a result. https://youtu.be/XtBScJitffo?si=pQkZWRwYU6FqU7mo
-
This reply was modified 1 day, 9 hours ago by
Sapna Sharma.
-
This reply was modified 1 day, 9 hours ago by
-
What happened to the news that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be getting privatized and is no longer a GSE (GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISE). How will the privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac change the housing and mortgage lending structure? Will rates be lower or higher? Will mortgage lending be easier or more difficult? Is there a benefit to the consumer or more red tape? Can you please go over three case scenarios on borrowers getting a mortgage before and after the privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
-
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s possible privatization continues to be a hot topic of discussion and speculation in February 2025. These U.S. government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) have been under federal conservatorship since the 2008 financial crisis and have been critical to the U.S. housing finance system, buying mortgages for resale after being combined into a mortgage-backed security.
Current Status of Privatization Efforts
The privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remains highly contested by major stakeholders. However, as of January 2025, there appears to be a renewed interest in returning them to their privately held status. Federal agencies proposed a blueprint to aid in the “orderly” conservatorship release, which caused share prices on both enterprises to increase sharply, reaching multi-year highs. Notable billionaire investor Bill Ackman has also claimed the GSEs are more likely to begin publicly trading before 2026, which would mean exiting conservatorship within the next two years.
While incredibly optimistic, these projections suffer from the same complexities and challenges as the process of true privatization. Clear lines of strategy and coordination will have to be drawn through HUD, the Treasury, Congress, and FHFA. Scott Turner, the new head of HUD, has emphasized providing less governance over these entities. However, he recognizes the volatility of such a step, from the housing market to the economy.
Repercussions Of Privatization On Housing and Mortgage Lending
The shift to privatized ownership and control for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is bound to cause structural shifts in the housing and the mortgage lending industry.
Mortgage Rates:
- These institutions would likely face increased borrowing costs without an implicit government guarantee, writing up a shoulder problem.
- This will increase the burden on the consumers through expensive mortgage rates.
- Predictions say the move to privatization will increase mortgage rates by 0.43% to 0.97%, translating to a staggering $730 to $1,670 for homeowners each year.
Lending Standards:
- Due to the more rigid loaning policies, borrowers, especially those with subpar credit scores, will have a tougher time meeting these new requirements.
Market Stability:
- The lack of government control could result in housing market instability.
- While advocates suggest a privatized country is the best way forward, they don’t see the dangers that come with it, just like the world before the 2008 crash, which was disastrous.
Possible Effects and Results For the Consumer
Disregarding the benefits of privatization, removing these GSEs will have direct effects on modern consumers:
Benefits:
- To support these claims, we could see the creation of more innovative loan services and increased competition in the mortgage sector.
- Also, less government intervention would lower taxpayer risk due to fewer possible bailouts.
Challenges:
- On the other hand, many citizens would find it much more painful to buy a home.
- This is because of expensive mortgages and impossibly strict loan qualification criteria.
- The increased risk of market instability would also be an issue for many prospective market investors.
Borrowing Scenarios: Before and After Privatization
Let’s look at some scenarios to understand better how privatization may affect someone.
Before Privatization:
- Imagine a borrower with moderate credit who attempted to take out a conventional loan.
- With government backing, this borrower would have locked in a competitive interest rate and favorable loan terms due to servicing.
- Thus making homeownership a reality.
After Privatization:
- That very same borrower now faces a different reality.
- Without government guarantees, lenders can, and probably will, charge higher interest rates to offset their increased risks.
- Moreover, increased charge-off rates could make lending standards much stricter.
- Requiring higher credit scores or larger down payments.
- In the end, this individual may be priced out of borrowing altogether.
Post Privatization High-Income Borrower:
- Consider a borrower with a high income and excellent credit.
- After privatization, they are seeking a mortgage.
- A strong financial profile enables them to withstand increased interest rates, quarterly earnings reports, and stricter lending conditions.
- Getting a loan was relatively easy because of the financial slack on their balance sheets.
To sum up, the attempt to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the hope of lessening government control and stimulating a stronger private mortgage market is not without consequences concerning mortgage pricing, lending policies, and consumer access to financing. All these consequences must be carefully considered so as not to threaten the equilibrium of the market and society’s needs.
-
For several years, the possible privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, better known as the GSEs, has been hoped to be resolved.
Let’s analyze what this shift would mean for the housing and mortgage lending ecosystem and the subsequent impact it would have on borrowers:
How Would GSEs Privatization Affect Housing and Mortgage Lending?Shift In Mortgage WillingnessPrivatization-Led Mortgage Increase:
- Privatization can lead to inflationary mortgage rates.
- If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were to become privately owned, they would most certainly encounter increased capital constraints and risk facing higher interest rates.
- From a consumer standpoint, this would dial up mortgage costs.
Competition in the Market:
- Privatization may also heighten competition, which can further encourage some private lenders to lower their rates in specific market segments.
Standards Of LendingIncreased Requirements:
- Privatization is bound to increase lending standards.
- The government’s reluctance would result in lenders being extremely cautious.
- This would increase the requirements for credit scores and down payments, ultimately making it challenging for consumers to qualify for a mortgage.
Innovation:
- On the other hand, private entities may introduce new loan products to gain ground with potential borrowers.
Regulatory Environment
Greater Overhead:
- Moving towards privatization could include additional rules and supervision that increase bureaucratic processes.
- This could make obtaining a mortgage even more difficult for consumers.
Reduced State Control:
- Lower levels of government control could make some aspects of the economy more hands-off, clearing some things out of the way but complicating others.
Hypothetical Situations: Consumers Acquiring a MortgageSituation 1:
- First-time Home Buyer (Pre-Privatization)
Profile:
- A first-time homebuyer who has a credit score of 680 and provides a 3% down payment.
Process:
- This person qualifies for a conventional loan offered through Fannie Mae.
- Due to government backing, the down payment is lower, and interest rates are better.
Outcome:
- The borrower secures a loan, and the interest rates are so low that they can afford the mortgage regularly and own a home.
Situation 2First-time Home Buyer (Post Privatization)Profile:
- Remains the same
- A first-time home buyer with a credit score 680 and a 3% down payment.
Process:
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began the privatization process, and tracking their profits caused them to lose their lending standards.
- The borrower must now have a minimum credit score 720 and a 5% down payment.
Outcome:
- The borrower fails to qualify for the home under the new guidelines.
- Additionally, he is subject to high interest rates, making the situation far more complex than before.
Scenario 3Move-Up Buyer (Before Privatization)
- This section will be divided into two scenarios, each with a different profile and process.
Let’s start with the first scenario.
Profile:
- A move-up buyer with a credit score of 750 and equity in their current home.
Process:
- In this case, I used a GSE-financed loan so they could take advantage of the low interest rates by drawing out on their home equity, and the mortgage refinance terms were very good.
Outcome:
- Monthly repayments were affordable, and the borrower relocated to a bigger home.
Scenario 4: Move-Up Buyer (After Privatization) Profile:
- The same move-up buyer with a credit score of 750 and equity in their current home.
Process:
- After privatization, lenders became more risk-averse, meaning there was less competition in the market.
- They wanted to receive far more documentation and a bigger deposit.
- The borrower had to go through a more complicated application process.
- Given the risk, paying higher interest rates is not out of the question.
Outcome:
- The borrower qualifying for the bigger loan was not the only hurdle.
- The new approval process was more complex, which made it harder to get through without facing higher monthly repayments, which was frustrating.
- If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are privatized, interest rates could increase.
- At the same time, lending standards could become more stringent, making it more difficult for some borrowers to obtain a mortgage.
Competition might have positive effects, but consumers would likely face more challenges and expenses surrounding the mortgage process. These examples show how borrowers’ ability to secure financing will change drastically in a world where privatization is commonplace.
-
What specific legislation is being considered for privatization?
-
The legislative framework to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has changed over the years, but some concepts have surfaced consistently:
Housing Finance Reform Bills
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bipartisan Housing Finance Reform Act:
- These bills aim to change Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) to fully privatized companies while managing some market instability and protecting consumers.
Capital Requirements
Increased Capital Buffers:
- Proposed laws commonly expect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be able to set aside greater capital reserves to absorb losses.
- This, in turn, would reduce their dependence on taxpayers for help during times of financial trouble.
New Regulatory Framework
Creation of a New Regulator:
- Under some of these proposals, an independent authority would supervise the new privatized bodies to ensure they follow proper procedures and not endanger the markets.
Alternatives to the GSE Model
Transition to a New Model:
- Some legislation may seek to abandon the GSE model and implement other options.
- This would include allowing private enterprises to offer mortgage liquidity without governmental permission or support or a laissez-faire approach.
Support for Affordable Housing
- Numerous proposals contained provisions to ensure these new private entities would continue to support affordable housing.
- For example, mandatory contributions to affordable housing funds.
Risk-Sharing Mechanisms:
- Some legislation might suggest that private investors take on some responsibility for defaulted mortgages, providing a blended approach to risk sharing and mitigating government liability for losses incurred.
Plans for Recapitalization:
- Legislators frequently debate recapitalization strategies for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which enable them to function competitively within a fully privatized context.
Although particular legislative initiatives may differ, they are unified by the intent to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while imposing enhanced capital requirements, a new regulatory structure, and assistance for affordable housing. The conversations remain fluid, indicating a continued struggle over the appropriate strategy to overhaul the housing finance system in the United States.
-
-
Can you elaborate on the proposed new regulatory framework?
-
The new draft regulation framework for the privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seeks to maintain a certain level of financial stability, consumer protection, and an effective housing finance market. This framework is often structured around the following:
Independent Regulator
Establishment of New Authority:
- A new regulatory agency tasked with supervising and regulating privatized companies could be given appropriate independence.
- This agency would ensure that the full range of legal compliance is met, the health of finances is monitored, and the system is kept stable.
Enhanced Capital Requirements
Set Capital Standards:
- The supervisory framework is more likely to set stringent capital requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that they do not require government funding in case of losses.
- This is an attempt to save the taxpayers and minimize the risks to the system.
Risk Management Oversight
Intense Evaluation of Risk:
- The Regulator would ensure comprehensive risk management measures are in place.
- This includes the entities’ exposure to market risks and whether sufficient measures are in place to manage those risks.
Consumer Protection Measures
Protection against Borrower Abuse:
- These measures include lending facilities to consumers and augmenting their ability to access credit through fair lending practices and protection against discrimination in offering mortgage loans.
Mechanisms For Market Stability
Counter-cyclical Measures:
- The authority may establish neutral or stabilizing mechanisms to help mitigate the negative consequences of economic cycles on the housing market.
- This could entail temporary measures aimed at supporting the mortgage market.
Reporting and Monitoring
Periodic Reporting Obligations:
- Privately owned companies will need to periodically provide financial statements to the Regulator so that the company’s performance and risk exposure are reported in as much as they monitor.
Duties Related to Housing Assistance
Compulsory Payments:
- The law will likely require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to support affordable housing.
- Thereby imposing obligations on them to ensure low—and moderate-income families are afforded opportunities to own homes.
Oversight and Public Responsibility
Standards For Public Responsibility:
- Under these guidelines, privatized entities are expected to be required to disclose information on financial and operational performance, which will also be publicly disclosed.
- The regulation framework for the intended divide-and-conquer approach to privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac seeks to balance the stable housing finance market while safeguarding consumers and taxpayers.
The framework attempts to create a strong oversight mechanism to ensure that the privatized firms are managed effectively, deal with risks appropriately, and maintain their support for affordable housing. The ability of these entities to fulfill their functions and the effectiveness of this privatization depend on this regulatory framework.
-
-
Chicago’s leadership has once again delayed plans to clear out a long-standing homeless encampment in Gompers Park, pushing the removal date to March 5. The delay comes despite growing safety concerns, including three fires and a pit bull attack near the site. Residents have been pushing for action for months, but city officials claim that federal funding concerns prompted the postponement. Meanwhile, millions continue to be spent on housing illegal immigrants, raising questions about financial priorities. Parents and local youth sports leagues are now reconsidering their use of the park, citing safety risks. The ongoing crisis highlights the failure of progressive policies in addressing homelessness effectively, as tent cities continue to disrupt public spaces. Critics argue that this is yet another example of liberal leadership prioritizing misguided compassion over the safety and well-being of taxpaying citizens.