By Robin Harding and Shahien Nasiripour in Washington
It may be cheaper for state-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive some distressed mortgage debt than to postpone payments, their regulator said for the first time on Tuesday, in an important shift that could boost the struggling US housing market.
Edward DeMarco, the head of the Federal Housing Finance agency, said a ”preliminary” analysis showed that Fannie and Freddie might save $1.7bn by forgiving some principal rather than just postponing payments because of increased incentives from the US Treasury and the greater likelihood that such borrowers would repay.
“The anticipated benefit of principal forgiveness is that, by reducing foreclosures relative to other modification types, enterprise losses would be lowered and house prices would stabilise faster, thereby producing broader benefits to all market participants,” said Mr DeMarco.
About 12m borrowers, or one in five US homeowners with a mortgage, owe more than their property is worth, creating a huge drag on the housing market and the economic recovery. Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee roughly half of all outstanding home loans.
Mr DeMarco has fiercely resisted measures that would increase Fannie and Freddie’s losses for the sake of the wider economy, but his comments suggest a campaign by the Obama administration may have persuaded him that principal writedowns are now in the the agencies’ best interests.
His remarks came as the International Monetary Fund argued that the US could boost its economic recovery by writing off household debt more aggressively. In a chapter of its new World Economic Outlook the IMF said cutting household debts is a low cost way to limit the economic damage of a recession after a financial crisis.
“The need to really do something about this is still there more than three years after some of the flagship debt restructuring programmes were put in place [in the US],” said Daniel Leigh, the lead author of the IMF work.
The IMF highlighted two case studies – the US in 1933 and Iceland in the last couple of years – as successful examples of household debt restructuring.
In the wake of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt set up the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which bought and restructured one in five of all US mortgages and was wound up at a profit in 1951.
In Iceland, banks were persuaded to cut mortgages to 110 per cent of the value of a debtor’s assets and payments were reduced to reflect households’ ability to pay, spurring a recovery after a disastrous financial crisis.
Mr Leigh pointed to three flaws in the home affordable modification programme, or HAMP, the flagship US effort to write down the value of mortgages that are now worth more than the home they are secured on.
First, the programme didn’t provide large enough writedowns, so the remaining debts were still large and households defaulted anyway; second, lenders were not given enough incentives for writedowns; and third, the eligibility requirements were tight, so not many households were able to take part.
Mr Leigh welcomed the administration’s recent moves to boost writedowns and said it was important that Fannie and Freddie joined in. But Mr DeMarco noted the likelihood that some borrowers current on their payments may default to take advantage of a debt forgiveness programme and the cost of implementing such an initiative.
To avoid such “moral hazard” – the problem of households deliberately choosing to default in order to get their debts written down – the IMF said restructuring programmes should be limited to mortgages that are already in trouble on the date that relief is announced.
Under Mr DeMarco’s analysis, US taxpayers would pay Fannie and Freddie $3.8bn in leftover bailout funds from the troubled asset relief programme to write down mortgage principal, which after accounting for the $1.7bn in savings would result in a net cost to taxpayers of $2.1bn.
While a forgiveness programme would be cheaper than allowing borrowers to delay paying a portion of their property debt, an initiative targeting 691,000 borrowers still meant overall losses of roughly $54bn, according to Mr DeMarco. However, that cost does not take into account the economic benefits conferred by averted foreclosures.
“This is not about some huge difference-making programme that will rescue the housing market,” Mr DeMarco said. He will make a final decision later this month.
Original Post: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/289c1214-8318-11e1-929f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1rkO4Z7F2
