Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac will not reduce loan limits, regulator says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's overseer said there will not be a reduction in current limits on how many mortgages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase. The policy for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could lead to more loans available for borrowers.

Mike Blake/Reuters/File
Attendees surf the internet at a Freddie Mac sponsored kiosk at the Independent Community Bankers of America's 2011 National Convention in San Diego, California. Mel Watt, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said Tuesday that the agency will not reduce current limits on amounts of mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase.

The regulator overseeing government-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has announced a policy that could make more loan money available to borrowers.

Mel Watt, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said Tuesday in his first public speech that the agency will not reduce current limits on amounts of mortgages that Fannie and Freddie can purchase. The decision was based on concern that a reduction could negatively affect the health of the $10 trillion housing-finance market, he said.

Watt's predecessor, Edward DeMarco, had floated the idea of reducing the maximum loan limits.

The government rescued Fannie and Freddie during the financial crisis in 2008. They received total taxpayer aid of $187 billion, which they have since returned. The companies finance about 60 percent of U.S. mortgages issued.

The current loan limits are $417,000 and $625,500 in high-cost areas of the country. The proposal put forward by DeMarco in December would have reduced the limits by about 4.1 percent, to $400,000 and $600,000 respectively. The goal behind the plan was to reduce Fannie and Freddie's presence in the housing market and limit their exposure to the risk of mortgage default, the FHFA said at the time.

Watt, in his speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said the decision not to cut loan limits "is motivated by concerns about how such a reduction could adversely impact the health of the current housing-finance market."

President Barack Obama has proposed a broad overhaul of the mortgage finance system that includes gradually winding down Fannie and Freddie. They would be replaced with a system that putting the private sector, not the government, primarily at risk for the loans.

Legislation to phase out Fannie and Freddie, and instead use mainly private insurers to backstop home loans, has advanced in Congress. The Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to vote on it on Thursday. The plan, crafted by two key senators, has been endorsed by the White House. But the opposition of six Democratic senators on the committee means the legislation likely will be only narrowly approved, and its prospects for a vote by the full Senate are weak.

Watt also announced in his address a pilot program involving Fannie and Freddie in Detroit that will allow for more generous revisions in the terms of mortgages held by struggling borrowers.

The FHFA plans to eventually expand the program to other parts of the country, Watt said.

The mortgage banking industry welcomed Watt's remarks. "Director Watt is showing that he has hit the ground running and put a lot of thought into the path he intends to take" with Fannie and Freddie, David Stevens, president and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association, said in a statement.

DeMarco, who had been appointed by President Bush and was the FHFA's acting director, resisted pressure from the Obama administration to allow Fannie and Freddie to reduce principal for borrowers at risk of foreclosure. He stirred persistent opposition from Democratic lawmakers and attorneys general in a number of states.

Obama's nomination of Watt, a longtime Democratic congressman from North Carolina who was a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee and a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, was stalled for months by Republican lawmakers. Watt finally was confirmed by the Senate in December and became FHFA director in January.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.