June2016 - Chase[ing] the Dream

TheMReport — News and strategies for the evolving mortgage marketplace.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 64 of 67

TH E M R EP O RT | 63 S E C O N DA R Y M A R K E T Is Ginnie Mae the Answer to GSE Reform? A handful of industry leaders suggest Ginnie Mae could sustainably meet the needs of both homebuyers and the MBS market. A s the GSE conservator- ship surges forward with little promise of reform, many in the industry cannot help but wonder what will happen next. Gary Acosta, Co-founder and CEO of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals (NAHREP), Jim Park, CEO of the Mortgage Collaborative, and Joseph J. Murin, Vice Chairman of Chrysalis Holdings LLC and Chairman of JJAM Financial LLC said in an essay published by the Urban Institute that if GSE reform should happen, the industry should aim to meet the needs of future generations of homeowners, not the wants of political interests. In order to do this, however, Ginnie Mae will need to come forward as its own government corporation. "These needs can be met only with a sustainable structure that provides consistent market execution, low down payment opportunity, and long-term fixed- rate mortgage finance, with the government taking as little risk as the market can bear to deliver this sustainable structure," the authors wrote. The authors suggest a reform that uses the "existing plumb - ing" of the mortgage market to "develop a safer and more sustain- able market bearing an explicit catastrophic-risk government guar- antee that will serve each segment of the homebuying public." The proposal focuses on two goals: (1) Meeting the consumer needs, and (2) Eliminating as much of the government risk exposure as possible. The authors proposed two models under a new Ginnie Mae 2.0 structure that uses the best of the GSEs' core capabilities and Ginnie Mae's functionality. "Ginnie Mae is the most viable solution with the least disruption because the U.S. mortgage market is already familiar with Ginnie Mae, as are most domestic and foreign investors," the authors stated. "Other proposals seem too complicated or create unneces - sary additional structures to meet the consumer and MBS buyer needs. Too many other proposals don't seem sustainable or simply don't remove the 'private gain and public risk' that partly caused the housing crisis and continues to haunt us." They concluded, "Any solution for the future of the GSEs needs to be based on simple principles and meet the two goals we believe are strategic imperatives for America. Ginnie Mae 2.0 could meet those goals and the needs of current and future homebuyers and MBS buy - ers in the least disruptive and most sustainable manner." Taxpayers can breathe a sigh of relief after receiving the news that Freddie Mac will not need a draw on Treasury following widespread speculation in the previous week or so that Freddie Mac would need another draw due to the GSEs' dwindling capital buffer, which is currently $1.2 billion. Despite the good news that Freddie Mac will not require a draw from Treasury, the GSE did report a net loss of $354 million for the first quarter following a net profit of nearly $2.2 billion in Q 4. Not only that, but Q1 marked the second time in the last three quarters that Freddie Mac suffered a net loss; for the third quarter of 2015, the net loss was $475 million. Track our progress at

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of TheMReport - June2016 - Chase[ing] the Dream