No one said change is easy, however it’s necessary. That thought is reflected in the Treasury Department’s (Treasury.gov) white paper entitled, “Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market.” The white paper, released last Friday, is an assessment of the housing market and offers proposals for reforming the mortgage markets. Being the most significant reform of the housing finance markets in 80 years, the main points for this reform are to create a robust mortgage market by “winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” and “increase the role of private capital.”
Although it was admitted that housing finance reform “will make credit less easily available than before the crisis,” experts agree that reform is necessary. However, that’s where the consensus ends; for you see, there is disagreement about what kind of reforms are to be realized. Industry groups such as the National Association of Realtors® (Realtor.org) and the Mortgage Bankers Association (mortgagebankers.org) hail mortgage market reform, but offer slightly different solutions.
Two extreme positions of reform are complete privatization and nationalization; the white paper contrasts each with the notion that actual reform would be somewhere between the two. A complete privatization of the mortgage market would limit access to financing as well as increasing financing costs; while a nationalization of the mortgage market would increase taxpayer risk and market distortion.
As possible solutions, the white paper weighs several proposals against four criteria: access to mortgage credit; incentive to invest in the housing sector; taxpayer protection; and economic stability. The best path is described as a “balance of [these] priorities.”
The options discussed are several versions of option 1, which is: “privatizing housing finance but with government insurance limited to FHA, USDA and Department of Veterans’ Affairs for a narrowly targeted group of borrowers.” The stated benefits of this option include minimizing market distortions and limiting “moral hazards” within the lending industry. Although this option would reduce risk in private markets, there is concern that it may cause capital to retreat from housing into other economic sectors (which could have an undesirable effect on home prices). Additional concerns include increased mortgage costs, restricted access to the 30-year pre-payable mortgage, and the inability for the government to quickly respond to a credit crisis.
Option 2 is the same as option 1, but with a guarantee mechanism that would engage in a crisis. This would address the inability of a swift government intervention in option one; however there is a risk of increased moral hazard.
The 3rd and final option proposed in the white paper is same as option 1, but with catastrophic reinsurance behind significant private capital. (Reinsurance is the purchase and re-issue of mortgage insurance from mortgage insurance companies, which transfers the risk of the loans). This option has the government role as reinsuring mortgage securities, which is thought to reduce financing costs by increasing the flow of capital to mortgage markets. Although the Stated benefits of this option include affordable 30-year pre-payable mortgages for the average home buyer, as well as allowing small lenders to participate in the mortgage market; there are some concerns, which include the possibility of creating another housing bubble by artificially inflating housing prices due to the increased investment flowing into the housing sector.
Although it’s inevitable, there is no clear path to housing finance market reform; which means that the road ahead may be bumpy.
By Dan Krell.
Copyright © 2011
Comments are welcome. This article is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. Using this article without permission is a violation of copyright laws.