Several Organizations, Members of Congress Voice Concern with Freddie Mac Second Mortgage Proposal

Several Organizations, Members of Congress Voice Concern with Freddie Mac Second Mortgage Proposal

Written By: Joel Palmer, Op-Ed Writer

A month after proposing a new second-mortgage offering, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) are finding more detractors of their proposal than boosters.

FHFA sent a notice of a proposed new single-family closed-end second mortgage to the Federal Register, which would enable Freddie Mac to purchase the new product. The agency said it would help homeowners tap into home equity without surrendering the low rates they locked in the last several years.

Freddie Mac proposed to purchase closed-end second mortgages only on properties for which it already holds the first mortgage.

As the statutory 30-day comment period ends, most of the feedback made public has either urged caution or has outright rejected the idea.

In response to the proposal’s many rejections, Freddie Mac’s head of single-family acquisitions, Sonu Mittal, in an interview with HousingWire, emphasized that the product provides borrowers an alternative to cash-out refinances.

“The thing I keep trying to tell folks is that this is not HELOC; this is not piggyback where you can do first and second, and this is not open to all first-lien mortgages in the country,” Mittal said to HousingWire. “It’s only if you have a Freddie Mac first mortgage. So, when you start slicing it with all those different cuts, it’s a different sizing or opportunity that exists.”  

The opposition comments mostly cover the following objections:

  • The new product is inconsistent with Freddie Mac’s mission.

  • There is not a justification for the product, which is already available in the private sector.

  • It exacerbates risk by promoting a second lien product without proper guardrails, particularly during a period of high home price appreciation.

  • Financing hundreds of billions in additional equity extraction will only counteract the effects of tighter monetary policy and worsen inflation for Americans.

  • The proposal threatens to transform Freddie Mac into a massive consumer loan guarantor that disrupts credit markets and crowds out private capital.

  • The proposal lacks adequate detail and analysis to understand the potential size, scale, and impacts of the proposed program.

The most high-profile objection came from a group of legislators that included every Republican on the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, along with 23 members of the House Financial Services Committee.

“We are deeply concerned that the proposal is a thinly veiled attempt by the Biden administration to offset the effects of excessive fiscal spending and tight monetary policy as the November election approaches. The sole purpose of the FHFA’s conservatorship of the GSEs is to restore their soundness and solvency so they can fulfill their statutory missions—under no circumstances should the FHFA’s ultimate authority as a conservator be exploited for political purposes,” the members of Congress wrote in a joint letter to the FHFA.

The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) also wrote a letter of opposition. One of its points was why Freddie Mac should offer this type of product while it remains “undercapitalized and in conservatorship.” ICBA has urged an expedited end to the government conservatorship of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

“Offering this product will divert resources and require additional credit risk mitigation that could delay retaining appropriate levels of capital and allowing the enterprise to exit conservatorship,” ICBA wrote. “Further, Freddie Mac proposes to retain these loans in portfolio until such time they can be securitized and sold in the capital markets. Freddie Mac could better serve the marketplace and fulfill its housing mission by utilizing its portfolio to manage and improve the pricing of its securities.”

Other organizations that oppose the proposal include:

  • The Wall Street Journal editorial board

  • The Mortgage Bankers Association

  • The American Bankers Association

  • The Structured Finance Association

  • American Action Forum

  • U.S. Mortgage Insurers

  • SIFMA, a trade association for broker-dealers, investment banks and asset managers

  • Americans for Tax Reform in partnership with several organizations

America’s Credit Unions supports the new product, encouraging Freddie Mac to share additional pricing details and to make the process scalable.

“We further believe that Freddie Mac should tailor its product to interact smoothly with the underwriting process and be scalable to higher amounts,” wrote America’s Credit Unions’ Amanda Smith. “We also recommend Freddie Mac consider the level of credit risk and the role of Loan Level Pricing Adjustments (LLPAs) when designing its final product.”

The Center for Responsible Lending also backs the proposal.

“Many mortgage lenders are willing to offer cash-out refinances because the Government- Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) bear the credit risk,” the organization wrote. “However, fewer lenders are willing to make home equity loans, especially to borrowers with lower credit scores, given the associated credit risk and the lack of a developed secondary market. As a result, despite the benefits of home equity loans over cash-out refinances described below, many borrowers continue to access their home equity using cash-out refinances or are unable to access it all, particularly, low-wealth, lower credit score, minority, and Veteran borrowers served by FHA and VA.”


About the Author

As an NAMP® Opinion Editorial Contributor, Joel Palmer is a freelance writer who spent 10 years as a business and financial reporter and another 10 years in marketing for the insurance and financial services industries. He regularly writes about the mortgage industry, as well as residential and commercial real estate, investments, and retirement income planning. He has also ghostwritten books on starting a business, marketing, and retirement income planning.


Opinion-Editorial (Op-Ed) Disclaimer For NAMP® Library Articles: The views and opinions expressed in the NAMP® Library articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect any official NAMP® policy or position. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. They should not be utilized in real-world application as they are based only on very limited and dated open source information. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of NAMP®. Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice.