OIG Faults FHFA’s Oversight of Troubled Federal Home Loan Banks

The Office of Inspector
General (OIG) for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has released an
assessment of the FHFA’s oversight of troubled banks within the Federal Home
Loan Bank (FHLBank) System. While the OIG found positive actions on the part of
FHFA, it specifically criticized  a lack
of policies, systems, and documentation standards that could strengthen that
oversight.

Of the 12 FHLBanks that
exist regionally, four have experienced significant financial and operational
difficulties dating back to at least 2008. 
The four, located in Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Seattle and
classified as of “supervisory concern” due to problems arising from their investments
in certain high-risk mortgage securities.

The primary mission of FHLBanks
is to support housing finance and the system issues debt in the capital markets
at relatively favorable rates due to its status as a government sponsored
enterprise (GSE).  The proceeds of the
debt are used by the individual banks to make secured “advances” to member
financial institutions which secure these advances using single-family
mortgages or investment-grade securities as collateral.   The FHLBanks also hold investment portfolios
that contain assets such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS)

FHFA has oversight
responsibility for the FHLBanks and recognizes the need to ensure that they do
not abuse their GSE status or act imprudently. 
FHFA’s own examination guidance states that the agency will initiate a
formal enforcement action, such as a cease and desist order, when a bank is
identified as having significant “supervisory concerns” within the system.

According to the OIG,
the four troubled banks have experienced “significant financial and operational
deterioration primarily due to their investments in private-label MBS secured
by non-traditional mortgages.”  Two of
the banks, in fact, hold more than twice the level of securities rated “below
investment grade” than the average for the eight healthier banks.

Another
identified risk is a concentration of advances in a few member banks.  Both the Pittsburgh and Seattle banks have a
high percentage of their advance business confined to ten members (the
situation only recently changed in respect to Boston) which leaves them
vulnerable should one or more such institutions fail or withdraw from the
system.  OIG also found that the troubled
banks tend to demonstrate a limited demand for advances, a high percentage of
investments to total assets, and significant risk management and operational
deficiencies.

OIG
said a major concern is that troubled FHLBanks potentially have greater
incentives to engage in higher risk business strategies in order to achieve
higher returns.  This means that FHFA
needs to monitor their activities and control actions that could potentially
lead to greater financial and operational deterioration and cause greater
long-term risks.

The
OIG found that FHFA has taken some steps to monitor and control the four banks
which present “supervisory concern.”

  • Ensuring that they
    restrict the payment of dividends to preserve their retained earnings and
    capital.
  • Encouraging FHLBank
    boards to place limits on investment activities.
  • Monitoring through
    annual examinations and regular communications.
  • Discussing with board
    members and managers the possibility of merging with healthier FHLBanks.

While
FHFA’s examination guidance specifies enforcement, OIG claims that FHFA does
not view this as constituting a policy or requiring a course of action.  FHFA believes, by initiating enforcement
action on a case-by-case basis it has acted appropriately.

The
OIG disagrees and views “FHFA’s lack of a consistent and transparent written
enforcement policy as undermining the Agency’s oversight of troubled FHLBanks.”  FHFA and its predecessor FHFB have initiated
formal enforcement against only two of the banks, Consent Orders issued against
Chicago in 2007 and Seattle in 2010.

OIG
faulted FHFA
for the following:

  • Its failure to
    establish a clear, consistent and transparent written enforcement policy for
    troubled banks has led to a discretion-based approach. This, in turn, has resulted in a lack of
    clarity for FHFA examination staff and the banks, neither of which have steady
    benchmarks against which to gauge their actions.
  • The Agency has not
    established an automated management information reporting system to track
    FHLBank examinations finds. By relying
    instead on a manual system, FHFA managers are limited in their ability to
    assess the extent to which individual banks are correcting deficiencies and
    this has also impeded the ability of the OIG to assess the effectiveness of the
    Agency’s oversight efforts.
  • FHFA does not
    consistently document key actions with respect to its oversight of the troubled
    banks. This was a problem that OIG found
    particularly troublesome as applied to personnel actions as it identified cases
    where FHFA had influenced boards to terminate employees without adequately
    documenting its actions or the reasons for them.

In
concluding its report the OIG made three specific recommendations which
paralleled the above findings; recommending that FHFA

  • Develop and implement a
    clear, consistent and transparent written enforcement policy that requires
    troubled banks to correct identified deficiencies within a specific time frame,
    establishes consequences for failure to do so, and defines exceptions to the
    policy.
  • Develop and implement a
    reporting system that permits Agency managers and outside reviewers to assess
    examination report findings, planned corrective actions and timeframes, and
    their status.
  • Document key activities
    consistently including personnel actions involving FHLBanks.

The performance period for this
evaluation was from May 2011 to November 2011.

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.

Currents | Events: Cottage Installations for Country Living’s House of the Year

Three cottages have appeared at the base of the World Financial Center, installations for Country Living magazine’s House of the Year.



Ending Uncertainty is Prescription for Housing Recovery

Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth A. Duke told attendees at a break-out session of the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) Midyear Legislative Meetings that she wished she had, as the session title suggested a “Prescription for Housing Recovery.”  “I do see policies that I believe will help reduce the shadow inventory of houses in the foreclosure pipeline,” she said.  ”I also see policy actions that could be taken to improve credit availability for potential homebuyers and, in turn, demand for houses.”

Duke briefly recounted the toll that the housing market had taken on homeowners and the nation’s housing stock and some of the signs of recovery such as improving delinquency rates, and declining inventories of unsold and foreclosed homes. 

She said there have also been signs that home prices are stabilizing and even improving.  These modest improvements, she said, can only continue if the demand for homes strengthens or the supply fails to meet the weak demand.  “My Realtor friends,” she said, “have taught me that when inventories of houses for sale reach a level equal to six months of sales, then markets are usually in rough balance. And, indeed, just as the inventory of existing homes for sale nationally has approached six months of sales, we have seen a leveling of prices suggesting that some equilibrium is being achieved, albeit at low levels.”

The national data, of course, masks differences in regional markets.  She pointed to Miami and Phoenix where there is actually an undersupply of homes while delinquencies and foreclosures are still high.  “For me, this calls into question the notion that housing prices cannot stabilize until the foreclosure pipeline is worked off. I believe that this reduction in inventory, even in the face of a steady supply of foreclosed homes, is a result of a sharp contraction in normal homeowner activity and an equally sharp expansion of investor activity”. This could mean that discouraged homeowners have pulled homes off the market or that a significant portion of inventory has been absorbed by investors.

Despite some signs of improvement, demand for owner-occupied housing remains what Duke called “stubbornly tepid.”  One driver of demand is household formation which typically falls during economic downturns but has been especially weak in this cycle, running at three-quarters of the normal rate since 2007.  At the same time some homebuyers are delaying home purchases because of uncertainty, others because they expect prices might fall even further.

Some who would like to buy cannot because they are unable to obtain a mortgage.  She pointed to the Feds most recent Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices (SLOOS)  showing that underwriting standards for residential mortgages tightened steadily from 2007 to 2009, “and they do not appear to have eased much since then.“ 

Obviously lenders are trying to correct for the lax and problematic lending standards in the years leading up to the crash, but Duke listed other factors causing the problem.

Lenders apparently lack adequate capacity. Some lenders have gone out of business and others have cut staff at the same time that requirements for documentation have increased and lenders have become more cautious over fear they might have to repurchase loans.  This has increased the processing time for mortgages from about 4 weeks in 20008 to around 6 weeks in 2010.   Of course if lenders were eager to originate mortgages they could increase staff and invest in systems but Duke believes uncertainty is inhibiting these investments.

Uncertainty is impacting lenders in other ways. Turning first to macroeconomic uncertainty, Duke said so long as unemployment remains elevated and further house price declines remain possible, lenders will be cautious in setting their requirements for credit.  The continuing effects on house prices of the large number of underwater mortgages and of the mortgages still in the foreclosure pipeline remain unclear. In one recent survey, house price forecasts for 2012 ranged from a decline of 8 percent to an increase of 5 percent.

House price uncertainty and the high volume of distressed sales make the job of residential appraisers and lenders more difficult.  Appraisers may lean toward the conservative in setting a home’s value and, as long a house prices continue to decline lenders may lean toward more conservative underwriting which, taken together could discourage or even disrupt sales and Duke said she hears of that happening.  

Lenders have tended to be conservative in making some mortgages that are guaranteed by government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)–loans in which lenders do not bear the credit risk in the event of borrower default–which suggests that issues other than macroeconomic risk are affecting lending decisions.

In the April SLOOS  lenders said they are less likely today to originate loans to borrowers in several different categories than several years ago and when asked why about 80 percent cited the difficulty of obtaining affordable private mortgage insurance.  More than half the respondents cited risks associated with loans becoming delinquent as being at least somewhat important–in particular, higher servicing costs of past due loans or the risk that GSEs would require banks to repurchase or putback delinquent loans, their right when lenders are thought to have misrepresented their riskiness. If lenders perceive that minor errors can result in significant losses from putback loans, they may respond by being more conservative in originating those loans. If technology and data standardization can be used to enhance quality control reviews at the time of purchase rather than after the loans became delinquent, it would allow errors to be corrected much earlier, resulting in better outcomes for taxpayers, borrowers, investors, and lenders.

There is also uncertainty about future standards for delinquency servicing and the associated costs.  This was partially resolved by the $25 billion servicing settlement and the consent orders entered into by 14 large servicers. However these agreements cover only about two-thirds of all mortgages and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has declared it will develop servicing rules for all mortgage loans, The conservator of the GSEs are developing a set of servicing protocols for GSE loans and federal regulators are doing the same for banks they regulate.  Also affecting decisions about investing in servicing are new approaches to servicer compensation under consideration by the FHFA and new international capital standards that change the capital treatment of mortgage servicing rights

Two major areas of uncertainty arise out of regulations being written under the Dodd-Frank Act;  rules that will set requirements for establishing a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage including a definition of a “qualified mortgage” or QM. Mortgages that meet the definition would be presumed to meet the standards regarding the ability of the borrower to repay.  Regulators are also developing a definition for “qualified residential mortgages,” or QRMs, a subset of QM that would be exempt from risk retention requirements in mortgage loan securitizations. Each one of these rules will affect the costs and liabilities associated with mortgage lending and thus the attractiveness of the mortgage lending business.

Other big uncertainty is the potential role of the government in the mortgage market, especially the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac still unreserved more than three years after they were put into conservatorship.  Private capital might be reluctant to enter the market until their future is settled.  

Duke concluded by returning to the theme of the session, writing a prescription for housing recovery which she said would include resolving uncertainty about the strength of the economic recovery, especially the labor market which is affecting both homeowners’ willingness to buy and lenders willingness to lend. The Federal Reserve remains committed to fostering maximum employment consistent with price stability, which should help reduce some of the macroeconomic uncertainty.

The efforts underway to reduce foreclosures and distressed sales will stabilize home prices and mortgage loan modifications and short sales will cut the homes in the foreclosure pipeline as will reallocating some properties to rental use.  Policy changes that increase opportunities to refinance and neighborhood stabilization efforts are other solutions.   

But, she said, perhaps the most important solution is that policymakers move forward with the difficult decisions that will affect the future of the mortgage market.  She listed the future of the GSEs, how to promote a robust secondary market, the form of crucial regulations, “and it is unlikely that anyone will fully agree with the final decisions that are made. Nevertheless, until these tough decisions are made, uncertainties will continue to hinder access to credit, the evolution of the mortgage finance system, and the ultimate recovery in the housing market. I don’t want to diminish the importance of any individual policy decision, but I do believe that the most important prescription for the housing market is for these decisions to be made and the path for the future of housing finance to be set. It’s time to start choosing that path.


…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.

Deal Cut to Sell ResCap out of Bankruptcy Filed Today

Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC, took its residential lending unit into bankruptcy this morning in federal court in Manhattan.  At the same time, Nationstar Mortgage Holdings has agreed to buy substantially all of the mortgage servicing and related assets from the unit known as ResCap for about $2.4 billion including debt.

According to Reuters, the bankruptcy filing has the support of some of ResCap’s creditors.  The unit has been a drag on Ally’s attempts to recover after the financial crisis during which it accepted $17 billion in federal bailout funds, ceding 74 percent of its stock to the U.S. Treasury.  Ally says it now owes the government about $12 billion and there is speculation that it was government pressure that finally forced Ally to file the court papers.  The bankruptcy and sale will now allow Ally to return to its main auto lending business and put together a plan to pay back Treasury.

ResCap, includes among its assets the company formerly known as Ditech, famous for its TV pitchman who concluded each ad with “Lost another deal to Ditech.”

The deal will give Nationstar first bidding rights in the auction that will be held under bankruptcy court rules and Reuters reports that the deal would be ‘transformative” for the company which would gain more the $370 billion in loans to service while any liabilities would stay with the estate.  The portfolio contains $201 billion in primary residential servicing rights and $173 billion in subservicing contracts as well as $1.8 billion of related servicing advance receivables and certain other complementary assets.

Of the proposed purchase price, about $700 million is for the servicing rights and $180 million for the advances.  Nationstar, whose principal shareholder is Fortress Investment Group will be putting up half of the cash while the remainder is expected to come from Newcastle Investment Corp, a mortgage REIT managed by Fortress.  If Nationstar does not win the auction there is a $72 million break-up fee and reimbursement of up to $10 million in transaction related expenses.  Other bidders are expected, however Nationstar’s positioning and its break-up fee are expected to lead to its success in the auction.

Other banks with troubled mortgage subsidiaries are expected to be watching the ResCap bankruptcy closely as it is a rare example of this type of subsidiary filing in which the holding company has been able to continue operations.

Ally will take a $1.3 billion charge, which covers its $400 million equity investment in ResCap, a $750 million settlement with ResCap to offset any future legal claims against it, and $130 million in reserves for claims related to mortgage-backed securities.

Ally is apparently also seeking buyers for some of its car finance and insurance related assets in Canada, Mexico, Europe, and South America.  Sale of any of these, the aggregate value of which is estimated at about $30 billion, would help it more quickly repay its debt to the Treasury

…(read more)

Forward this article via email:  Send a copy of this story to someone you know that may want to read it.