Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: Johnson-Crapo First Loss Provision Analysis

3
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: Johnson-Crapo First Loss Provision Analysis

As legislators evaluate the Johnson-Crapo proposal to reform Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC), one of the main questions they will need to answer is whether it adequately protects taxpayers from having to bail out the mortgage markets in the event of another deep recession.

Play Quizzes 4

The proposal would create a new federal agency, the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation (FMIC), partly modeled on the FDIC, to provide explicit guarantees for the securitized mortgages, but it also has a 10% first loss layer of protection.

10% is higher than AAA jumbo prime securitization

“The probability of losses exceeding this level, while not zero, should be low, assuming that mortgage underwriting remains appropriately careful,” write Goldman Sachs analysts Marty Young and Charlie Himmelberg in a March 20 report.

ValueWalk’s July 2022 Hedge Fund Update: Tiger Cub Hedge Fund Shuts Down

investWelcome to our latest issue of issue of ValueWalk’s hedge fund update. Below subscribers can find an excerpt in text and the full issue in PDF format. Please send us your feedback! Featuring Andurand's oil trading profits surge, Bridgewater profits from credit, and Tiger Cub Hedge Fund shuts down. Q1 2022 hedge fund letters, conferences Read More

For comparison, Young and Himmelberg point out that subordination levels for AAA jumbo prime securitizations have stayed well below the 10% mark, and they are usually geographically concentrated, which makes them riskier assets than mortgage securities that are issued on a national basis. Anyone who followed the crisis knows that assuming underwriting remains robust in perpetuity is optimistic, but it looks like Senators Johnson and Crapo took this into account when they set the bar so high.

Under Basel III capital requirements, banks are required to retain capital worth 8% of risk-weighted assets. If a prime mortgage is generally given a weight of 50%, the capital requirement would be 4% of the total portfolio, far below the level set by Johnson-Crapo. Even sub-prime mortgages with weak underwriting standards would require 8% RWA under Basel III, so Johnson-Crapo seems quite conservative.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac historical losses lower than 10%

Young and Himmelberg also look at the historical losses of Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) to see if a 10% buffer would have been sufficient, and find that it is actually enough to cover a multi-decade recession.

“The largest annual loss experienced by the Fannie Mae single family portfolio was 0.77% (77 bp), in 2010. Thus, a 10% buffer could provide a buffer against over ten years of peak realized losses,” they write.

peak fannie mae loss 0314

Similarly, the Fannie Mae / Federal National Mortgage Assctn Fnni Me (OTCBB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac / Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (OTCBB:FMCC) received a $187 billion capital injection from Treasury on top of roughly 0.5% capitalization at the start of the recession. On a $4.7 trillion portfolio, this works out to roughly 4.5% capital needed for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to survive the financial crisis, so a 10% capital requirement would have left plenty of buffer intact. On top of that, the FMIC would maintain insurance equal to 2.5% of capital, built up over the first decade of operations, giving taxpayers further protection if the first loss provisions fail and the private companies working with the FMIC go under.

Updated on

Michael has a Bachelor's Degree in mathematics and physics from Boston University and Master's Degree in physics from University of California, San Diego. He has worked as an editor and writer for several magazines. Prior to his career in journalism, Michael Worked in the Peace Corps teaching math and science in South Africa.
Previous article Top JPMorgan China Banker Resigns Amid Hiring Probe
Next article Nokia Corporation (ADR) (NOK) A Buy At The Dips: RBC Analysts

No posts to display

3 COMMENTS

  1. This bill keeps tax payers at risk which is something Washington is obsessed with, though they didn’t seem to care when they were the biggest pumpers of the sub prime loan around, and will disrupt the housing market. It is dead on arrival and belongs immediately in the trash

  2. What about the fact that the new FMIC would not be run the way intended? Because that is the reality of this political BS. TAKE from the poor and give to the rich= FMIC. pffft.

  3. But it wouldn’t shield us from the $1.5 trillion dollar loss from the F-35 fighter that’s 7 years behind schedule – never mind it’s $163 billion over budget on this one piece of military hardware. Maybe FMIC should stand for Federal Military Insurance Corporation instead. We will never get paid back from this disaster. Where is the outrage?

Comments are closed.